300
D. H. M. Aquino et al.
from the effects of disasters through changes in their way of life. The transformations also vary in degree and longevity. Some changes are extensive and drastic
while others are minimal. Some adapt changes on the short-term in order to cope
with temporary post-disaster scarcity and then revert when they have already restored
normalcy. Other changes are observed in the longer haul and appear to be permanent.
Gaillard (2006b) argues that, if resilience is to be viewed as the ability to overcome
the impact of disasters or prevent the potential adverse impacts of a hazard, then it is
resilience whether a traditional society achieves that by preserving their pre-disaster
social fabric or by embracing substantive changes to their lifestyle, as long as they
survive. For instance, the Aetas of the Philippines who were relocated in the aftermath
of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption have shifted to contemporary housing when they
built their new homes (Gaillard 2006a).
On the other hand, housing is one of the defining features of a traditional society.
According to Lozar and Rapoport (1970), “house-form is not simply the result of the
physical forces or any single causal factor, but it is also the consequence of a whole
range of socio-cultural factors—the specific characteristics of culture—the accepted
way of doing things.”
Traditional societies have also demonstrated that it is possible to preserve traditional settlements and house-forms in the aftermath of a disaster. For instance, the
Quechua Indians resisted the government-initiated resettlement following an earthquake that struck Peru in 1970 (1977). Instead, they rebuilt their town by themselves
in the vicinity of the ruins of their former houses. People of the Maheshpur village
in Jhapa region of Nepal have managed to preserve the Rajbanshi houses while residents of the Sarankot village in the Kaski region have been able to retain their Gurung
rounded houses (Gautam et al. 2016).
Likewise, the community of Kotagede in Yogyakarta, Indonesia was able to restore
its heritage structures severely affected by a M5.9 earthquake in 2006 (Rahmi 2018).
This was achieved through a collaboration of the community, the civil society,
the government and the academia. Funding came from a plethora of sources: the
government, multilateral agencies, the private sector and foreign governments.
In Fiji, the number of bure structures has steadily declined over the years. In
the late 1970s, bures comprised 12% of the Fijian housing structures. In 1989, the
number was down to 9%. In 2013, the number of bure structures was further reduced
to 2.2% (NDMO 2013). As of 2016, bures only comprised a little less than 2% of
the Fijian housing stock (NDMO 2016).
If traditional housing structures, as housing and cultural treasures, are to be
preserved then there is a need for a systematic approach to further curb the decline
in number.
Fujieda and Kobayashi (2013) identified three challenges that undermine the
construction of new bures in Fijian rural villages: knowledge and skills, workforce,
and natural resources.
There is little to no documentation of indigenous construction practices. Furthermore, there is no formal training on indigenous construction methods; it is a trade that
is informally passed on through generations for builder clans. Additionally, while
the village can rely on the practice of solesolevaki (communal work) in building
D. H. M. Aquino et al.
from the effects of disasters through changes in their way of life. The transformations also vary in degree and longevity. Some changes are extensive and drastic
while others are minimal. Some adapt changes on the short-term in order to cope
with temporary post-disaster scarcity and then revert when they have already restored
normalcy. Other changes are observed in the longer haul and appear to be permanent.
Gaillard (2006b) argues that, if resilience is to be viewed as the ability to overcome
the impact of disasters or prevent the potential adverse impacts of a hazard, then it is
resilience whether a traditional society achieves that by preserving their pre-disaster
social fabric or by embracing substantive changes to their lifestyle, as long as they
survive. For instance, the Aetas of the Philippines who were relocated in the aftermath
of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption have shifted to contemporary housing when they
built their new homes (Gaillard 2006a).
On the other hand, housing is one of the defining features of a traditional society.
According to Lozar and Rapoport (1970), “house-form is not simply the result of the
physical forces or any single causal factor, but it is also the consequence of a whole
range of socio-cultural factors—the specific characteristics of culture—the accepted
way of doing things.”
Traditional societies have also demonstrated that it is possible to preserve traditional settlements and house-forms in the aftermath of a disaster. For instance, the
Quechua Indians resisted the government-initiated resettlement following an earthquake that struck Peru in 1970 (1977). Instead, they rebuilt their town by themselves
in the vicinity of the ruins of their former houses. People of the Maheshpur village
in Jhapa region of Nepal have managed to preserve the Rajbanshi houses while residents of the Sarankot village in the Kaski region have been able to retain their Gurung
rounded houses (Gautam et al. 2016).
Likewise, the community of Kotagede in Yogyakarta, Indonesia was able to restore
its heritage structures severely affected by a M5.9 earthquake in 2006 (Rahmi 2018).
This was achieved through a collaboration of the community, the civil society,
the government and the academia. Funding came from a plethora of sources: the
government, multilateral agencies, the private sector and foreign governments.
In Fiji, the number of bure structures has steadily declined over the years. In
the late 1970s, bures comprised 12% of the Fijian housing structures. In 1989, the
number was down to 9%. In 2013, the number of bure structures was further reduced
to 2.2% (NDMO 2013). As of 2016, bures only comprised a little less than 2% of
the Fijian housing stock (NDMO 2016).
If traditional housing structures, as housing and cultural treasures, are to be
preserved then there is a need for a systematic approach to further curb the decline
in number.
Fujieda and Kobayashi (2013) identified three challenges that undermine the
construction of new bures in Fijian rural villages: knowledge and skills, workforce,
and natural resources.
There is little to no documentation of indigenous construction practices. Furthermore, there is no formal training on indigenous construction methods; it is a trade that
is informally passed on through generations for builder clans. Additionally, while
the village can rely on the practice of solesolevaki (communal work) in building