Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 29, Number 2, 2007, pp63-71

63

Study on regional differences in permanent housing reconstruction processin Sri Lanka after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
Hideaki NAKAZATO and Osamu MURAO
Systems and Information Engineering University of Tsukuba(Received for 31 May., 2007 and in revised from 30 Nov, 2007)

ABSTRACTThe Sumatra Tsunami crossed the Indian Ocean on 26th of December 2004 and damaged more than 90,000
houses in Sri Lanka. Following the tsunami, the Government decided to provide three types of houses for the victims (temporary shelters, transitional houses, and permanent houses) according to the stage of reconstruction.
Most permanent houses were donated by non-government organizations on the sites supplied by the Government.
However, there are regional differences among the affected areas. We conducted a field survey and interviews in
the damaged area in November 2005 and March 2006 in the period when the permanent houses were under construction. This paper describes the reconstruction status, regional differences, and problems with regards to thereconstruction process in Sri Lanka.

1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECT
The Indian Ocean Tsunami, which originated in Northern
Sumatra on December 26, 2004, struck many countries in Southand Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, andThailand. In Sri Lanka, the country most affected after Indonesia,
the Department of Census and Statistics (2005) reported thatapproximately 40,000 people were killed, and 96,000 houses incoastal areas were completely or partially destroyed as shown in
Fig. 1 and Table-1. Fig. 1 shows the Divisional Secretariat
Division1 which indicates the housing damage. Two months after

the tsunami, the Sri Lankan Government announced reconstructionplans and programs for roads, railways, and infrastructure in theaffected areas.
According to the Steering Committee (Ministry of Financeand Planning) (2005), 516,150 people were considered displaced
after the tsunami, having lost their homes. Some victims were
given emergency shelters by the government or non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), but many were obliged to depend on theirfamilies or public facilities such as schools and community centers.
The Government conducted a housing reconstruction program
composed of three phases: emergency shelters, temporary housing,Table 1 Number of affected houses
Source: Department of Census and Statistics (2005), Census of
Persons, Housing Units and Other Buildings affected by the
Tsunami, 26th December 2004

Fig. 1 Affected area
KEY WORDS: 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, Sri Lanka, Coastal Conservation Zone, Permanent houses, Housing reconstruction, regional differences

64

H. NAKAZATO AND O. MURAO

and permanent housing; temporary houses were to be used as abridge between emergency and permanent houses. This 3-stepreconstruction process was necessary because of the vast numberof houses affected by the tsunami and the lengthy amount of timethat was predicted for the completion of reconstruction.
The Steering Committee (Ministry of Finance and Planning)(2005) announced that 51,000 temporary houses, 90% of therequired total were constructed by November 2005, 11 months
after the tsunami. At this time, the major task of the Government
was shifting its efforts to the construction of permanent houses.
However, long-term living in temporary housing causes mentallyand physical stress to the victims (Serving Sri Lanka, 2005). It wastherefore important that victims were able to return to their original
homes or to obtain new permanent housing as soon as possible.
Although the regulations stated that the provision of permanent
housing should be equal for all victims in any affected area, regional differences in housing reconstruction programs were reported
throughout Sri Lanka.
In recent years, a variety of disasters have occurred all over
the world, and much attention has been paid to housing reconstruction after these disasters. It is useful to categorize the data on
housing reconstruction in Sri Lanka to guide future recovery
efforts. The large amount of damage in coastal areas is unique totsunamis, and the relocation of victims from their residences is thus
a major concern. Maki et al. (2003) observed that some victims
were able to return to their original homes several years after thetsunami on Flores Island in Indonesia. Furthermore, Maeda et al.
(2007) revealed that of the method of restoring settlements wasquite different in Moratuwa and Hikkaduwa, the south west area of
Sri Lanka affected by the tsunami. In the case of Sri Lanka, therelocation of affected people is also an important issue. This report
first describes the housing reconstruction program in Sri Lanka,
particularly permanent housing, and then compares the regional
differences between the affected areas based on field surveys andinterviews with government officials and residents of the affectedareas. Finally, the reasons behind the regional differences in housing reconstruction are discussed.
2. SUMMARY OF TSUNAMI DAMAGE AND
HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION
2.1 Summary of damage
The coast in 13 districts1, comprising two-thirds of coastal Sri

