Matthew Wilson 210702424 Architectural Research ...

2 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
Design and Typesetting by Matthew Wilson. Set in FF DIN & Adobe Garamond Pro (12pt/20pt). Cover image: UNHCR Emergency Shelters in Somalia.
Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective Matthew Wilson 210702424

Architectural Research Project SRR311

CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW

3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

5

2.1 Architectural practice and relationship with Community

5

2.2 Design Considerations and Factors

7



2.3 Sustainability & Long Term Planning

9



2.4 Disaster Response and Management of Shelter Strategies

10



2.5 Conclusion from Literature Review

12

3 CASE STUDIES

13



3.1 1999 Düzce Earthquake in Turkey

13



3.2 2006 Jogjakarta Earthquake in Indonesia

15



3.3 Summary

18

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

19



4.1 Appropriate roles of architect, community and professionals

19



4.2 Design Factors

19



4.3 Problems and Challenges

19

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Architectural Research Project SRR311 Research Supervisor Ursula De Jong 2011 Matthew Wilson Design and Typesetting by Matthew Wilson Set in FF DIN & Adobe Garamond Pro (12pt/20pt) Cover image: UNHCR Emergency Shelters in Somalia

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

21

3 1 OVERVIEW This research paper investigates the potential involvement of architects in emergency situations. The design of temporary, emergency shelter in response to natural disasters will be the context for this paper. The research question will be: What role can architects play in the facilitation of temporary, emergency shelter in the wake of large scale natural disasters? The specific aims of this paper, stemming from evident issues in this field, are to identify appropriate roles and interaction between the architect, the local community and other building professionals; to identify major design factors that need to be addressed in emergency shelter design including availability and sustainability of materials and ease of construction; and to identify likely problems or challenges faced in this field and thus propose potential solutions to these. The following definitions will be used to guide this research: temporary emergency shelter – according to Quarantelli, this can be divided into two groups; temporary shelter – that which is used during the immediate weeks after the disaster (including tents accompanied by the provision of food, water and medical treatment)1; and temporary housing – constructed in a temporary location, allowing for a return to normal daily activities (this can take the form of prefabricated housing)2 and is usually intended to be used for up to 2 years following the disaster. According to the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordination (UNDRO) Office, emergency shelter serves several vital functions: protection against the elements, storage of belongings and protection of property, establishment of territorial claims, emotional security and privacy;3 large scale natural disasters – according to Schooler, these are defined based on ‘the amount of damage done and the amount of assistance required; … (where there is) substantial disruption to people’s lives’.4 There will be a focus on disasters that take place suddenly, 1 EL Quarantelli, ‘Patterns of shelter and housing in US disasters’, Disasters Prevention and Management, vol. 4, no. 3, 1995, cited in Johnson C, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey’, Habitat International, vol. 31, 2007, retrieved 29 March 2011, Science Direct, p. 38. 2 ibid. 3 United Nations Disaster Relief Co-Ordinator (UNDRO), Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for assistance, United Nations, New York, 1982, retrieved 2 April, , p. 8. 4 TY Schooler, ‘Disasters, Coping with’, in NJ Smelser & PB Baltes (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Be-

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

including floods and cyclones, but particularly earthquakes. The methodology for this research includes an extensive review of literature restricted to publications from 2000 to the present (With the exception of a landmark UN publication of 1982). The literature review outlines the current issues evident in this field, whilst drawing attention to a range of potential solutions. To clarify the issues identified and explored in the literature, this paper will examine two case studies of emergency shelter; the 1999 Düzce Earthquake in Turkey and the 2006 Jogjakarta Earthquake in Indonesia. Whilst the literature considered the broad spectrum of natural disasters, the case studies will consider only earthquakes. Strengths and weaknesses of each response will be identified and compared, concluding in a summary evaluation. Findings from this paper will be brought together relating to the stated research question, and responding to the specific aims, concluding with future considerations for the architect working in this field to take on.

havioral Sciences, Elsevier, 2001, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct, p. 3713.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

