Chapter 47
Building back better and housing recovery:
learning from international comparisonsField of expertise: Housing, disaster recovery

Elizabeth MalySummary
Japan has used similar programs to provide housing recovery support for the life recovery ofdisaster survivors, after previous disasters from the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake andonward. Facing the large scale devastation after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami,
temporary and permanent housing projects included several new approaches that encompass theideas of building back better for survivors, which have the flexibility to support the needs of all
survivors and their choices, continuity in the housing recovery process with no gaps, and long term
community sustainability. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the internationalguideline established in 2015, also emphasizes building back better, along with the importance of apeople-center housing recovery process. Some of the novel approaches that were part of housing
recovery after the GEJE are also similar to housing recovery programs after disasters in othercountries.
Keywords: Build back better, housing recovery, people-centered housing recovery, life recovery,recovery with continuity.

Introduction
Even with Japan’s long history of disaster and past experiences with reconstruction,community and housing recovery after the GEJE was a vast, and complex challenge. Building backbetter does not just mean safer and stronger, but also housing that supports the holistic recovery of
the lives of disaster survivors, which is shown in several approaches after the GEJE, and similarinternational cases.

1: Problems revealed by the Great East Japan Earthquake
What happened
Japan has a long history and experience of disasters caused by natural hazards, includingmany earthquakes and multiple tsunamis. Japan has established policies to support thereconstruction of housing after disasters, which is very important to support the life recovery after
disaster survivors. Housing recovery after the GEJE was challenging because of the large number1

of new houses needed, but also because of the varied conditions of affected communities, and thelong time that people were displaced while waiting for permanent housing.
The GEJE and tsunami was a mega-disaster on an international scale, similar to otherdisasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, 2006 Hurricane Katrina in the United States,and 2013 Super Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines. Although disaster survivors share the needfor housing recovery as a foundation for life recovery after a disaster, housing reconstruction
projects vary from country to country. Some aspects of Japan's housing reconstruction programs
are unique, based on the Japanese legal system and recovery precedents. Yet, there are also
several similarities in innovative housing recovery projects that are shared across cases in differentcountries.
The reality of the damage
The Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami caused nearly 20,000 deaths and missing
people in the affected area, and 470,000 people evacuated from their homes. Many houses werepartially or completely destroyed by the tsunami, and because of the nuclear meltdown at
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, many more people had to leave their homes, often
moving multiple times, and staying in evacuations for many years. Even almost 10 years later,
there are still 43,000 people who are still living in evacuation. After the severe tsunami damage in2011, recovery programs for affected municipalities included a lot of collective relocation programs,
as well as large scale modification of the townscapes, such as raising the land area or cutting into
the mountains, and building extensive infrastructure projects such as massive sea walls, as well as
new roads, highways, bridges, and town areas. Housing reconstruction projects took a long time tocomplete, as in some cases they had to wait for large-scale infrastructure projects, combined withlarge-scale use of housing relocation projects. In addition, evacuees from Fukushima's nuclear
meltdown also had to wait a long time for housing programs, and have additional uncertainty about
the future livability of their towns.

2: Paradigms Destroyed by the Earthquake
Conventional wisdom and necessary responses
In Japan, the government provides support for the shelter and housing of disaster survivors
in several phases. First is evacuation centers, which are safe places to stay in an emergency,
usually a school or public building. Then, temporary housing is built where people can stay until
permanent housing can be rebuilt. After the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake in Kobe, theJapanese governments' support for permanent housing recovery focused almost exclusively on
public housing for disaster survivors. Several years later, the law was changed so that thegovernment could also provide some funds to support survivors’ rebuilding of their own houses.
The housing recovery programs used after the Great East Japan Earthquake were similar to thoseafter earlier disasters in Japan, including the provision of temporary housing, public housing, andsome support for people to rebuild their own houses. There were also unique aspects of how eachprogram was used after the GEJE.
Many of the issues and challenges for housing recovery after disasters in other countries
are similar to that of Japan. Housing recovery programs from different countries include similar
examples, and also cases that are different from each other and Japan. The programs are different
in different countries, but many good examples of cases that support the life recovery of disaster2

survivors better housing recovery includes key points of 1) flexibility: multiple housing options
which the survivors can choose and 2) high-quality building materials and designs that help makeliving environments that are comfortable and pleasant. These aspects can also be connected andalso contribute to the future sustainability of the community.

