Jessie Handforth Kome leverages nearly four decades of HUD leadership experience in community development, neighborhood stabilization, disaster recovery, and program innovation to advise government and public sector clients on strategic initiatives. Here, she explores nimble rebuilding, a potentially effective disaster recovery and planning tool for state and community governments – when the risks are managed correctly.

During a recent conference panel, we were asked about ideas for innovative approaches to disaster recovery. People almost always answer this question by suggesting better preparation, planning, and community engagement to create more disaster-resistant structures and communities. But what if we consider that in some specific cases, the answer might be less-resistant structures – designed to be rebuilt quickly to help get a community back on its feet, and lost again to lesser consequence?

This is the concept of rebuilding “nimble,” “light,” or “risk-appropriate.” By whatever name, this lighter approach involves constructing – for certain business or infrastructure use cases – less-resistant buildings more cheaply, and designing them to recover their value quickly through rents or other income. The approach can be implemented strategically based on a location’s risk: It would be most appropriate in areas where 1) place-based human activity is necessary AND 2) significant disasters are anticipated to recur often during the useful life of a normal structure. 

To be crystal clear up front: Nimble rebuilding is a tool that could be added to state and community governments’ disaster recovery and planning toolbox, not a replacement for appropriate hazard mitigation, structural hardening, managed retreats, or better planning. We do need new tools to fill in our current tools’ gaps: The U.S. has been shown to suffer more damage per hurricane (Opens a new window)(Opens a new window)(Opens a new window)(Opens a new window)than many other places in the world, for example, partly due to slower adaptation and innovation, and disasters are only on the rise. But for reasons we will discuss, it is not appropriate as a primary solution for every structural need.

Still: What if we re-imagine this approach for our time and figure out how to use modern construction techniques and codes, insurance products, and community understanding to realize advantages and mitigate harms?

Benefits and use cases 

Rebuilding lighter, less substantial structures can lead to substantial cost savings. While traditional disaster-resistant buildings require expensive materials and advanced engineering techniques, lighter structures can be built using fewer or less expensive materials and simpler designs, significantly lowering the financial burden on both governments and property owners. These savings can be redirected toward other critical areas, such as a business’s operations and marketing, or neighborhood services, community emergency preparedness, and economic recovery initiatives.

The concept of rebuilding nimble aligns with the economic principle of maximizing return on investment. If light structures are designed to generate income quickly, through rents or other means, they can recoup their construction costs within a short period. This approach helps ensure that even if a building is destroyed in a subsequent disaster, it will have already provided at least break-even economic value to its owners and the community. 

Risk-appropriate rebuilding also offers the competitive advantage of rebuilding quicker. With their simpler designs and lower costs, light structures can be constructed much faster than hardened, disaster-resistant buildings. This rapid rebuilding can attract businesses and residents back to the area sooner, stimulating economic recovery and fostering a sense of normalcy; plus, communities that can quickly bounce back may gain a competitive edge.

Focusing nimble rebuilding on specific portions of a community that have a reason to be in riskier locations can be particularly advantageous. For example:

• Tourism businesses near a beach both need to be located there and are inherently at higher risk of recurring damage from natural disasters like hurricanes or tsunamis. By constructing non-residential waters-edge businesses – and supporting infrastructure, such as boardwalks and public toilets – with the nimble approach, they can be rebuilt quickly and at a lower cost, and the economic benefits of tourism can be rapidly restored. 
• Similarly, fishing piers can be reconstructed lighter, with related freezers and equipment designed to be easily portable in case of impending disaster. These nimble waters-edge improvements can be paired with residential buyouts and hardened inland housing construction. 

Challenges: Safety, social, environmental

While rebuilding nimble presents an innovative and cost-effective approach to disaster recovery, the potential economic benefits must be balanced against the safety, environmental, and social implications.

Safety and well-being of residents. By definition, these lighter structures are less robust, and they may not provide even adequate protection during disasters. Thus, unlike passive protection provided by hardened structures, a nimble approach requires people to understand that a major event is imminent and to act appropriately – such as by evacuating. Absent careful disaster response planning, this could lead to higher casualties and greater human suffering. Targeted communications and actions will be required even between disaster events.

Environmental impact. Frequent rebuilding can lead to environmental degradation due to the continuous use of construction materials and the generation of waste. These environmental costs must be carefully mitigated in design and weighed against the economic benefits.

Negative social cohesion effects. If not properly informed about options and benefits, residents may experience stress knowing that their businesses or local infrastructure are not built to withstand future disasters. This sense of insecurity can negatively affect the community cohesion that underpins successful disaster response and recovery. Community engagement and education will be crucial in keeping local business leaders, property owners, and residents supportive of and prepared for this strategy.

A hybrid approach that incorporates elements of both risk-appropriate and resistant construction may offer a viable solution, providing immediate economic relief while gradually enhancing structural resilience over time in appropriate locations.

Building codes: Adapt and adjust

Building codes exist to protect the safety, health, and general welfare of building occupants by setting minimum standards for construction quality, structural integrity, and resilience against natural disasters. However, uniform building codes are unlikely to take into account the unique circumstances of disaster-prone areas, impeding a nimble approach that adjusts standards appropriately for risk and return.

Consider:

1. Safety and structural integrity: Per a Congressional Research Service report,(Opens a new window)(Opens a new window)(Opens a new window)(Opens a new window) modern building codes prioritize safety and structural integrity, often requiring buildings to withstand specific environmental stresses such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. Less hazard-resistant, deliberately shorter-term structures, by their nature, may not meet these stringent requirements.
2. Compliance, enforcement, and insurance: Local governments enforce building codes, and non-compliance can result in penalties. Additionally, insurance companies often require adherence to standard building codes as a condition for standard coverage, which could complicate matters further for light structures until insurance regulators and industry create products specifically for structures meeting a right-risk code approach. 
3. Environmental and energy standards: Building codes increasingly incorporate standards for energy efficiency and environmental sustainability, as do many grant programs. Nimble structures, which prioritize low cost and high speed, might struggle to meet these standards. Further, if a nimble structure is expected to be struck by a major disaster, it should be designed for environmentally clean destruction or easy debris removal. (This area seems like a good candidate for a design competition or research funding.)

A community opting for risk-appropriate rebuilding would need to adjust its regulatory frameworks carefully. Create paths for rule changes or variances and encourage innovative design strategies to align right-risk rebuilding with regulatory requirements related to occupant health and safety. Additionally, consider:

Planned evacuation and portable fixtures: By designing buildings with easily removable equipment and fixtures, communities can help ensure that valuable assets are protected and can be quickly relocated in the event of a disaster, potentially easing some regulatory concerns – and further mitigating losses.

Targeted rebuilding in high-risk areas: Specific high-risk areas, such as tourism businesses and boardwalks on or near beaches, might already have different regulatory frameworks due to their unique risk profiles. By working within these frameworks and emphasizing rapid economic recovery, communities can make a case for additional flexible building standards that accommodate lighter construction. A community can take an incremental approach, such as designing code and zoning changes that update when a structure is destroyed or sustains major damage but are not mandatory for existing, functional structures or improvements.

In conclusion

Nimble rebuilding is not an easy, one-size-fits-all solution for disaster recovery, requiring careful planning and collaboration to identify appropriate uses and align with modern regulatory requirements. But when done right, it has the potential to be a viable, valuable tool for disaster-prone areas looking to balance cost, speed, readiness, and resilience. 

Continue the conversation: If you have ideas or opportunities for rebuilding nimble, or have seen it in action, please reach out.