4

5 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Emergency shelter design in the wake of natural disasters is an important issue particularly given that the world is experiencing such disasters in increasing frequency due to the effects of climate change. This field of research is therefore quite topical and interesting but nonetheless complex. The literature demonstrates the dilemma for architects to both interact within communities but also bring in knowledge, expertise and technology from outside. Themes running through the literature are: architectural practice and relationship with the community, design considerations, sustainability and long term planning, and response and management of emergency shelter. 2.1 Architectural practice and relationship with Community It is clear that there is a strong need for architects to connect and interact within the local community devastated by the natural disaster. Emergency Architects Australia (EAA) state this as one of their key objectives, helping to avoid a ‘victim mentality’ among those affected.5 In response to the 2007 Solomon Islands Earthquake, building a school as part of the reconstruction process, EAA ‘maintained a presence on site … with stipendiary project facilitators who sourced materials and supplemented local’s construction and materials knowledge.6 Cameron Sinclair of Architecture For Humanity (AFH) points out that the real value of architects connecting with the community is to empower them, encourage development of new skills and a greater sense of ownership of the projects that are being built for them. Interestingly, he believes that ‘there is no role for architects in emergencies’. Sinclair argues that in such an overwhelming and somewhat chaotic environment of a natural disaster, architects ‘wandering ... from village to village asking for projects’ simply get in the way and end up ‘disrupting the emergency process’. Sinclair therefore sees the role of architect on more of a long term basis.7 5 About Emergency Architects Australia, Emergency Architects Australia, 2010, retrieved 15 March 2011, . 6 P Johns, ‘Humanitarian: Solomon Islands, East Timor, India, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Nepal, Liberia’, Architecture Australia, vol. 99, no. 5, 2010, pp. 65-68. 7 M McDonald , ‘Designing A Wish [Interview with Cameron Sinclair, co-founder of Architecture for Humanity’,

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

World Shelters, previously headed by the late Bruce LeBel, maintain a strong commitment, as architects and designers, in engaging with the community. Not only local labour, but also local materials are a crucial aspect of successful emergency design. According to LeBel, it’s ‘not only having an ability to solve the logistical problems but also being able to maximize the use of locally available materials and labour’8 that is vital. Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF) International’s Building Opportunities and Livelihoods in Darfur (BOLD) project demonstrates the role that the community can play in rebuilding alongside the architect and designers, through promoting local production and employment (in this case, the production of the woven building material fabrics by local weavers). One of the challenges presented in this project was ‘finding the balance between a host community’s desire to prevent refugee camps from becoming permanent communities and the needs of refugees for income generation and community building’.9 Unfortunately, this article does not elaborate on how effectively this has been achieved. From the literature there is a consistent theme of the need to employ ‘local professionals with local knowledge in disaster management situations’10 and furthermore the necessity for professionals to ‘establish a strong relationship with the (locals who) know what the community can achieve and sustain’.11 According to Tucker, communities recover better from disasters when they are allowed to recover as communities.12 Johns points out, however that while ‘having an architect living in the community contributes to the likelihood of getting a building out of the ground … it makes it a whole lot more expensive and brings up insurance, registration and language issues’.13 This is a continual challenge that architects have to face. UNDRO highlights that often few assisting groups have prior housing or building experience and, therefore, are not familiar with the types of materials required or available - often indigenous and Reed Business Information Limited (New Scientist), vol. 189, no. 2543, 2006, retrieved 15 March 2011, Academic Search Complete, pp. 50-51. 8 ‘Interview with Bruce LeBel: World Shelters’ in Architecture for Humanity [AFH] (ed.), Design Like You Give A Damn; Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, Metropolis Books, New York, 2006, p. 66. 9 ibid., p. 72. 10 T Lloyd-Jones, (ed), R Kalra, B Mulyawan & M Theis, The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response, University of Westminster, London, 2009, retrieved 2 April 2011, , p. 5. 11 ibid., p. 6. 12 P Tucker, ‘Rethinking Emergency Housing’, Futurist, vol. 40, no. 6, 2006, retrieved 15 March 2011, Academic Search Complete, pp. 68-69 13 Johns, loc. cit.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

