Identifying Temporary Housing Main Vertexes through Assessing Post-Disaster Recovery Programs

Authors: S. M. Amin Hosseini, Oriol Pons, Carmen Mendoza Arroyo, Albert de la Fuente

Abstract:

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, the major challenge most cities and societies face, regardless of their diverse level of prosperity, is to provide temporary housing (TH) for the displaced population (DP). However, the features of TH, which have been applied in previous recovery programs, greatly varied from case to case. This situation demonstrates that providing temporary accommodation for DP in a short period time and usually in great numbers is complicated in terms of satisfying all the beneficiaries’ needs, regardless of the societies’ welfare levels. Furthermore, when previously used strategies are applied to different areas, the chosen strategies are most likely destined to fail, unless the strategies are context and culturally based. Therefore, as the population of disaster-prone cities are increasing, decision-makers need a platform to help to determine all the factors, which caused the outcomes of the prior programs. To this end, this paper aims to assess the problems, requirements, limitations, potential responses, chosen strategies, and their outcomes, in order to determine the main elements that have influenced the TH process. In this regard, and in order to determine a customizable strategy, this study analyses the TH programs of five different cases as: Marmara earthquake, 1999; Bam earthquake, 2003; Aceh earthquake and tsunami, 2004; Hurricane Katrina, 2005; and, L’Aquila earthquake, 2009. The research results demonstrate that the main vertexes of TH are: (1) local characteristics, including local potential and affected population features, (2) TH properties, which needs to be considered in four phases: planning, provision/construction, operation, and second life, and (3) natural hazards impacts, which embraces intensity and type. Accordingly, this study offers decision-makers the opportunity to discover the main vertexes, their subsets, interactions, and the relation between strategies and outcomes based on the local conditions of each case. Consequently, authorities may acquire the capability to design a customizable method in the face of complicated post-disaster housing in the wake of future natural disasters.

Keywords: Post-disaster temporary accommodation, urban resilience, natural disaster, local characteristic.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1127262

References:

[1] S. Collins, T. Corsellis and A. Vitale, “Transitional shelter: understanding shelter from the emergency through reconstruction and beyond,” ALNAP, 2010.
[2] I. Davis, Shelter after disaster, Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press, 1978, p. 142.
[3] L. Wei, W. Li, K. Li, H. Liu and a. L. Chenguse, “Decision Support for Urban Shelter Locations Based on Covering Model,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 43, p. 59 – 64, 2012.
[4] S. Barakat, Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster, London: Overseas Development Institute, 2003.
[5] P. J. Chandler, “Environmental factors influencing the sitting of temporary housing,” Louisiana State University, 2007.
[6] O. El-Anwar, K. El-Rayes and A. Elnashai, “Optimizing Large-Scale Temporary Housing Arrangements after Natural Disasters,” Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 23, no. 2, 2009.
[7] F. Hadafi and A. Fallahi, “Temporary Housing Respond to Disasters in Developing Countries- Case Study: Iran-Ardabil and Lorestan Province Earthquakes,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1219-1225, 2010.
[8] S. M. A. Hosseini, A. de la Fuentea and O. Pons, “Multicriteria Decision-Making Method for Sustainable Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in Urban Areas,” Construction Engineering and Management, 2016a.
[9] V. Coffey and B. Trigunarsyah, “Rebuilding Housing after a Disaster: Factors for Failure,” in International Institute for Infrastructure, Renewal and, 2012.
[10] C. Johnson, “What’s the big deal about temporary housing? Planning considerations for temporary accommodation after disasters: Example of the 1999 Turkish earthquakes.,” in 2002 TIEMS disaster management conference., Waterloo, 2002.
[11] S. M. A. Hosseini, A. de la Fuentea and O. Pons, “Multi-criteria decision-making method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units technologies: A case study in Bam, 2003,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 20, pp. 38-51, 2016b.
[12] C. Johnson, G. Lizarralde and C. H. Davidson, “A systems view of temporary housing projects in post-disaster reconstruction,” Construction Management and Economics, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 367–378, 2006.
[13] Building Regulations, “Approved Document E - Resistance to the passage of sound,” 2010.
[14] C. Johnson, “Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey,” Habitat International, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 36–52, 2007a.
[15] J. Kennedy, J. Ashmore, E. Babister and I. Kelman, “The Meaning of ‘Build Back Better’: Evidence from Post-Tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka,” Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 24–36, 2008.
[16] E. L. Quarantelli, “Patterns of shelter and housing in US disasters,” Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 4, pp. 43-53, 1995.
[17] T. Corsellis and A. Vitale, transitional settlement displaced populations, Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2005.
[18] M. T. Tafti and R. Tomlinson, “The role of post-disaster public policy responses in housing recovery of tenants,” Habitat International, vol. 40, pp. 218-224, 2013.
[19] C. Johnson, “Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing,” Disasters, vol. 31, no. 4, 2007 b.
[20] J. Klugman, “Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All,” UNDP-HDRO Human Development Reports, 2011.
[21] M. Erdik, “Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) Earthquakes,” 2000.
[22] N. Tas, N. Cosgun and M. Tas, “A qualitative evaluation of the after earthquake permanent housings in Turkey in terms of user satisfaction—Kocaeli, Gundogdu Permanent Housing model,” Building and Environment, vol. 42, p. 3418–3431, 2007.
[23] Y. Unal, T. Kindap and M. Karaca., “Redefining the climate zones of Turkey using cluster analysis,” International Journal of Climatology, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1045-1055, 2003.
[24] M. Ghafory-Ashtiany and M. Hosseini, “Post-Bam earthquake: recovery and reconstruction,” Nat Hazards, vol. 44, p. 229–241, 2008.
[25] F. Steinberg, “Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia—Rebuilding lives,” Habitat International, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 150-166, 2007.
[26] J. Da Silva, Key Considerations in Post-Disaster Reconstruction, 2010.
[27] L. H. Sari, “Thermal and environmental assessment of post tsunami housing in Banda Aceh, Indonesia,” 2011.
[28] IFRC, “Preliminary impact evaluation of the transitional shelter programme in Aceh Province, Indonesia,” 2007.
[29] R. W. Kates, C. E. Colten, S. Laska and S. P. Leatherman., “Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a research perspective,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, no. 40, pp. 14653-14660, 2006.
[30] J. M. Nigg, J. Barnshaw and M. R. Torres, “Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans: Emergent issues in sheltering and temporary housing,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 604, no. 1, pp. 113-128, 2006.
[31] F. X. McCarthy, “FEMA disaster housing and Hurricane Katrina: overview, analysis, and congressional options,” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2008.
[32] D. E. Alexander, “The L'Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government policy on disaster response,” Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 325-342, 2010.
[33] T. Rossetto, N. Peiris, J. E. Alarcon, E. So, S. Sargeant, M. Free and V. S.-D. e. al., “The L’Aquila (Italy) Earthquake of 6th April 2009: A Preliminary Report by EEFIT,” 2009.
[34] D. E. Alexander, “Mortality and morbidity risk in the L’Aquila, Italy earthquake of 6 April 2009 and lessons to be learned,” in Human casualties in earthquakes, R. Spence, E. So and C. Scawthorn, Eds., Springer Netherlands, 2011b, pp. 185-197.
[35] H. Arslan and A. Unlu, “The evaluation of community participation in housing reconstruction projects after Düzce earthquake,” in Proceeding. International Conference and Student Competition on Post-Disaster Reconstruction" Meeting stakeholder interests", Florence. Italy, 2006.
[36] M. Fayazi and G. Lizarralde, “The Role of Low-Cost Housing in the Path from Vulnerability to Resilience,” Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 7, no. 3, 2013.
[37] B. Khazai and E. Hausler, “Intermediate Shelters in Bam and Permanent Shelter Reconstruction in Villages Following the 2003 Bam, Iran, Earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 21, no. S1, p. 487–511, 2005.
[38] K. Amini Hosseini, S. Hosseinioon and Z. Pooyan, “An investigation into the socioeconomic aspects of two major earthquakes in Iran,” Disasters, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 516-535, 2013.
[39] N. E. Weiss, “Rebuilding housing after Hurricane Katrina: lessons learned and unresolved issues,” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2006.
[40] K. F. McCarthy, D. J. Peterson, N. Sastry and M. Pollard, “The Repopulation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina,” Rand Corporation, 2006.
[41] D. E. Alexander, “Civil Protection amid Disasters and Scandals,” in Italian Politics: Much Ado about Nothing?, E. G. a. E. Pasotti, Ed., New York and London: Berghahn, 2011a, pp. 180-197.
[42] T. Rossetto, D. D’Ayala, F. Gori, R. Persio, J. Han, V. Novelli, S. M. Wilkinson and e. al., “The value of multiple earthquake missions: the EEFIT L’Aquila Earthquake experience,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 277-305, 2014.
[43] A. Özerdem and G. Rufini, “L'Aquila's reconstruction challenges: has Italy learned from its previous earthquake disasters?,” Disasters, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 119-143, 2013.
[44] F. Fois and G. Forino, “The self‐built ecovillage in L'Aquila, Italy: community resilience as a grassroots response to environmental shock,” Disasters, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 719-739, 2014.