Displacement, infrastructure deficits and public health risks in post-conflict marawi during the COVID-19 pandemic

Opdyke, A.; Latiph, A. A.; Shrief, M. C. and Yape, E. (2026) Displacement, infrastructure deficits and public health risks in post-conflict marawi during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 17(2), pp. 297-313. ISSN 1759-5908

Abstract

Purpose – This research aims to examine how conflict-displaced households in Marawi in the Philippines navigated challenges in housing, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, and identifies implications for built environment resilience and inclusive recovery. Design/methodology/approach – A mixed-methods cross-sectional survey was administered to 428 internally displaced households in Marawi. Quantitative data on housing damage, tenure, WASH access and self-reported ability to self-isolate were analysed, supported by thematic interpretation. Descriptive and inferential statistics explored associations between infrastructural variables and perceived pandemic resilience. Findings – Findings reveal extensive post-conflict housing damage, tenure insecurity and overcrowding, with many households lacking sufficient space or facilities to implement basic health protocols. While hygiene practices were commonly reported, inadequate access to reliable water and sanitation infrastructure, as well as intermittent electricity, hindered effective disease prevention. Respondents identified these physical limitations, alongside governance challenges and limited consultation in recovery processes, as barriers to resilience. Despite this, many expressed trust in government and NGO efforts, although gaps in participation and service quality remained. Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional design limits causality. Further research should include longitudinal and comparative studies in similar settings to assess long-term resilience. Practical implications – Findings underline the need for integrated rebuilding programmes that prioritise tenure security, infrastructural upgrades (WASH, electricity) and inclusive planning to bolster resilience in displacement-affected built environments. Originality/value – This study uniquely integrates public health, housing, WASH and governance analyses in a protracted displacement and pandemic context. It highlights how built environment deficits undermine health resilience and how participatory recovery could bridge this gap.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: armed conflict; COVID-19; housing
Index terms: COVID-19, survey, rebuilding, programme, methodology, service quality, sanitation, Philippines, housing, recovery, pandemic, governance, public health, comparative study, household, built environment, water and sanitation, prevention, statistics, tenure
Subjects: real estate economics, data collection methods, business, mathematical modelling, research design and methodology, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental health, project controls, health risk and incident analysis, performance measurement, operations management, construction type, demography, building construction, Geography, financial risk, research methods
Topics: Sustainability, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Governance, Cost Management, Research Practice, Time Control, Urban Studies
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here