6

salvageable materials are overlooked. UNDRO therefore notes the need for architects and other emergency shelter facilitators ‘to understand the local building process which exists before a disaster’.14 Evidently, it is critical for architects working in the field of emergency shelter, to establish strong links and relationships with the community. 2.2 Design Considerations and Factors With an awareness of community needs and practices, the architect is better placed to make conscious and sympathetic design decisions. This is evident in the recent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) design for Lightweight Emergency Tents. This design takes into account the need for privacy within an unfamiliar refugee community. To accommodate this, the tents are designed in two partitions in order ‘to divide the tent (and create) a semiprivate space where women can change and parents can sleep away from children’.15 Furthermore, consideration has been given to the arrangement of the tents, resulting entrances at the short ends of the tents which are arranged on an angle ‘to prevent those in facing tents from being able to see inside when the flaps are opened’.16 Similarly, Lloyd-Jones et al emphasise the architect’s unique role and responsibility to ensure connection with social and religious customs in the design and layout of emergency shelter. Taking into account local design types and styles is an important aspect of effective emergency housing design as demonstrated by Caia, Ventimiglie & Maass’ research into housing types used in response to the 1997 Marche Earthquake in Italy. This research investigates ‘whether the psychological wellbeing of earthquake survivors two years after the traumatic event would vary as a function of type of temporary housing’,17 through comparing the psychological effects of residents of container temporary housing to more traditional dacha temporary housing. These are further compared with a ‘control’ group who had not lost their homes. Dachas, as opposed to containers are much more of a conventional dwelling and ‘match the prototype of a home much better than containers’.18 According to Caia et al, these characteristics (particularly the gable roof and timber cladding) are ‘symbolically associated

14 UNDRO, op. cit., p. 6. 15 AFH, op. cit., p. 62. 16 ibid. 17 G Caia, F Ventimiglie & A Maass, ‘Container vs. dacha: The psychological effects of temporary housing characteristics on earthquake survivors’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, 2010, pp. 60-66, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct, p. 60. 18 ibid., p. 62.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

7

to feminine characteristics such as tenderness and emotionality’.19 In line with their hypothesis, Caia et al found that ‘earthquake victims living in containers reported more psychological stress symptoms than those living in dachas’20 as well as feeling ‘less attached to their home’.21 Perhaps the most surprising finding, however, was that ‘dacha inhabitants were no less satisfied with and only slightly less attached to their homes than ‘control’ participants who continued to live in their own permanent homes of about 3 times the size’.22 It is quite clear from these findings that a careful consideration of local styles and building methods incorporated into the design of temporary housing is crucial to its success. Similarly, Gees points out that a pivotal criterion of a shelter’s effectiveness and psychological benefit is it’s ability to provide comfort and security directly correlated with the length of time they are expected to remain residing in it.23 Johnson highlights the need for shelter design to ultimately ‘provide safety from the elements and … a minimum level of sanitation’24 but notes that ‘the level of comfort it provides … and the quality of the temporary units has to be linked to local living standards’.25 There are currently many designs for temporary shelter that seek to take into account the local needs and living practises as well as functional considerations. One such is example is Ferrara Design’s Global Village Shelter. This basic shelter, effectively portrays itself as a ‘home’, through the use of a low pitch roof on top of a pre-fabricated square structure. The designed is additionally strengthened by the fact that it is ‘cost effective’, easily transportable, ‘can be erected in less than an hour’ and requires only ‘two people using only a set of diagrams and common tools’,26 therefore suitable for communities that may not have a high degree of literacy. The drawback of the design, however is the limited number that are able to be transported in shipping containers in compared with the alternative of tents (88 compared to 500-1000). Similarly, World Shelters, with their new 60m2 TransShel have sought to ‘adapt to use of local materials and architecture in order to maximize cultural acceptability and local economic benefits’.27 19 ibid. 20 ibid., p. 64. 21 ibid., p. 63. 22 ibid., p. 65. 23 E Gees, ‘FEMA Housing: Statement to the Committee on House Homeland Security’, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 7 August 2009, retrieved 15 March 2011, MasterFILE Premier. 24 Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 452. 25 ibid., p. 453. 26 AFH, op. cit., p. 74. 27 ‘Windows on World Shelters’, World Shelters, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, retrieved 2 April 2011, . 28 Gees, loc. cit. 29 H Arslan, & N Cosgun, ‘Reuse and Recycle potentials of the temporary houses after occupancy: Example of Düzce, Turkey’, Building And Environment, vol. 43, 2008, pp. 702-709, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct, p. 709. 30 AFH, loc. cit. 31 ibid. 32 C Johnson, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey’, Habitat International, vol. 31, 2007, pp. 36-52, retrieved 29 March 2011, Science Direct, p. 48.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

