Summary

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami led to massive devastation in Aceh, Indonesia, with 160,000 deaths and 150,000 houses damaged or destroyed. A five-year reconstruction effort costing $1.6 billion aimed to rebuild 140,000 houses in situ, honoring residents' ties to their original environment. Despite this, around 70,000 in-situ houses were estimated to be abandoned or destroyed 18 years later. There have been previous studies focused on housing abandonment in relocated, versus in-situ, communities that have found livelihood incompatibility contributing to abandonment. There has been limited work on post-disaster housing built in-situ, where livelihoods and community ties may remain intact.

This study addresses this gap, aiming to understand the reasons why beneficiaries chose to occupy or abandon aid houses in Aceh, where in-situ housing was provided. Furthermore, few studies have analyzed long-term outcomes for beneficiaries of livelihood and housing programs. We investigate the forms of assistance, and demographic factors, that influence long-term recovery and satisfaction.

Funding

路 Nicholas R. and Nancy D. Petry Professorship in Construction Engineering and Management

路 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Habitat for Humanity International Humanitarian Shelter and Settlements Fellowship 2022

Research Questions

路 Why do beneficiaries鈥� abandon or stay in their in-situ aid housing in the long term in post-tsunami Aceh, Indonesia?

路 What forms of livelihood and housing assistance are associated with long-term recovery and satisfaction at beneficiary level?

路 What forms of livelihood and housing assistance are associated with long-term recovery and satisfaction at the community level?

Research Methods

This study investigated the long-term decisions, outcomes, and perceptions of beneficiaries in Aceh, Indonesia, post-2004 tsunami, utilizing questionnaires from 83 individuals 18 years after the disaster. Data was collected from three severely affected regencies, covering nine communities where in-situ aid housing replaced destroyed homes and livelihood assistance programs were delivered. Of the respondents, 47 stayed, while 36 left.

Findings

For our first question, exploring the factors influencing beneficiaries' decisions to leave or stay in aid-provided housing, economic considerations emerged as a dominant theme, driving both relocation and staying decisions. Those leaving sought better economic opportunities and faced barriers in their original

communities, with younger, educated individuals pursuing education and formal employment. In contrast, those staying were often engaged in farming or fishing, geographically tied to their original locations, and reluctant to start anew. Personal conditions, including orphanhood and reduced physical ability, played a role, with orphans leaving for educational pursuits, while older individuals found reasons to stay rooted in familial and community support. Social capital was also influential in decisions to stay or relocate. Those leaving cited the loss of social networks due to death, seeking support in new communities, while those staying valued the intact support system in their original communities. Trauma related to the disaster site influenced relocation decisions, with some choosing to leave due to severe trauma, while those who remained experienced trauma dissipation over time.

Housing considerations played a role, with those leaving citing issues with aid-provided housing, while those staying found comfort in renovated original houses, amenities, and land ownership. Attachment to place was a prevalent theme among stayers, reflecting a sentimental connection to the land, often linked to livelihood and economic opportunities. Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay of economic, personal, social, and housing factors shaping long-term post-disaster housing decisions among beneficiaries in Aceh, Indonesia.

The first paper from this research, titled 鈥淪hould I stay or should I go?: Reasons beneficiaries decide to stay or leave aid-provided in-situ housing鈥� is currently under review. However, a high-level report on the findings from the fieldwork in Aceh, Indonesia can be found .