Photo 1 Emergency shelter

Lanka, was severely damaged. Fig. 1 and Table 1 show the affected areas and houses, respectively. In Fig. 1, it is apparent thatareas such as Ampara, Batticaloa, and Trincomalee, with politicalturmoil and small-scale fishing industry, were extensively damaged. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Fisheries andAquatic Statistics (2005), 34% of all affected houses belonged topeople who worked in fisheries or fishery-related industries. The
tsunami destroyed not only their houses but also their fishing vessels and nets. As a result, 70,000 fishermen lost their livelihoods.
In addition, the Ministry of Urban Development and Water Supply(2006) reported that 31,403 squatter families, comprising approximately 20% of the 150,000 people in the Colombo Metropolitan
Region (CMR), including Colombo and Kaluthara, were affectedby the tsunami2. Thus, housing issues caused by the tsunami disaster were felt most strongly in urban and fishing areas.
2.2 Housing reconstruction program(1) Institutional arrangements (Tittawella, M., 2005)
The Sri Lankan Government established the Task Force for
Rebuilding the Nation (TAFREN) as the primary institutional
mechanism for recovery and reconstruction, and TAFREN (2005a.)
declared four objectives: 1) Returning People to Their Homes, 2)
Restoring Livelihoods, 3) Health Education and Protection for All,
4) Upgrading National Infrastructure. The Tsunami Housing
Reconstruction Unit (THRU) was also established to manage andfocus on housing reconstruction.
(2) Outline of housing reconstruction
TAFREN and THRU provided the framework for the following three categories of recovery housing: 1) Emergency shelters(Photo 1), 2) Temporary houses (Photo 2), and 3) Permanenthouses (Photo 3). For the third phase, the Buffer Zone settlement
is an important concept. In Sri Lanka, uncontrolled development
had been taking place in coastal areas due to the growth of the
tourist industry from the 1950s to the 1970s. However, in 1981 theCoastal Conservation Department designated Buffer Zones aspart of the Coastal Conservation Zone (CCZ) to regulate development in coastal areas (R.A.D.B. Samaranayake). According to the
Urban Development Authority (2005.a), the CCZ is divided into
two parts, the 1st and 2nd strips (see Table 2), depending on the distance from the mean high water line. The 1st strip (100 m landwards on the west coast and 200 m landwards on the east coast)
was defined as a Buffer Zone, and reconstruction of affectedhouses in this area was regulated. Donor-built reconstruction programs were implemented for all affected families in the Buffer

Photo 2 Temporary house

Photo 3 Permanent house

STUDY ON REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PERMANENT HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS IN SRI LANKA AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

Table 2 Definition of the Coastal Conservation Zone
Source: Urban Development Authority (2005)，Physical Planning Guidelines and Project Proposals for the
Lanka

65

Vulnerable Coastal Zone of SriZone, and the Homeowner-Driven Housing Reconstruction
Program was applied to damaged houses outside the Buffer Zone.
This paper focuses on the Donor-built Reconstruction Program,and compares the regional differences in this program.
3. DONOR-BUILT RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (TAFREN, 2005A AND 2005C)
This section describes the guidelines of the Donor-built
Reconstruction Program. The aim of this program was to provide
houses constructed inland to people affected in the Buffer Zone,
funded by private donors. The main policies were as follows:・All affected families are entitled to a house built inland by adonor agency in accordance with Government standards.
・Affected families do not need to prove land ownership.
・The beneficiary remains the legal owner of his/her property
within the Buffer Zone and receives full title to the property on
the resettlement site.
・To sustain a sense of community, the Government will settle
people as close as possible to their original homes.
Fig. 2 shows the process of the Donor-Built Reconstruction
Program. First, the donor applies to TAFREN with a plan for theamount of the grant, the number of houses, and the location of construction. Next, TAFREN vetted the donor plan and found projects
that fit their criteria. Then, after arriving at an agreement,
TAFREN and the donor concluded a contract and coordinated thetype of housing and the community plan. In this program, it wasnotable that the donor’s opinion was reflected in the plan.
4. STATUS OF PERMANENT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION (TAFREN, 2005D)
4.1 Data
In March 2006, TAFREN published a report, Construction
Status - Donor-built Housing Projects, listing the sites, donors,
landowners, number of houses constructed, house types, dates ofcommencement, and the construction status (Foundation, Walls,
Roof, Finishes, Completed, Handed Over to Beneficiaries) of its
projects.
4.2 Project summary(1) Houses assigned to donors
Fig. 3 shows the number of houses needed for the Donor-built

Fig. 2 Process flow of housing reconstruction
Source: TAFREN (2005)，Housing & Township Development