9

acceptable as a temporary house often means supplying a structure that is durable well beyond the short time period that it is needed as temporary housing’.33 Johnson proposes five solutions: long-term use of the temporary houses, dismantling, storage, sale, demolish, and/ or reuse. Long-term use, according to Johnson in another article, ‘offers many positive opportunities for the community, especially when affordable housing is in short supply’,34 due to the fact that permanent housing is often not available to all sectors of society, it allows for new migrants that come into the area to take up residency and can even allow for what Johnson describes as ‘the modernisation of family life’35 where young families and the elderly have the opportunity to live apart from the rest of the family. The downside however is that ‘long term use … (is) often expensive for the government, which (has) to subsidise the administrative and operating costs of the facilities for an extended period of time’.36 The third issue in relation to emergency housing is site restoration, most commonly dealing with site pollution. A major factor in the clean up process stems from the ownership and conditions of the land in use. Three of the four case studies investigated by Johnson from the Turkish Earthquake were on Government land so ‘there was no obligation to restore the original condition of the site and therefore most sites were left polluted’.37 This contrasted with the fourth study, implemented by a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) on private land under lease, and since it was arranged through a contract was required to be restored to its former condition. It is clear from these studies that for Government owned and run emergency shelter programmes to effectively be cleaned up, the Government needs to create inbuilt measures and incentives for this to happen. 2.4 Disaster Response and Management of Shelter Strategies The need for pre-disaster preparation is a clear theme in the literature. This ultimately includes structuring groups in place to deal with various aspects of the disaster, developing a range of strategies to put in place throughout the relief effort, and even acquiring knowledge as to where to source materials and labour for shelters. UNDRO state that ‘disaster relief can be made ever more effective through systematized planning and management and that (this) does help, at least, to reduce some of the harshest effects of disasters’.38 33 ibid. 34 C Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, Disasters, vol. 31, no. 4, 2007, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct, p. 454. 35 ibid. 36 ibid., p. 455. 37 Johnson, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 49. 38 UNDRO, op. cit., p. iii.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

10

Johnson, through research into a series of six case studies into temporary housing concludes current and past emergency shelter programmes suffer from ‘excessively high cost, late delivery, poor location, improper unit designs … (due to) a prevalence of ad hoc tactical planning, rather than pre-disaster strategic planning’.39 Johnson points out that ‘since the actual need for temporary housing in the event of a disaster cannot be determined beforehand … it is necessary to have a variety of contingency sheltering programmes in place that can be activated in stages’,40 however, ‘if no pre-disaster strategic planning takes place then stopgap tactical planning will inevitably happen after the disaster’.41 The findings from the case studies indicate that pre-disaster strategic planning was most useful in terms of timing of shelter provision (which Johnson sees as ‘the most important aspect of any temporary housing programme’).42 With good preparation and planning, the ‘temporary houses (were) built relatively quickly’ compared to those without pre-disaster planning.43 El-Anwat, El-Rayes and Elnashai have conducted research into emerging technologies to allow such preparatory planning to be undertaken most efficiently. In their research paper, they investigate a new automated system consisting of computer simulation and data collection software to ‘provide temporary housing solutions’44 with the potential ‘to support decision-makers in identifying optimal postdisaster temporary housing arrangements’.45 The system includes three main models: data collection (enabling emergency services to quickly gather and store up-to-date data about temporary housing arrangements); automated optimization (generating optimal solutions from the data collection in the most effective and efficient manner); and output analysis and visualization (enabling decision-makers to visualize the solutions to select an optimal temporary housing allocation plan).46 If proven reliable, this method could be invaluable when quick, appropriate responses are called for in providing emergency shelter. In terms of strategic management of emergency shelter programmes Johnson helpfully lists eight key considerations. (1) Taking into account organisational design whereby a single organisation is responsible for the overall reconstruction; (2) Identifying the vulnerable groups within the affected popula39 Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 436. 40 ibid., p. 438. 41 ibid., p. 439. 42 ibid., p. 451. 43 ibid., p. 449. 44 O El-Anwat, K El-Rayes & A Elnashai, ‘An automated system for optimizing post disaster temporary housing allocation’, Automation in Construction, vol. 18, 2009, pp. 983-993, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct, p. 983. 45 ibid. 46 ibid., p. 992.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

11

tion and how to cater for these; (3) understanding local social, economic and climatic conditions of the locale; (4) developing an overall reconstruction strategy; (5) careful consideration of design and materials; (6) choice of a suitable location, close and accessible; (7) identifying services that will need to be part of the programme; and (8) planning for the long-term uses or outcomes of the temporary emergency shelters.47 2.5 Conclusion from Literature Review It is clear from the literature that in the effective facilitation of emergency shelter, there needs to be a strong interaction with the community. For architects, particularly, the needs to be a strong relationship with, and understanding of, the community for any design work to be truly owned and accepted. This has major implication for the actual design of emergency shelter, most evident in the choice of materials and style of construction reflecting those which the community is accustomed with. The successful integration of such community minded design can contribute greatly to the psychological well being of those affected by the disaster, and is certainly an area where the architect’s expertise and skills can make a real difference above shelters mass produced by manufacturers and engineers. Relating to design consideration is the need for successful emergency shelter programmes to embrace a sustainable approach to both the implementation and deconstruction of emergency shelter. This includes: (1) careful choice of appropriate, locally sourced materials and construction techniques; (2) long term planning for shelters, particularly transitioning between temporary and permanent; and (3) site restoration, and removal of pollution affected by land ownership and conditions. Finally, there is evidently a need for pre-disaster preparation for the facilitation of emergency shelter. It is critical for groups, like architect’s to know at least in part what their role is in responding to disasters before they even occur. However, their does remain gaps in the literature in relation to exactly how Architects can be involved in pre-disaster planning, therefore remaining a key area for future investigation.

47 Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 456.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

12

13 3 CASE STUDIES In order to clarify the observations made throughout the literature review, this paper will examine two case studies both chosen as responses to earthquakes; the disaster type that is the most sudden, unexpected and therefore hardest to prepare for. The case studies, which are now several years old, have been deliberately chosen, as they have had time for research and evaluation regarding their successes and failures to be conducted. 3.1 1999 Düzce Earthquake in Turkey In late 1999, Turkey was rocked by two devastating earthquakes in the region of Marmara and Bolu. Johnson describes the region as ‘the industrial heartland of the country to the east of Istanbul’.48 The disaster was severe, killing over 18,000 people and leaving 300,000 people homeless. Moreover, the earthquake occurred in densely populated areas and fast growing towns. Johnson notes that ‘the widespread destruction and high death toll were largely a result of shoddy building construction ... when (15 years earlier) lack of supervision and accountability led to the improper use of materials and construction techniques in five-to eight-storey ... buildings’.49 In response to the disaster, the government initiated ‘a three step housing strategy for those affected by the earthquake, beginning with the provision of temporary shelter, then temporary housing and later permanent housing’.50 A range of NGO’s also ran emergency housing programmes alongside those run by the government. The overall housing programme was managed by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (MPWS) which collaborated with local governments and related government ministries for land supply and infrastructure installations.51 The MPWS settled the cost of the units at US$5000 each with a total cost of for the programme at US$122 million not including NGO do-

48 Johnson, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 41. 49 Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 442 . 50 Johnson, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing’, loc. cit. 51 ibid., p. 42.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

nations.52 Johnson notes that ‘choosing the location for the temporary housing took longer than expected and slowed construction’.53 In the end, the temporary housing was built on a range of sites, with priority given to government land54 but with some additional leased private land. Generally, most of the housing was in large settlements of up to 2000 units including access roads, postal facilities, markets, schools, clinics and day-care centres.55 This allowed the temporary settlements to effectively act as a community, even though temporary. On the flip-side however, because of the large distance away from the city, these new temporary communities needed to be fairly self-sufficient which thus made them more expensive to build. According to Johnson, ‘those who had been homeowners before the earthquakes were rehoused in permanent reconstructed dwellings about three years later’.56 However, this did not account for all people, and many tenants and new migrants remained in the units until eventually being forced out, 4-6 years after the initial disaster.57 This increased the expense of the project as the government ‘had to subsidise the administrative and operating costs of the facilities for an extended period’.58 Unfortunately, even when the houses were finally removed, the sites were generally left in a state of disrepair. This was not the case on the privately owned land as ‘the government had signed lease contracts (which therefore meant that the land) had to be cleared and restored to its former condition’.59 However, on government owned land where there was no obligation to restore the original condition of the site there remained much pollution long after vacancy.60 The entire housing programme was constructed of factory-made prefabricated panels and components which were bought locally from local manufacturers. This enabled the supply for the housing to also support the local pre-fabricating industries in Turkey.61 Some housing was also constructed out of wood drawing on the resources available in the particular region. Ultimately, however, the speed of 52 ibid. 53 Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, loc. cit. 54 Arslan & Cosgun, op. cit., p. 705. 55 Johnson, ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, loc. cit. 56 ibid. 57 ibid., p. 443. 58 ibid., p. 455. 59 Johnson, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing’, op. cit., p. 49. 60 ibid. 61 ibid.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

14

delivery remained a more important factor in the facilitation of these emergency shelters than choices of material or design. Arslan and Cosgun give an insightful inside view of how the community reacted to the shelters. On the whole, despite the major focus of timeliness, most dwellers thought that the temporary housing began and ended the construction process too late. Additionally, occupants felt that there was inadequate social areas and public services and that the buildings were placed too close together.62 The only positive feedback came in relation to the quality of electrical and sewerage systems. Finally, Arslan and Cosgun noted that many dwellers felt it necessary to extend their temporary housing, with the plan to use the buildings to the end of their lifetime63 rather than the intention as temporary dwellings. This study demonstrates that often while there can appear to be successes from the management level (the timeliness of delivery is most evident here), it can be perceived quite differently on the ground within the community. 3.2 2006 Jogjakarta Earthquake in Indonesia On May 27, 2006, Jogjakarta was struck by an earthquake of magnitude 6.3 on the Richter scale. This disaster claimed the lives of 6000 people, injured over 20,000 and destroyed around 300,000 houses, with a further 300,000 severely damaged. This left many dislocated and homeless. In the following months various Government agencies and NGO’s (collectively known as the International Humanitarian Response System – IHRS) provided emergency shelter in response to the disaster. Fortunately the disaster occurred within close range of major offices of various NGOs who were well equipped to handle disasters, in both Jogjakarta itself and nearby Aceh. An important aspect of the disaster recovery and rebuilding programme was the use of clusters rather than sectors in disaster management. Traditionally sectors responsible for areas such as health, education, water and sanitation have been used to manage the various aspects of disasters. In the recovery effort of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, one major problem was the lack of co-ordination between the UN and NGO sectors, particularly given that NGO’s received larger, prompter sources of funding than the UN. This meant that many, competing agencies and sectors had more power than the UN and ultimately lead to ‘gross misspending (with) poor outcomes’.64 Additionally, there are often many issues that arise within a disaster situation that do not fit into just one sector or category, such as gender

62 Arslan & Cosgun, op. cit., p. 707. 63 ibid. 64 G MacRae, and D Hodgkin, ‘Half full or half empty? Shelter after the Jogjakarta earthquake’, Disasters, vol. 35, no. 1, 2011, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct, p. 247

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

15

and protection of the vulnerable.65 The alternative, applied during the Jogjakarta recovery, is the use of clusters of agencies, designed to be less rigid, hierarchical and UN-centric. This allows much greater interaction between groups and clearer management.66 The disaster occurred four months before the start of the rainy season so it was critical to provide emergency shelter quickly (anything from tents to temporary housing). After a year and a half, most people had been properly rehoused. The housing programme consisted primarily of the construction of Transitional Shelters (T-Shelters) which were small, easily constructed houses of light, semi-permanent materials. The international model for such shelters usually includes materials such as ‘timber framing, corrugated iron roofing and sometimes plywood walling’.67 It was noted by architects and other local professionals, that a more appropriate and effective solution could be achieved by using local materials like ‘bamboo-framed structures with woven bamboo cladding and temporary tarpaulin roofs over which tiles could later be laid’.68 Such buildings not only suited the tropical environment but also the social norms of the area better than the use of more standardised and generic materials. MacRae and Hodgkin note several factors that can be attributed to the relative success of this temporary housing programme: (1) a large number of people were sheltered in a relatively short time span - 85,000 temporary shelters, ‘core’ houses and emergency tarpaulins within 12 months; (2) the shelter designs were culturally, environmentally and technically appropriate, incorporating local knowledge and practice into the international response; (3) the funding of the project was managed very well, achieving much more in terms of emergency shelter with less, in comparison with the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami; and (4) there were high levels of community participation, which thus led to higher levels of community satisfaction.69 There were however several factors inherent to the disaster area that allowed for much of this success. These included (1) the fact that the disaster occurred close to a major city, where many resources for emergency relief were available - according to MacRae and Hodgkin, ‘Jogjakarta has arguably the largest and strongest civil society resources in Indonesia’ 70 to support relief efforts; (2) much of the surrounding infrastructure remained intact; (3) and despite the large death toll, there still remained much 65 ibid., p. 246. 66 ibid., p. 247. 67 ibid., p. 250. 68 ibid. 69 ibid., p. 251. 70 ibid., p. 252.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

16

local expertise available for reconstruction efforts such as builders, suppliers and community leaders. MacRae and Hodgkin go as far as to say that ‘if one had to choose a place in Indonesia with the best potential for recovery, Jogjakarta would (be) the prime candidate’.71 Problems did exist within the programme which included: (1) not enough locally-based, smaller-scale approaches to housing construction; (2) the language barrier was exacerbated by conducting all joint cluster meetings in English, with the minutes translated after the meeting, making it significantly more difficult for locals to voice concerns; and (3) while some funding agencies were committed to the financial support of the cluster system, others gave only sporadic support, some none at all.72 The locals involved within the reconstruction process gave further critique including a perceived lack of community concern from many of the agencies involved in the recovery effort – working in offices more than in the villages, ‘talking more than doing and knowing next to nothing about local realities’;73 and a perception that international staff saw themselves as superior.

71 ibid., p. 253. 72 ibid., p. 255. 73 ibid., p. 256.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

17

18

3.3 Summary Table 1: Case Study Summary Comparison Table 1: 1999 Düzce, Turkey Management Local Government Ministry (MPWS) overseeing Government and NGO involvement People Affected 300,000 homeless

Total Units required Total cost Cost per unit Location Time taken for provision of temporary housing Time of occupancy within temporary housing Materials

40 621 $US122 million $US5000 Mainly Government owned land, some private leased land 8 months

2: 2006 Jogjakarta, Indonesia Clusters of International and Local Government and NGO’s working together in collaboration with the IHRS Over 300,000 homeless, with 300,000 additional houses severely damaged 85 000 $US300 million $US1500-$US3000 N/A 12 months

Intended for 3 years, but extended to N/A 6 years Local factory-made prefabricated panels and components Some wood construction

Bamboo-framed structures with woven bamboo cladding and temporary tarpaulin roofs, with tiles laid over the top

There was a consistent theme from both studies of the need to have strong interaction between Government, NGOs and the community. The two studies, however, in many ways endeavoured to relate to the community in very different ways. The former through sourcing locally manufactured but fairly industrial materials, the latter through using more vernacular materials and methods relating to the surrounding housing types. It is important to note that in the latter study, the architects involved in the housing provided a crucial means in suggesting and delivering this type of housing. Based on reports from users it would seem that the latter achieved this relationship with the locale more effectively74 and reflects themes in the literature pointing towards the importance of providing ‘homes’ rather than just housing for the affected community. In terms of programme management, the cluster system implemented in the latter study was most effective in coordinating the various professional disciplines, than the alternative of sectorial management, pointing towards the need for multi-disciplinary interaction throughout the recovery process. 74 Arslan & Cosgun, op. cit., p. 707.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

19 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, it is clear that the architect can indeed play an important role in the facilitation of emergency housing. There are, however, some important considerations that have become evident over the course of this paper. These can be summarised under the specific aims of this research: 4.1 Appropriate roles of architects, community and other building professionals • It is imperative for the architect to make strong links within the community, the building labour force (both local and imported) and management bodies for effective delivery of housing. • This is most effectively applied when the architect can ‘maintain a presence on site’ 75 as well as in the design office. 4.2 Design Factors • Communities recover better when the emergency shelter is sympathetically designed reflecting the vernacular styles and customs of the community. • Careful choice of locally supplied, sustainable, and environmentally appropriate materials contributes significantly to the overall success of emergency shelter. 4.3 Problems and Challenges • There is evidently a continual challenge transitioning from temporary to permanent housing. In all of the considered examples in this paper, this transition was not achieved particularly well. A potential solution to this problem may be either through transitioning into more affordable and accessible permanent housing after the temporary phase or moving straight into a type permanent housing immediately following the disaster. • Site restoration and removal of pollution was an issue in some examples, resulting from lack of incentive to clean up government-owned land. This could be potentially solved by either use of private lease-hold land or stronger conditions implemented by the government on the use of public 75 Johns, op. cit., p. 65.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

land. • Sectorial management of emergency housing programmes can be problematic, leading to lack of communication and understanding of individual roles. The Jogjakarta case study showed that the use of clusters of professionals and disciplines can greatly minimise these potential problems. Ultimately, there is much potential for architects to contribute postively in the design and facilitation of emergency shelter.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

20

21 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY About Emergency Architects Australia, Emergency Architects Australia, 2010, retrieved 15 March 2011, . Architecture for Humanity (ed.), Design Like You Give A Damn; Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, Metropolis Books, New York, 2006. Arslan, H, & N Cosgun, ‘Reuse and Recycle potentials of the temporary houses after occupancy: Example of Düzce, Turkey’, Building And Environment, vol. 43, 2008, pp. 702-709, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. Caia, G, F Ventimiglie & A Maass, ‘Container vs. dacha: The psychological effects of temporary housing characteristics on earthquake survivors’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, 2010, pp. 60-66, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. Crawford, C, P Manfield & A McRobie, ‘Assessing the thermal performance of an emergency shelter system’, Energy and Buildings, vol. 37, 2005, pp. 471-483, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. El-Anwat, O, K El-Rayes & A Elnashai, ‘An automated system for optimizing post disaster temporary housing allocation’, Automation in Construction, vol. 18, 2009, pp. 983-993, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. Gees E, ‘FEMA Housing: Statement to the Committee on House Homeland Security’, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 7 August 2009, retrieved 15 March 2011, MasterFILE Premier. Johnson C, ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey’, Habitat International, vol. 31, 2007, pp. 36-52, retrieved 29 March 2011, Science Direct.

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

22 Johnson C, ‘Stratefic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’, Disasters, vol. 31, no. 4, 2007, pp. 435-458, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. Johns, P, ‘Humanitarian: Solomon Islands, East Timor, India, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Nepal, Liberia’, Architecture Australia, vol. 99, no. 5, 2010, pp. 65-68. Lloyd-Jones, T, (ed), R Kalra, B Mulyawan & M Theis, The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response, University of Westminster, London, 2009, retrieved 2 April 2011, . MacRae, G, and D Hodgkin, ‘Half full or half empty? Shelter after the Jogjakarta earthquake’, Disasters, vol. 35, no. 1, 2011, pp. 243-267, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. McDonald M, ‘Designing A Wish [Interview with Cameron Sinclair, co-founder of Architecture for Humanity’, Reed Business Information Limited (New Scientist), vol. 189, no. 2543, 2006, pp. 50-51, retrieved 15 March 2011, Academic Search Complete. Schooler, TY, ‘Disasters, Coping with’, in NJ Smelser & PB Baltes (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, 2001, pp. 3713-3718, retrieved 2 April 2011, Science Direct. Tucker, P, ‘Rethinking Emergency Housing’, Futurist, vol. 40, no. 6, 2006, pp. 68-69, retrieved 15 March 2011, Academic Search Complete. United Nations Disaster Relief Co-Ordinator (UNDRO), Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for assistance, United Nations, New York, 1982, retrieved 2 April, ‘Windows on World Shelters’, World Shelters, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, retrieved 2 April 2011,

Emergency Shelter An Architectural Perspective

Matthew Wilson

Architectural Research Project SRR311