Building safety in humanitarian programmes that support post‐disaster shelter self‐recovery
Technical support, especially training in safer construction techniques, was found to be a central programme feature, but the impact of this and other programme attributes on building safety was largely not ascertainable.
The humanitarian sector is increasingly aware of the role that good quality evidence plays in the underpinning of effective and accountable practice. This review addresses the need for reliable evidence by evaluating current knowledge about the intersection of two key outcome targets of post‐disaster shelter response: supporting shelter self‐recovery and building back safer. Evidence about post‐disaster shelter programmes that aim to improve hazard resistance while supporting shelter self‐recovery has been systematically analysed and evaluated. Programme reports and studies lack sufficient detail, especially on the hazard resistance of repaired houses. Accounts of shelter programmes need to include more reliable reporting of key activities and assessment of outcomes, in order to contribute to the growing evidence base in this field.
Adolescents, Adults, Both sexes (for groups of both male and female persons), Children, Cyclone/Hurricane/Typhoon, Displaced population, Earthquake, Emergency Shelter and NFI, Female, Host population, Internally displaced population, Landslide/mudslide, Male, Minorities, Neonates/infants, Older people, Persons with disabilities, Population displacement, Population return, Returning population, Storm/storm surge, Tornado, Tsunami, Violent wind, Volcano