Temporary Housing Design of Post-Disaster Scenarios: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Giammarco Montalbano
,
Giovanni Santi

Disasters, whether natural or man-made, pose inevitable global challenges. Events such as COVID-19, earthquakes, extreme climatic conditions, and conflicts underscore the urgent demand for effective temporary housing solutions. These temporary housing units (THUs) serve as an aid in assisting displaced people to rebuild their lives as the recovery process unfolds. However, numerous temporary housing units present environmental, economic, and social issues that hinder their sustainability. 

  • temporary housing
  • post-disaster housing
  • building sustainability
  • disaster management
  • housing design strategies

1. Introduction

A disaster is defined as a relevant breakdown in the operation of a community or society. It is characterized by vast human, material, economic, or environmental damages and effects so severe that the struck community or society cannot recover using its internal resources alone. Consequently, external resources are necessary, which can be sourced at both national and international levels [1][2]. Disasters can be categorized into three main types: natural, man-made, and technological hazards [3]. Natural disasters encompass a wide range of events, including earthquakes, floods, droughts, storms, extreme temperatures, and landslides. For instance, the Moroccan earthquake and the Libyan floods in September 2023 serve as dramatic examples of natural disasters. These calamities resulted in significant damage and the displacement of thousands of people. Man-made disasters encompass wars, conflicts, and even biological disasters originating from human activities. An illustrative instance is the ongoing Russian–Ukrainian conflict, which has produced economic, environmental, and social damages, including a particularly devastating loss of life. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a dual example of a biological and man-made disaster, affecting an impressive number of people worldwide, exceeding 6.5 million, according to [4]. Technological disasters can arise from industrial accidents or incidents such as oil and toxic spills [5], causing detrimental environmental effects.
It is important to note that certain natural disasters are caused by human activities. In other words, the effects of climate change, resulting from anthropogenic actions, impact the occurrence of natural disasters such as droughts, floods, storms, and heatwaves [6][7]. In recent years, as the relevance of climate change effects has grown, the number of natural disasters has increased, as reported by [2]. In general, a disaster has severe consequences for an affected community or society [8]. These issues are primarily driven by environmental damage, which predominantly affects the built environment. These problems lead to fatalities, housing, and infrastructure damage. The destruction of housing forces people to seek shelter in temporary accommodations or houses, while infrastructure damage creates challenges related to transportation, energy, water supply, and accessibility, among others. These damages can be assessed in terms of their economic impact, which is generally quite high. Affected societies struggle to cope with it unless external assistance is provided. To address the aftermath of a disaster, communities and societies must prepare an effective recovery plan to handle rehabilitation and reconstruction. Within disaster management plans, the provision of shelters and Temporary Housing Units (THUs) for displaced individuals during various phases of recovery is of significant importance. This includes considerations like the selection of sites for temporary settlements and the employment of construction technologies for shelter and housing [9][10].
Regarding THUs, they are typically designed for rapid and cost-effective construction, prioritizing only the economic aspect of sustainability during their planning and design phases. Environmental and social considerations are largely overlooked. Nowadays, with the growing emphasis on sustainability in the built environment, the sustainability of THUs has become an interesting topic for academics and researchers. However, THUs fail to provide displaced people with safe and comfortable living spaces, which favor restarting their lives after disasters, often necessitating long-term residence. THUs lack reusability in their design, and the resources used in their construction are seldom reused or recycled, mainly due to the absence of circular design strategies like Design for Disassembly. These factors, among others, contribute to the social and environmental unsustainability of THUs. Thus, a shift in the design approach for THUs is imperative to make them more sustainable. Specifically, this new design approach should encompass specific requirements that account for economic, social, and environmental sustainability.

