Should I stay or should I go?: Reasons beneficiaries decide to stay or leave aid-provided in-situ housing

Abstract

Providing in-situ housing after a disaster is thought to prevent issues resulting in housing inoccupancy. In-situ housing, or housing built at the original site, aims to retain beneficiary connection to people, place, and livelihoods, addressing many noted challenges of building at relocated sites. However, beneficiaries have left thousands of aid-provided in-situ houses in post-tsunami Aceh, Indonesia. This research conducted and analyzed questionnaires administered to beneficiaries that both stayed and left their provided in-situ housing almost two decades post-tsunami, exploring the reasons for their decisions. Results show that while place- and community-based reasons can be reasons to remain in in-situ housing, these can also cause beneficiaries to leave their housing due to place-based trauma and disrupted social capital due to loss. In addition, economic and personal conditions influence decisions to stay or leave. Economic conditions, including opportunities for education and more formal livelihoods, particularly for those that were younger, were stated as reasons beneficiaries left, whereas older beneficiaries with less education, more intact social capital, and livelihoods tied to the land, such as farming and fishing, tended to remain. These findings reinforce the importance of aligning post-disaster housing strategies with the lived dynamics of the affected individuals, emphasizing the need for solutions that not only address immediate housing concerns but also foster social and economic resilience to enable long-term housing occupancy.