Transcription
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResiliencePreparing forthe Worst:How Low-IncomeHousehold and MasonAttitudes on HomeConstruction AffectDisaster ResilienceJuly 20191
Preparing for the Worst: How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceKey messages1External appearancedominates householddecision-making,leaving little room for disaster-resilientbuilding practices. For masons, appearancesalso matter more than good disasterresilience, because this is in part how theyattract new clients and business.42on the part of households towardadopting an untested product orbuilding method are significantconstraints on the adoption ofdisaster-resilient practices.A fatalistic attitude to both poorquality housing construction andvulnerability to damage fromnatural disasters is commonin both the India and Peru study sites.76Educationalcampaigns ondisaster-resilienthousing,aimed at both households andmasons, present a potential area ofintervention, but they must be ableto reach communities directly.The cost ofmaterials andrisk aversion5Incorrect use of materialsand inadequate applicationof construction techniquesare the main reasons whyhomes are not disasterresilient,rather than a lack of access to qualitymaterials. Changing this requires a focuson behavior change, on the part of bothhouseholds and masons.3Households’ accessto information flowsabout disasterresilient materials andmethods is limitedin both the India and Peru study sites,with family and friends providing themain source of advice.Environmental factors related to safetyand security still influence buildingpractices among low-income households,even in locations that are not highly disasterprone, such as the Kenya study site.8Focusing solely oncapacity building andknowledge transfer willbe insufficient for thispurpose,as it targets only the household domainof the social norms framework, leavingthe social, governance and materialdomains untouched.
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceIntroductionHabitat for Humanity’s Terwilliger Center for Innovation in Shelterworks with housing market systems by supporting local firms andexpanding innovative and client-responsive services, products andfinancing so that households can improve their shelter more effectivelyand efficiently. The ultimate goal of the Terwilliger Center’s marketsystems program is to make housing markets work more effectivelyfor people in need of decent, affordable shelter, thereby improving thequality of life for low-income households.In India, the research focused on understanding the preferences ofand influences on households and masons in two different districtsin Tamil Nadu: Kancheepuram, a peri-urban inland district on theoutskirts of the capital, Chennai, that is less likely to be influenced bynatural disasters, and Cuddalore, a coastal peri-urban district selectedbecause of its greater record of disaster damage.In Kenya, most urban dwellers wish to build incrementally, more likelyin a rural area that is the husband’s town or village of origin. The firstphase of research was carried out in an urban area to explore thisdynamic. The site was Korogocho, an urban slum in the northeast ofNairobi. The second phase of research took place in two areas totrace the different pathways that some residents of Korogocho tookto build homes. This took researchers to peri-urban areas of Nairobi,and Siaya County in western Kenya, where several former residents ofKorogocho and other informal settlements in Nairobi have relocated.Understanding the forces at play in the construction of low-costhousing is key to promoting positive change. With this in mind,the Terwilliger Center commissioned a study to understand howlow-income households make decisions on housing design andconstruction and what actors and social norms influence thesedecisions in three diverse settings: Kenya, India and Peru. Thestudy focused on norms — the informal rules that govern collectivebehaviors and expectations of behavior — governed by empiricalexpectations (“What I think others do”) and normative expectations(“What I think others expect me to do”).In Peru, the study site was the informally constructed neighborhoodof La Florida in San Juan de Lurigancho. The research focused onunderstanding the preferences of and influences on households andmasons in the transition from a semipermanent wood structure to apermanent concrete-, iron- or steel-reinforced building with flooring.This transition was selected because it is the stage in which the mostsignificant financial investment begins and in which the foundationfor any future structural plan is established. Suboptimal decisionsin this stage of construction determine the future shelter upgradesand extensions that may be required or feasible; they also generateadditional costs during extensions and increase exposure to structuralinsecurity in the face of environmental risks and disasters.The studies covered both homeowners and the masons who workwith them. The research specifically investigated the role of masonsand how they interact with both clients and suppliers, becauseunderstanding their social norms, networks and information flows iskey to knowing where and how to exert positive influence over the lowincome housing market.Study locationsEach country study had its own orientation, tailored to its particularmarket context.3