2. Temporary Housing Units Features and Criticalities

Focusing on emergency buildings, Quarantelli [11] conducted a comprehensive analysis and categorization of these structures. He defines four primary typologies of emergency buildings, each corresponding to a distinct phase in the recovery and rehabilitation process. In the aftermath of a disaster, emergency shelters serve as the initial places of refuge for displaced people. These shelters can take the form of tents, rental houses, second homes, or public spaces. Temporary shelters, on the other hand, are accommodations established in specific locations, typically safe places like schools and gymnasiums, etc. THUs are where displaced individuals spend the most significant portion of their time before returning to their permanent residences [12]. These buildings play a critical role in the rehabilitation and recovery phase following a disaster, as they enable displaced people to return to their normal lives and overcome the losses incurred by the disaster [13]. THUs also provide privacy, protection, and better health conditions than temporary shelters for victims after a traumatic event [14][15][16]. Once the recovery period ends, displaced people can return to their permanent homes.
Each typology is associated with a specific duration of stay (Figure 1). Emergency shelters are utilized for very brief periods, typically within 12 to 48 h following the disaster. Temporary shelters are occupied for a duration ranging from 2 to 30 days [17]. THUs are used for longer periods, generally lasting from 3 months to 5 years or longer, depending on the severity of the disaster [6][7][15].
Buildings 13 02952 g001
Figure 1. Typologies of emergency buildings and the estimated time of use (author’s drawing).
It is evident that THUs are often an essential category of emergency buildings, ensuring the provision of services and maintaining a decent quality of life for displaced people over an extended period of time. Consequently, they must be meticulously designed to meet these demands [18][19][20].
In terms of sustainability, THUs should meet environmental, social, and economic sustainability requirements. Simultaneously, they should ensure a rapid construction process, allowing displaced people to return to their regular lives. Nowadays, sustainability is a highly discussed topic among researchers and academics. However, the evaluation of different design solutions for THUs often incorporates only certain aspects of the Triple Bottom Line approach to sustainability. This approach relies on the idea that sustainability results from balancing economic, environmental, and social aspects. Analyzing environmental, economic, and social sustainability separately in the case of THUs may lead to a misleading assessment of their advantages and disadvantages. A comprehensive sustainability analysis is essential for these units and should encompass all three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. Firstly, THUs should be environmentally sustainable. To achieve this, the use of low embodied energy building materials and components is crucial in reducing their impact. Moreover, when they reach the end of their lives, CE practices should be applied to their materials or components. This way, the resources initially invested in their construction can serve as raw materials for other structures. It is also worthwhile to consider repurposing THUs for new functions. To facilitate CE practices for THUs, an accurate design phase that follows a life cycle approach is necessary. Design for Disassembly can be a valuable strategy in this regard, improving flexibility and adaptability and prolonging the building’s life cycle, thus combating obsolescence [21][22][23][24]. Secondly, THUs should be affordable. Given their involvement in post-disaster and critical situations, THUs should be characterized by low construction costs. These costs should be minimized, not only due to the limited financial resources available in such scenarios but also to ensure that resources necessary for the recovery process are not depleted. Thirdly, THUs should have positive impacts on displaced communities. They must fulfill the needs of their future occupants, providing them with a temporary, secure place. Achieving this requires that the design of THUs respect both the culture of the specific location and its environmental conditions [25]. Another important social aspect is the involvement of local stakeholders and displaced people in the planning and construction process of THUs. It is a powerful solution to allow communities to take part in the reconstruction [12][26].