Reconstruction Program and the number of houses assigned todonors as of March 10th, 2006. In all districts, except Hambantota,
Matara and Killinochchi, the number of houses assigned to donors
was less than the number of houses needed. In some cases, thenumber assigned to donors was less than 40% of the number needed. The situation was the reverse in Hambantota, Matara andKillinochchi; the reason for these differences is explored in detailin Section 5.1.
(2) Site landowners
Each area allocated for housing construction belonged toeither a government organization (Education Department, Land
Reform Commission, Urban Development Authority, National
Housing Development, Sri Lankan Railway), or private individuals
or organizations (Buddhist temples, etc.). Fig. 3 shows the ratio ofhouses constructed by each landowner-type. As shown in Fig. 3,
the overall ratio was 61% public and 26% private, but in Colombo,
Gampaha and Hambantota, the ratio of private land was higher
than that of government land. For example, in Kaluthara, withinsufficient land for permanent housing due to the high population
density, private land comprises 50% of housing construction. This
trend is also seen in Colombo and Gampaha, both in the Colombo
Metropolitan Region. In Hambantota, 10 of 53 sites were locatedon properties belonging to the Urban Development Authority

66

H. NAKAZATO AND O. MURAO

Fig. 3 Ratio of houses constructed by landowner-type 13): Single individual Condominium(G＋1,2,3,･･)

TWIN（including two-storied terraced house）

MC: Multi-storied

Fig. 4 House type
Source: Urban Development Authority (2005b)，Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Tsunami Affected Areas(UDA), which managed all project sites, public or private.
Additionally, in the Matara District, there were five sites previously owned by a Buddhist temple.
(3) House types (Urban Development Authority, 2005b)
Guidelines for permanent house construction included the following: 1) The number of houses on each site should be less than250; 2) The total floor area should be at least 45m2 (value approximately 400,000 Rs.4) for each house; 3) The population density ofthe site should be less than 150 units/ha3; 4) Areas of multi-storied
housing should comprise less than 65% of the site. Information on
the type of house to be built in the selected settlement was provided to the donor by the UDA. Types included the following: a)Single-storied individual (SI), b) Single-storied terrace (ST), c)
Twin (Twin), d) Two-storied terrace (TT), e) Multi-storied

Condominium (MC) (Fig. 4).
Fig. 5 shows the ratio of houses by housing type. While the SI
type comprised over 80% of the total, G+3 type accounted for ahigh ratio in Colombo and Gampaha. This was due to the highpopulation density in these areas, 3,305/km2 and 1,541/km2, respectively; the national average is 299/km2, (Department of Census andStatistics, 2001). Conversely, all types except SIs account for 50%of the houses in Kaluthara, next to Galle, and a high ratio of SIs is
evident in the eastern and northern districts, including Batticaloa,
Trincomalee, Killinochchi, and Jaffna.
(4) Donors
In this program, donors include NGOs, private companies, andthe governments of various countries. As shown in the process
flow in Fig. 2, donors play an important role in the program. Fig.

STUDY ON REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PERMANENT HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS IN SRI LANKA AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

67

Fig. 5 Number of houses by housing typeFig. 6 Number of houses constructed and sites by donor

6 shows the number of sites and houses constructed by donors, listing the 43 highest-ranking donors by the number of houses constructed. These 43 donors funded 70% of the 33,821 houses
assigned to donors. The five largest donors were the Red Cross,the Lions Club, Care International, the Tamil Rehabilitation
Organization and SOLIDAR, in descending order. All of them
funded the construction of more than one thousand houses; the Red
Cross alone supported the construction of 5,054 homes, approximately 15% of the total.
5. REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF THE PROJECT
5.1 Changes in construction programThis section examines the changes of construction status of
permanent houses in each district. The number of houses contracted between TAFREN and donors was 33,821, approximately 70%of the 49,233 houses required in this project.
(1) Houses required and under construction
Fig. 7 shows the number of houses required and the transitionof houses under construction in each district. The left column ofthe figure lists districts located from east to north: Ampara,
Batticaloa, Trincomalee, and Jaffna. The right side lists districts
from west to south: Colombo, Kaluthara, Hambantota, and Matara.
First, in Ampara, 21,201 houses were damaged by the tsunami, thehighest number in Sri Lanka. For this reason, the number of houses needed in Ampara amounted to 12,481. As indicated in the figure, the construction of permanent houses started in May 2005 andincreased until December 2005. However, only 40% of therequired houses were constructed. In Batticaloa, the second mostaffected district, the number of required houses was 4,426, andconstruction started in July, two months after Ampara.
Construction increased until January 2006; however, only 60% of
the required number has been constructed.

68

H. NAKAZATO AND O. MURAO

Fig. 7 Transition of the number of houses started construction

STUDY ON REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PERMANENT HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS IN SRI LANKA AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

This trend was also evident in the Trincomalee District; however, in Jaffna, the situation was slightly different. Construction in
Jaffna started in July 2005 and increased until October 2005, after
which approximately 90% of the houses were completed.
Next, the situation in areas located from west to south are
examined. In Colombo, construction started in July 2005, but
increased very slowly afterwards. This trend was also seen in
Kaluthara. Both areas are located in the CMR, and, as shown in
the above figure, these areas have a high population density. Thus,
it appears that the land for new housing was not sufficient, andconstruction has not proceeded at an adequate pace.
In the Matara District, however, the number of houses underconstruction was equivalent to the number required. Furthermore,in Hambantota District, the number of houses constructed was infact greater than the number required as of May 2005, and 1,368 of
4,574 houses assigned to donors have been planned on land
belonging to the UDA. As the UDA was in charge of managing
land for these projects, it appears that this was the reason construction in Hambantota had accelerated. Another reason for this surplus was the large Muslim population in Hambantota. In Muslim
areas, there are multiple families per house, thus, there were morefamilies than originally thought. Under the current guidelines, thegovernment allocates one house to each family. Thus, in
Hambantota, the number of houses constructed was greater than
the number originally planned.
(2) Change in the ratio of houses under construction
Fig. 8 shows the change in the ratio of houses under construction against the number of houses contracted between TAFREN
and donors from January 2005 to March 2006. As indicated in the
figure, construction in Hambantota started earlier than in other districts, and construction continued after March 2005 in Mullaitive5.
The remaining districts show almost identical trends, except for thedate the project was initiated.
It appears that there were several regions where the need forpermanent housing was less urgent, but the construction process
was practically identical once contractual agreements were concluded between TAFREN and the donors. Thus, whether a donor
is available is the key factor in initiating the project.

69

5.2 Study of regional differences
This section examines the factors that affect the differences in
the progress of housing construction projects based on on-site
interviews with government officials and residents of the affectedareas.
1) Regional differences in donor interest
Based on an interview with Central Engineering Consultancy
Bureau, even though TAFREN finally decides where the donors
join the housing reconstruction projects, they can suggest to
TAFREN which areas they build housings in. According to this,while much attention was directed at humanitarian aid from donors
in urban areas such as Colombo and Khalutara there were notenough donors in the poorer eastern districts, such as Ampara andBatticaloa. As shown in Table 3, the number of houses constructed was only 40% of the number needed. The fact that the projectreflected donor interest is considered a reason for the unbalanced
distribution of donors between affected areas. It is thus important
to examine how donors take part in disaster recovery projects.
2) Shortage of land in urban areas
While there were numerous donors willing to contribute tohousing reconstruction in Colombo and Kaluthara, there was insufficient land for these projects6. As a result, the ratio of multi-storied condominiums in these areas was high compared to easternand northern areas (Fig. 5). In the Donor-Built Reconstruction
Program, land was distributed to the donor after the UDA secured
the land for construction. In urban areas, TAFREN and the donors
did not conclude a contract for housing construction due to a shortage of available land.
3) Political issues and communication
There are other reasons for the regional differences in housing
construction projects. In Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese people form thelargest ethnic group, and are a majority of the total population.
Tamils are concentrated in the northern, eastern, central and western provinces of the country. A proportion of Tamil people fromsmaller ethnic groups are active in the anti-government organization, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Some LTTE factions obstructed local reconstruction projects. In the eastern districts, including Ampara and Trincomalee, they led a strike known

Fig. 8 Transition of the ratio of houses started construction against the number of houses contracted

70

H. NAKAZATO AND O. MURAO

Table 3 Number of houses needed and houses assigned to donors (as of Mar.
10th 2006)