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceIntroductionFigure 1: Research methodsResearch methodology and methods73The individual country studies were based on three change objectives:Change Objective 1:Increase agency for women in housing decision-making.Change Objective 2:Ensure households use more disaster-resilient constructiontechniques (Mainly India and Peru).Change Objective 3:Improve masons’ ability to change their practice, leading to betterservices for low-income homebuilders. interviews Kenya76More detailed information about the study findings across all threechange objective domains can be found in the individual countryreports at habitat.org/tcis.10interviews focus groupsThis report consolidates and examines the findings under ChangeObjective 2: Ensure households use more disaster-resilientconstruction techniques. It focuses on India and Peru, with a shortsection on Kenya, and presents a consolidated review of the socialnorms and construction practices that affect the ability of low-incomehomebuilders to withstand natural disasters and extreme weatherevents. HouseholdsMasons and other key influencers(such as hardware retailers,polytechnic institutes, savings groups,etc)Households assumed to be earningless than US 10 per day (TerwilligerCenter target household group)Women and men in low-incomehouseholdsMasonsOther key influencers: localretailers, associations, trainingcenters and government officialsIndia30The report describes current attitudes toward disaster-resilientconstruction at the household level, and also among masonsand construction workers. It details the current disaster-resilientconstruction techniques used and looks at how informationabout disaster-resilient techniques and materials flows to andbetween masons and low-income homebuilders. It concludes withrecommendations to increase the use of disaster-resilient constructionpractices and materials.5interviews focus groups Peru4Desk reviewsWomen and men in low-incomehouseholdsMasonsOther key influencers: localhardware retailers, professionalconstruction contractors, localleaders and government officialsObservational site visitsto hardware stores and aprefabricated home market
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster Resilience1Currentattitudestoward disaster-resilientconstruction5
1Current attitudestoward disasterresilientconstructionPreparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceAppearances above allMost of the interviewed households and masons rely on the samedisaster-resilient techniques: raising the foundations of the houseto at least 1 foot above the top of the road, making heavier use ofcolumns and floor beams, and reinforcing columns with iron rods. Useof reinforced cement concrete, considered strong enough to withstandany weather-related disaster, is seen as a best practice in disasterresilience.In both the India and Peru study sites, homebuilders are primarilyfocused on the appearance of what they can afford to build, and thereis an overall reluctance among households and masons to adoptdisaster-resilient construction practices. Households lack knowledgeabout disaster-resilient building techniques and may resist trying anew technique if they cannot see a structure where it has been testedfirst.There seems to be a quiet acceptance, especially among masons,that some harmful mistakes are inevitable, especially in the caseof waterproofing. While retailers note an increase in demand forwaterproofing products, there are conflicting opinions about the useof waterproofing in low-income housing construction. Many of theinterviewed households seem to prefer the use of waterproofingproducts such as Dr. Fixit, whereas the interviewed masons — andeven engineers — prefer to rely on more traditional methods. Ingeneral, masons seem to believe that if concrete is laid out using theright techniques and avoiding the creation of air pockets, leaking willnot occur.Masons are similarly risk-averse about new materials and are alsoreluctant to adopt disaster-resilient practices, taking the attitudethat the client’s budget restrictions set the template for the quality ofmaterials used. They also may be skeptical about the need to learnmore.Risk is also seen as inevitable for low-income homebuilders, and thereis a prevailing attitude of fatalism toward natural disasters. Defects andconstruction failures are seen as normal and unavoidable.That said, poor waterproofing techniques have likely led to a collectiveacceptance across households that waterproofing is ineffective,meaning that masons and contractors are not held accountable fortheir mistakes and have little incentive to learn how to improve.A blend of disaster resilience and fatalism in IndiaAlthough major natural disasters such as cyclones and flooding areinfrequent in the India study site — occurring on average every fiveto six years — when they strike, they hit hard, displacing communitiesfor long periods and causing substantial damage to infrastructure. Aswith households interviewed in Peru, the overwhelming feeling amongthe interviewed Indian households is that disasters are inevitable, andthere is a sense of powerlessness against their force.6
1Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceCurrent attitudestoward disasterresilientconstructionFigure 2: India — norms that influence the use ofdisaster-resilient construction techniquesPrevalenceHighNorm:Defects andconstruction failuresare seen asinevitableNorm:The quality of finishingis seen as a priorityMediumKey:HighLowMediumNorm:Disastersare seen asan inevitableoccurrenceLowLowHigh StrengthMedium7Relevance toChange Objective
1Current attitudestoward disasterresilientconstructionPreparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResiliencePrice sensitivities in PeruAnother important norm shaping the desire to build is the perceptionof rural areas that are tribally or ethnically homogenous as being moresecure than “mixed” areas, which are usually urban. In Siaya, peoplemoved back from Nairobi because of post-election violence and theresulting economic downturn in 2007-08. Even in subsequent years,people have continued to come back and build in Siaya because theyview urban areas as more prone to ethnic violence.In Peru, families tend to be extremely price-sensitive, not leastbecause of their unsteady source of income. They buy materialsincrementally as they can afford them. They are more willing tospend on attractive finishings and the final touches both inside andoutside than on structural features for safety and durability that maynot be apparent on the surface. Nice finishings also can mask poorconstruction.Both men and women of Somali descent from northern Kenyaexpressed little desire to build in their counties of origin. Instead, thenorm