An analysis of the literature reveals that meeting these requirements can be quite challenging, primarily because each country has its own regulations for addressing post-disaster situations. Countries may choose between two approaches: top-down and bottom-up. In general, the top-down approach is characterized by a centralized decision-making process where communities affected by disasters are not involved in rehabilitation and recovery planning. In contrast, the bottom-up approach actively engages local stakeholders and communities in the decision-making process. The duality between the top-down and bottom-up approaches influences both the establishment of temporary settlements within affected urban areas and the design of THUs. In urban settings facing emergencies, such as post-disaster situations, flexible urban planning tools are needed. As explained by [27], top-down urban planning aims to predict all potential future developments in a city. However, given the ever-changing nature of cities, it is nearly impossible to anticipate and encompass all possible scenarios, especially concerning disasters, during the planning phase. On the contrary, bottom-up urban planning approaches focus more on the relationship between the existing city and the new planned elements. These approaches demonstrate higher flexibility in accommodating natural disasters, enabling communities to self-organize within the urban landscape. Many researchers argue that top-down approaches often fail to yield positive social effects and, instead, widen the gap between people and institutions. In contrast, bottom-up approaches are regarded as place-based and human-centered strategies capable of considering local culture, available resources, and indigenous building knowledge [13]. These approaches produce different results in terms of sustainability.
In the realm of technical and technological aspects, temporary buildings have been linked since the second half of the 1800s to the concept of prefabrication [28]. Nowadays, this concept is still used for these buildings. In particular, top-down strategies heavily rely on closed prefabrication systems. These systems are often characterized as ready-made temporary units with limited flexibility [12][15]. Container houses serve as an example of such systems. While close prefabrication ensures the rapid availability of houses, it simultaneously elevates transportation and overall construction costs. Typically, these THUs are manufactured in other countries and then transported to their intended locations, impacting their environmental and economic sustainability [9][10][15]. In addition, it should be noted that those buildings are standard; they are based on the concept of one-size-fits-all. However, they do not take into consideration important aspects such as culture, climatic conditions, dimensions and forms, etc. Another important issue is related to the application of CE practices or adaptability strategies [15]. In contrast, bottom-up approaches rely on a distinct prefabrication system, specifically the open prefabrication system [12]. This approach, based on the prefabrication of building components, enables the creation of various shapes that can adapt to diverse cultural, thermal, and typological requirements, owing to their high degree of technological flexibility. This kind of prefabrication offers a valuable solution to facilitate assisted self-construction operations, permitting displaced people to participate in the construction of their homes. Additionally, THUs constructed using open prefabrication systems are designed to be disassemblable, flexible, and adaptable to different uses and occupant needs. These attributes extend the life cycle of THUs, allowing them to be repurposed in similar scenarios. The disassemblability also enhances the recycling and reusing potential of materials and components used in THU construction, aligning with CE practices [29]. THUs are designed according to Design for Disassembly principles [22], using lightweight, prefabricated, and modular systems that can be easily constructed, ensuring the speed of intervention required in post-disaster situations [15][30][31]. The ease of assembly and disassembly, according to Johnson [13], plays a crucial role in urban planning and city safety. In this regard, disassembling the THUs and relocating them to other areas helps prevent temporary sites, particularly those in peripheral regions, from becoming focal points of social dysfunction.