as a hartaal. Construction projects in Trincomalee were interrupted for two months from December 2005 to January 20067. It is
important to avoid minimizing these political issues.
Additionally, there were problems in communicating information on housing construction projects, and many people were notinformed of the conditions or availability of official support(Steering Committee, 2005). Such miscommunications caused
delays in almost all housing reconstruction project, and these arecommon problems that must be addressed in any recovery project.
6. CONCLUSION
This paper focuses on post-tsunami housing reconstruction in
Sri Lanka, particularly the Donor-built Housing Project, and examines the process, problems and future directions of these projects.
The conclusions are as follows:① While the number of houses completed six months after thetsunami was over 90% of the total required, this number was
only 60 - 70% in Colombo and Ampara at one year post-tsunami. Regional differences like these were evident in housing
construction projects throughout Sri Lanka.
② Lack of land in urban areas and lack of donors in rural areas
caused delays in housing reconstruction programs.
③ Housing construction was delayed in some areas due to strikes
related to racial conflict.
In all housing construction projects, the distribution of aid andthe role of donors were of paramount importance. The processes
and problems elucidated by this paper will be valuable for future
recovery projects.
Finally, the number of objections to regulations in the Buffer
Zone from people in fisheries has prompted the Sri Lankan
Government to review its policies. A re-examination of the guidelines and issues in housing construction projects, which are continuing until 2007, is required.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was supported by the Restoration Program from
Giant Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Granted by the Special
Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
We are grateful for the assistance of Nihal Rpasinghe, (Central

Engineering Consultancy Bureau), Dr. Srikantha Herath, (United
Nations University), and Navindra De Silva, (Senior JapaneseInterpreter of JICA).
NOTES
1Sri Lanka is divided into, Province, District, Divisional
Secretariat Division, and Grama Niadhari Division．
2
Houses of squatters built illegally, the affected number is notincluded in the official publication (Fig. 1)．
3
According to a report by the Urban Development Authority14),
the minimum area is 500sq.ft., and the density is 60 unit per
Acre.
4
1Rs. is approximately 1.14 yen（as of April 2006）．And
according to the Department of Census and Statistics, the average salary in Sri Lanka is 13,000Rs.（approximately 14,000yen）, 22,000Rs. in urban areas, 7,000Rs. in rural areas.
5
Mullaitive was dropped from the project target for some reasonfrom December 2005 to March 2006. Therefore, construction
ceased after November 2005.
6
Based on an interview with an anonymous official at the Central
Engineering Consultancy Bureau in December 2005.
7
Based on an interview with various government employees, construction site workers, and residents in the affected area
(Trincomalee) in March 2006.
REFERENCES
Department of Census and Statistics, 2001. Population and population density by district, 1981 and 2001, http://www.statistics.gov.lk/census2001/index.html
Department of Census and Statistics, 2005. Census of Persons, Housing
Units and Other Buildings affected by the Tsunami, 26th December
2004
Maki, N., Miura, K., Kobayashi, M., and Hayashi, H., 2003. Relocation
process at resettlement site after the 1992 Flores Earthquake andTsunami Disaster, 1-8, Journal of architecture and planning,Architectural Institute of Japan (in Japanese)
Maeda, M., Nakagawa, Y., Yamada, K., and Funo, S., 2007. Considerationof the realities and issues of settlements in the south west coast of Sri
Lanka after the Sumatra Earthquake and the Indian Ocean Tsunami in2004 - From the perspective of resuming normal life - , 183-190,

STUDY ON REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PERMANENT HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS IN SRI LANKA AFTER THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

Journal of Architecture and Planning, Architectural Institute of Japan(in Japanese)
Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Statistics, 2005. Fishermen’s Houses
Affected by Tsunami, http://www.fisheriesdept.gov.lk./tsunami/houses.html
Ministry of Urban Development and Water Supply, 2006. First REEL
Rehousing Project, http://www.urbanlanka.lk/Tsunami/reel.html
R.A.D.B. Samaranayake, Sri Lanka’s Agenda for Costal Zone
Management, http://www.coastal.gov.lk/showresearch.php?ankaya=11
Serving Sri Lanka, 2005. Humanitation Situation Report -27 May - June
2005, http://servesrilanka.blogspot.com/2005_05_29_servesrilanka_archive.html
Steering Committee (Ministry of Finance and Planning), 2005. Joint Reportof the Government of Sri Lanka and Development Partners

71

TAFREN, 2005a. Rebuilding Sri Lanka Post-tsunami Reconstruction &Rehabilitation, TAFREN Progress & News, June 2005
TAFREN, 2005b. Housing & Township Development
TAFREN, 2005c. Donor Assisted Housing & Township Reconstruction
TAFREN, 2005d. Construction Status -Donor Built Housing Projects
Tittawella, M. 2005. Rebuilding Sri Lanka Post Tsunami, ADB Manila
Summit on January 11th, 2005
Urban Development Authority, 2005a. Physical Planning Guidelines andProject Proposals for the Vulnerable Coastal Zone of Sri Lanka
Urban Development Authority, 2005b. Rehabilitation and Reconstructionof Tsunami Affected Areas