in this community was to build a life in urban neighborhoods withothers from their community. The time and financial cost of traveling“home,” the harsh conditions there (e.g., weather, insecurity), and theperceived lack of economic opportunities back home deterred theirdesire to return.For masons in Peru, social recognition is worth more than formaleducation and training, and this limits opportunities for them to beexposed to new and better building techniques for more disasterresilient construction. Working for clients who are extremely pricesensitive and typically offering below-market rates to get work createstrong disincentives for masons to propose better building productsand practices. One of the prevailing norms that emerged from theresearch was: “It does not matter what you do, as long as it’s cheap.”Risk mitigation in KenyaAlthough resilience in the face of natural disasters was not a themethat emerged from the research in Kenya, the decision to build homesup-country or outside the city was motivated in part by a perception ofsafety.The threat of surprise eviction from urban dwellings and difficultiessecuring land tenure made the prospect of building there unfavorable.Informal settlements in cities also have an air of “moral impurity,”interviewees said, and the desire to protect children from risks suchas drug use and dropping out of school was another motivation forbuilding elsewhere.8
1Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceCurrent attitudestoward disasterresilientconstructionFigure 3: Peru — norms that influence the use ofdisaster-resilient construction techniquesPrevalenceNorm:Social recognitionis worth more thanformal education andtraining.HighNorm:What you dodoes not matter,aslong as it is cheap.MediumKey:HighMediumNorm:Appearancesmatter more thanstructural bones.LowLowLowHigh StrengthMedium9Relevance toChange Objective
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster Resilience2Informationflowsabout disaster-resilientconstruction10
2Information,influence andsocial normsPreparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster Resilienceconflict with clients, and on best practices and technologies.Experienced masons are a key source of knowledge for more juniormasons, and their advice is sometimes valued even more than that ofengineers and architects. Cement companies are also a good sourceof knowledge on new materials and technologies for most masons andcontractors, especially those who are more experienced.Low-income homebuilders may turn to friends and family members foradvice about construction, but they are less trusting of the artisansthey hire to do the construction work. Masons have more access toinformation about disaster-resilient techniques and materials from thehardware suppliers, but they also rely on the support and knowledgeof their peers.In India, masons/suppliers are info gatekeepersIn India, the flow of information to households, including on mattersrelated to disaster resilience, is low. House construction decisions aremade primarily within the households, with limited external influence.Households do seek the advice of family and friends, but decisions aremade jointly between husband and wife.Figure 4: India — factors influencingmasons’ preferencesLow-income households are also influenced by masons, but unlessthe household seeks their advice directly, masons and contractors arerarely able to influence construction preferences. Rather, householdsseek masons’ advice primarily on basic structural issues, such asthe number and the width of columns, and masons are less able toinfluence households on the adoption of new materials or changes tothe layout of the house that would make it more disaster-resilient.Masons in turn get their information from their peers and fromhardware stores and engineers. But overall, masons’ interest inlearning is weak. Many of the interviewed masons said they knoweverything there is to learn in the construction sector. This is drivenpartly by the fact that there has been little innovation in the sector,limiting masons’ exposure to change and the need to learn newpractices. Even so, masons are unwilling to accept that they have gapsin knowledge or that they could be at fault.Collaboration within the construction community is strong. Contractorsshare information with each other on prices, on how to manageLabor contractorsLabor masons Rely on moreexperienced masonsand contractors forknowledge11 Overall interest inlearning is weak Peer groups arestrong influences Interest to learn increaseswith experience Some (but limited) use ofFacebook and YouTube forlearning Rely more on engineers forknowledge, but maintainrelational barriers due tofeeling controlled Cement companies are agood source of knowledgeon new materials /technologies
2Information,influence andsocial normsPreparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceTwo levels of influence in Peruproducts to offer. Information provided by the hardware store ownersto the masons, such as the prices, types of material, new technologiesand techniques, is considered relevant but not vital. This is mainlybecause the market for the masons’ services is not defined by theirability to offer innovative services.In Peru, by contrast, households are subject to two levels of influence:friends, community leaders, neighbors and providers of basic services,who live in the same neighborhood and exercise a slight influence, andthe extended family, who exercise moderate influence on constructiondecision-making.Masons and the hardware store owners also strongly influence thedecision to start construction or the process of transitioning fromlow-cost to better quality housing. Men are influenced more directly atthe time of making the contract and the purchases, and the hardwarestore owners exert greater influence over the women at the timeof monitoring the housing construction. However, the influence ofhardware stores is tempered by the fact that price will dominate muchof the decision-making about materials.The male householder has only a moderate level of