3. Temporary Housing Unit Design

Despite the significant relevance of THUs in post-disaster scenarios, as emphasized in the previous section, those constructed over time often lack the necessary features. Specifically, the majority of THUs are not economically, environmentally, or socially sustainable [6][13][14][15][32][33]. Negative environmental effects are related to the use of high embodied energy materials, such as concrete and steel, among others. Sometimes materials containing VOCs have been used, as highlighted by [7]. Furthermore, there is a lack of reuse and recycling of materials involved in THU’s construction. Once they reach the end of their lives, these materials often end up as waste. This situation arises due to the lack of an accurate design aimed at optimizing resource utilization and reducing consumption. This also makes THUs energy-intensive. On occasion, it becomes necessary to establish custom agreements with energy providers to reduce energy costs. In this regard, the case of MAP in the Emilia–Romagna region of Italy serves as a paradigm, as explained by [17].
THUs predominantly depend on prefabrication. Consequently, the choice of the prefabrication system employed has a relevant impact on transportation and logistics costs, which carry both economic and environmental implications. In general, THUs tend to be unaffordable, primarily because the imperative to speed up construction in the shortest possible time frame for accommodating displaced people often conflicts with affordability. Achieving cost-effectiveness could be facilitated by utilizing local resources, thereby reducing the need for expensive specialized labor and transportation costs. This approach also contributes to revitalizing local economies, particularly during challenging post-disaster periods [13][34][35]. Open prefabrication systems, in this context, can play a central role in cost reduction compared to closed systems. Furthermore, the expenses associated with THU’s production and construction can impact reconstruction operations, potentially prolonging the required time. At a social level, THUs hold importance in the reconstruction process. However, they often fail to meet the needs of displaced people. In many instances, THUs do not provide comfort levels comparable to pre-disaster conditions. This discrepancy arises because THUs are not designed to be culturally appropriate. It can be viewed as a consequence of the “one-size-fits-all” approach, which assumes that a single design can suit various post-disaster situations in different countries. However, this approach lacks site-specificity and neglects the culture and customs of a specific location. This type of thinking is typical of a top-down approach, as indicated by prevailing top-down approaches over bottom-up approaches in the literature [16]. The only advantage of a top-down approach over a bottom-up one appears to be the speed of construction, attributed to the use of ready-to-use systems. From a social perspective, the bottom-up approach emerges as a potentially more sustainable alternative to the top-down approach. The bottom-up approach encourages the exchange of knowledge between designers and the community, facilitating the identification of optimal technological solutions aligned with local culture and the needs of occupants.
All the challenges described above pertain to the micro-level, specifically involving the design and construction of THU. However, to comprehensively outline issues related to THUs in post-disaster scenarios, it is pertinent to address those concerning preparedness and a country’s response to disruptive events. These issues are associated with the macro level, encompassing decision-making and planning processes. Many times, countries have not been prepared to deal with the effects of a disruptive event. According to [36], the lack of preparedness primarily stems from inadequate planning and meta-planning. The former relates to the absence of anticipatory plans that outline actions to be taken immediately after a disaster and during the recovery phase. The latter refers to the outdated methods employed by public authorities in their planning and actions. The management of these planning phases can significantly impact the provision of THUs and future reconstruction efforts [8]. It is interesting to note that planning and meta-planning can be approached from either a top-down or a bottom-up perspective. Nowadays, the prevailing approach to facing these issues is top-down.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/buildings13122952