3: A New Approach
International cases and housing recovery programs after the GEJE include various
examples of advances in these aspects of 1) flexibility and choices and 2) quality design andbuilding materials. Being able to make their own choices from multiple options of housing recovery
is important for disaster survivors and one of the best ways to match the support with people’s
actual needs at different phases in the housing recovery process. After the Great East Japan
Earthquake and tsunami disaster, the system of deemed temporary housing was one of the newoptions for people used for the first time on a large scale to meet the needs of temporary housing.
Unlike the newly constructed temporary housing typically used in Japan, using the system ofminashi kasestu, the government pays the rent for survivors to stay in private apartments instead.
Using this system, people can have more choices about where they live, and also can be more
comfortable living in an apartment. It is also an efficient and economical use of existing housing
units, especially in places without space to place temporary housing.
Using this kind of system could help to provide housing in urban areas in the case of adisaster in Tokyo, for example. In the United States, after Hurricane Sandy in New York City, theyalso tried to use this kind of system; using hotel rooms for disaster survivors has worked well in theUnited States, but it is more difficult to use apartments in a city without many empty apartments
like New York City. In another example of disaster survivors having different choices for theirtemporary housing options, after Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines, an NGO provided multiple
options to survivors who could choose: rental support, building materials to fix their own housing,or moving into temporary houses.
From the point of view of high-quality design and building materials, the large-scale use ofwooden temporary housing was another example of a new approach used at a large scale after theGEJE. Unlike prefabricated temporary housing, which became the standard after the Hanshin
Awaji Earthquake, when all Japan's prefectures made contracts with the prefabricated builders
association to be able to provide temporary housing quickly after a disaster. After the GEJE, there
were multiple examples of the use of wooden temporary housing throughout the disaster-affected
area. Fukushima prefecture especially supported the use of wooden temporary housing, as thepromotion of local industry and natural resources, as well as a more comfortable housing
environment for people. Some of the wooden temporary housing could also be reused again,including a few cases where the same temporary units were converted and combined to become
permanent public housing (Figure 47-1). For continuity within the housing recovery process, there
have also been attempts in other countries to make temporary housing that can be converted topermanent housing. In the United States, one program that tried to do this was the Mississippi
Cottages after Hurricane Katrina in 2006 (FIgure 47-2), used first as temporary housing, and thenconverted to permanent housing by upgrading the foundation. Although not all the temporary
cottages were converted, residents of the converted cottages were very satisfied.

3

Figure 47-1. Temporary wooden housing converted into disaster recovery public housing in Aizu
Wakamatsu City.

Figure 47-2. Mississippi Cottage converted into permanent housing
In another more recent example from the United States, the RAPIDO project included an
initial core built as temporary housing, which can be expanded by additional construction forpermanent housing. The Rapido house is designed so that its construction can also be easily
funded by the separate types of funding for temporary and permanent housing. There are otherinternational examples of the use of expandable core houses post-disaster, including in the case ofIndonesia, where core houses were used after the 2006 Central Java Earthquake near Yogyakarta
City, and also after the 2010 volcanic eruption of Mount Merapi. Initially, residents were provided
with the simple core house, a structure made from reinforced concrete blocks, which they could
then expand and modify as they wished.

4: Achievements and the Future
A new approach to disaster science
Ratified in 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction was the firstinternational guideline to emphasize the importance of a people-centered, inclusive approach, aswell as building back better, and the connections of recovery to development. The inclusion andemphasis of Build Back Better in the Sendai Framework demonstrate an increasing focus on theimportance of the recovery phase post-disaster in the international community. The Sendai
Framework also explains other important aspects of recovery for the life recovery of survivors,
such as the importance of including all people, and understanding the recovery holistically,
including the connection to development and livelihoods, not just building strong and safe buildings
and structures. As the cases have shown, there are good examples in Japan and in other4countries that show advances and improvements in housing recovery that can support people’s
lives more holistically. If housing recovery programs, including temporary and permanent housing,are designed to work together well, it benefits disaster survivors. So does having multiple, flexible
options, and giving people the ability to make their own choices that best match their needs.
However, these cases are just individual examples, and housing recovery policies in Japan andother countries still need significant improvement. In the case of Japan, especially the people whohave been displaced by the Fukushima nuclear meltdown are still facing an uncertain future
without a clear answer for their life recovery as well as housing recovery.

Conclusion- From the author
The understanding and knowledge of important issues for housing reconstruction have been
growing in Japan, in other countries, and within international organizations and agencies. Throughinternational frameworks and also Japan, we have a better understanding of what needs toimprove in housing recovery to help people recover their lives, but not all problems are solved yet.
Hopefully, through considering examples and cases from other countries, future housing
reconstruction can continue to improve to help people recover after future disasters.

5