influence on themason, in part because the masons who offer services to the lowincome homebuilders are few. At the same time, each mason has hisway of building, based on his own experiences and practice, and notnecessarily according to construction guidelines. These masons mayattend the training services provided by the material providers, butonly if offered at no cost and if they have time on their hands.Figure 5:Peru — factors influencingmasons’ preferencesLabor contractorsLabor masons Rely on moreexperienced masonsand contractors forknowledgeInfluence also flows from the mason to the hardware dealer. Thehardware dealers understand the logic and importance of relying onmarket information from the masons and use this to determine which12 Overall interest inlearning is weak Peer groups arestrong influences Interest to learn increaseswith experience Some (but limited) use ofFacebook and YouTube forlearning Rely more on engineers forknowledge, but maintainrelational barriers due tofeeling controlled Cement companies are agood source of knowledgeon new materials /technologies
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster Resilience3Recommendationsto increase demandand uptake ofdisaster-resilient practices13
3Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceRecommendationsattractive to others in the village. The demonstration effect is a strongincentive.Following on from this research, the Terwilliger Center facilitated ahuman-centered design workshop in each study country to designdraft intervention concepts for quick field validation. Below are afew examples of how the Terwilliger Center seeks to translate thesefindings into actionable interventions in Peru and India.The next steps are to engage with microfinance institutions to assesstheir appetite for developing a new loan product and the feasibility ofhaving them collaborate with masons as agents.Opportunity in India: Roofing loan products frommicrofinance institutionsOpportunities in Peru: Certification and educationMicrofinance institutions could develop a lending product specific tothe upgrading of roofs — and provide information on roofing optionsand technical information — through partnerships with roofingproviders. Insurance cover for the loan would be embedded in thelending product.Greater recognition for quality, self-directed construction byprofessionals or governmental bodies could help create moreawareness about future risk and the impact of disasters.Promotion of appropriate materials and techniques toward householdsby construction material suppliers and hardware stores could increasedemand from households for better construction services and moreinnovative practices.Thatched roofing typically requires replacement every two years andcosts approximately 30,000 Indian rupees (about US 425). Familiesraise the money for this large expense through informal money lendersor loan sharks, as they do not have a steady income. The repaymentprocess can last up to six months at INR7,000 (about US 100) amonth, with interest payments equivalent to 20 percent of the loanprinciple. Given the option, households would rather take larger loansover a longer repayment time frame with repayments in the range ofINR3,000-3,500.Modeled on a mobile library, a “construction mobile” could visitlow-income informal housing communities to showcase qualityearthquake-resistant materials. This could incentivize householdsto make modest but smart investments to improve the longevity andquality of their home.Because of their closer relationship with masons, households trustthe recommendations of masons over those of architects andengineers. If something goes wrong with the house, it is easier forhouseholds to take this up with the mason. However, if someone elsein the village takes a loan from a microfinance institution and builds ahouse following an engineer’s guidance, it will make the process more14
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster ResilienceThis report was developed by staff members of Habitat for Humanity’s Terwilliger Center for Innovation in Shelter and MarketShare Associates,including Adriano Scampi, Meghan Bolden, Raksha Vasudevan, Ashley Aarons, Scott Merrill, Sheldon Yoder, Mallory St. Claire, Jennifer Oomen and JaneOtima. In addition, Terwilliger Center country personnel and MarketShare consultants in India, Kenya and Peru dedicated themselves wholeheartedly tothe research summarized in this report.Written by Jane Parry.Layout and graphic design by Keisuke Taketani.Photography by Annalise Kaylor, Terwilliger Center Peru, and Jason Asteros.The report was produced with support from J. Ronald Terwilliger, the Hilti Foundation and IKEA Foundation.Habitat’s Terwilliger Center would like to express its gratitude to each of the households who participated in the household interviews and focus groupsfor this research. Their lives are at the core of the work Habitat does so that one day, everyone will have a decent place to call home.Habitat for Humanity’s Terwilliger Center for Innovation in ShelterThe Terwilliger Center for Innovation in Shelter, a unit of Habitat for Humanity, works with housing market systems by supporting local firms andexpanding innovative and client-responsive services, products and financing so that households can improve their shelter more effectively andefficiently. The ultimate goal of the Terwilliger Center’s market systems program is to make housing markets work more effectively for people in need ofdecent, affordable shelter, thereby improving the quality of life for low-income households.To learn more, visit habitat.org/tcis.15
Preparing for the Worst:How Low-Income Household and Mason Attitudes on Home Construction Affect Disaster Resiliencehabitat.org/tcis16
of waterproofing. While retailers note an increase in demand for waterproofing products, there are conflicting opinions about the use of waterproofing in low-income housing construction. Many of the interviewed households seem to prefer the use of waterproofing products such as Dr. Fixit, whereas the interviewed masons — and