References

  1. UNISDR. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction; UNISDR: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Available online: https://www.undrr.org/publication/2009-unisdr-terminology-disaster-risk-reduction (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  2. CRED. 2022 Disasters in Numbers; CRED: Brussels, Belgium, 2023; Available online: https://cred.be/sites/default/files/2022_EMDAT_report.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  3. What Is a Disaster?|IFRC. Available online: https://www.ifrc.org/our-work/disasters-climate-and-crises/what-disaster (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  4. IFRC. World Disasters Report 2022. Trust, Equity an Local Actions. Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic to Avert the Next Global Crisis; IFRC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
  5. European Environment Agency. Mapping the Impacts of Natural Hazards and Technological Accidents in Europe: An Overview of the Last Decade; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2010. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/62638 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  6. Atmaca, N. Life-cycle assessment of post-disaster temporary housing. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 45, 524–538.
  7. Perrucci, D.; Baroud, H. A Review of Temporary Housing Management Modeling: Trends in Design Strategies, Optimization Models, and Decision-Making Methods. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10388.
  8. Caramaschi, S.; Coppola, A. Post-disaster ruins: The old, the new and the temporary. In The New Urban Ruins Vacancy, Urban Politics and International Experiments in the Post-Crisis City; O’Callaghan, C., Di Feliciantonio, C., Eds.; Policy Press University of Bristol: Bristol, UK, 2021; pp. 125–143.
  9. UNDRO. Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1982; Available online: http://digitallibrary.un.org/record/48456 (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  10. Pezzica, C.; Cutini, V.; Bleil de Souza, C. Mind the gap: State of the art on decision-making related to post-disaster housing assistance. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 53, 101975.
  11. Quarantelli, E.L. Patterns of sheltering and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 1995, 4, 43–53.
  12. Hany Abulnour, A. The post-disaster temporary dwelling: Fundamentals of provision, design and construction. HBRC J. 2014, 10, 10–24.
  13. Johnson, C. Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat Int. 2007, 31, 36–52.
  14. Arslan, H.; Cosgun, N. Reuse and recycle potentials of the temporary houses after occupancy: Example of Duzce, Turkey. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 702–709.
  15. Félix, D.; Branco, J.M.; Feio, A. Temporary housing after disasters: A state of the art survey. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 136–141.
  16. Sukhwani, V.; Napitupulu, H.; Jingnan, D.; Yamaji, M.; Shaw, R. Enhancing cultural adequacy in post-disaster temporary housing. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2021, 11, 100186.
  17. Paparella, R.; Caini, M. Sustainable Design of Temporary Buildings in Emergency Situations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8010.
  18. Bologna, R. Operational dimension of post-disaster housing temporality and technical control tools. TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2020, 20, 213–221.
  19. Félix, D.; Monteiro, D.; Branco, J.M.; Bologna, R.; Feio, A. The role of temporary accommodation buildings for post-disaster housing reconstruction. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2015, 30, 683–699.
  20. Bertoldini, M.; Campioli, A.; Ferrari, B.; Grandi, G.; Guastaroba, E.; Lavagna, M.; Zanelli, A. Progettare Oltre L’emergenza. Spazi e Tecniche per L’abitare Temporaneo; Il Sole24 Ore: Milan, Italy, 2009.
  21. Crowther, P. Design for Disassembly: An Architectural Strategy. In Design for Sustainability. Proceedings of the 1998 QUT Winter Colloquium 1998-07-01; Ganis, M., Ed.; QUT Publications: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 1999; pp. 27–33.
  22. Guy, B.; Ciarimboli, N. DfD. Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment: A Guide to Closed-Loop Design and Building; Pennsylvania State University: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007.
  23. Durmisevic, E.; Yeang, K. Designing for Disassembly (DfD). Archit. Des. 2009, 79, 134–137.
  24. Eberhardt, L.C.M.; Birkved, M.; Birgisdottir, H. Building design and construction strategies for a circular economy. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2022, 18, 93–113.
  25. UNECE. The Geneva UN Charter on Sustainable Housing. 2015. Available online: https://unece.org/DAM/hlm/charter/Language_versions/ENG_Geneva_UN_Charter.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  26. D’Auria, A. Abitare Nell’emergenza: Progettare per il Post-Disastro; Edifir: Firenze, Italy, 2014.
  27. Alfasi, N.; Portugali, J. Planning Just-in-Time versus planning Just-in-Case. Cities 2004, 21, 29–39.
  28. Cascone, S.M.; Caporlingua, M.; Russo, G.; Tomasello, N. La “prefabbricazione per l’emergenza”: Excursus storico dalla nascita alle moderne applicazioni. In Proceedings of the VII Convegno Internazionale “Storia dell’Ingegneria”, Napoli, Italy, 23–24 April 2018; D’Agostino, S., Fabricatore, G., Eds.; Cuzzolin: Naples, Italy, 2018.
  29. Ottenhaus, L.M.; Yan, Z.; Brandner, R.; Leardini, P.; Fink, G.; Jockwer, R. Design for adaptability, disassembly and reuse—A review of reversible timber connection systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 400, 132823.
  30. Maracchini, G.; D’Orazio, M. Improving the livability of lightweight emergency architectures: A numerical investigation on a novel reinforced-EPS based construction system. Build. Environ. 2022, 208, 108601.
  31. IFRC. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva. 2013. Available online: https://primarysources.brillonline.com/browse/human-rights-documents-online/international-federation-of-red-cross-and-red-crescent-societies-geneva;hrdhrd98132015012 (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  32. Hosseini, S.M.A.; Farahzadi, L.; Pons, O. Assessing the sustainability index of different post-disaster temporary housing unit configuration types. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102806.
  33. Ribera, F.; Regno, R.D.; Cucco, P. New frontiers of temporary buildings. Passive housing modules. AGATHÓN Int. J. Archit. Art Des. 2018, 4, 159–168.
  34. Maly, E.; Kondo, T. From Temporary to Permanent: Mississippi Cottages after Hurricane Katrina. J. Disaster Res. 2013, 8, 495–507.
  35. Maly, E.; Iwata, T. The Evolution of Localized Housing Recovery in Japan. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 273, 012055.
  36. Moroni, S.; De Franco, A.; Pacchi, C.; Chiffi, D.; Curci, F. Planning and meta-planning to cope with disruptive events: What can be learnt from the institutional response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. City Territ. Archit. 2023, 10, 29.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback