Dwelling after disaster

Alternative options to ‘shelter’: High tech designs and why prescribed designs have historically failed.

The Need for Dwelling after Disaster

Every so often larger than normal pieces of cosmic energy lean on human affairs. The community dies, and ever tells what the face of maelstrom looked like.

Stewart Brand, The Last Whole Earth Catalog (Access to Tools, 1970)

2

Universal Shelter Arguably the most important response in a disaster situation, shelter is one of the first requirements and starts from day one. Shelter forms vary, Davis & Alexander (2016) write of the following ‘provisional shelter’ options after disaster has struck: • Repair of damaged dwellings • Spontaneous shelter • Provided shelter • Transitional shelter (temporary) • Transitional Shelter (with a view of turning to permanence) • Move from provisional shelter to permanent dwelling Of these options, many designs have been proposed to create a ‘universal’ shelter with the ability to be implemented in the event of disaster. The only shelter response recognised as being ‘universal’ is the tent. However, for obvious reasons, it is often the case that a simple tent does not meet the basic living needs for affected populations, especially when recovery becomes protracted and weather conditions are poor.

There are many examples of people having been forced to live in both emergency and transitional shelters long after the intended lifespan of such shelter has been outlived.

The primary reasons for the tent being such a successful response include the fact that tents are generally affordable for donors, as well as being quick and easy to distribute and erect.

Identified as “core Factors,” these principles are defined by the Red Cross (IFRC, 2013, p.27) as: 1. Safety 2. Lifespan 3. Timeliness 4. Cost

3

Case Studies Expanding on these themes, this essay shall explore some provided shelter designs. Whilst there have been innumerable proposals made, each of the designs have been tested to at least prototype stage and are designed specifically to provide an emergency shelter response, which, as the previous diagram attests, can become a transitional shelter.

The scores identified in the following shelter designs can be used only as comparison against one another and are not intended to be read as numerical standards.

In order to draw a comparison between the proposals, the following categories are identified, and proposals evaluated accordingly: • Price - The higher the score, the more affordable the shelter • Durability - The overall strength of the shelter. The higher the score, the stronger and more durable the design & materials • Flexibility - Analysis of inherent flexibility features • Disaster application - How widespread usage has been in ‘real life’ • Lifespan - The higher the score, the longer the lifespan, without the need for repair/adaption • Ease of assembly - The faster the installation, the better the score • Sense of ownership - A method of gauging success, from users’ perspective is whether there is a level of ‘psychological ownership1 ,’ the higher the score, the better the sense of ownership.

• Sphere compliance - Whether the proposal provides 3.5m2 per inhabitant • Obvious flaws 1 The

level of “affective and cognitive ownership” as an attitude, the theory being that “psychological ownership satisfies three basic human needs: ‘home’ (having a sense of place), efficacy and effectance and self-identity” (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004, p.442)

4

UNHCR Family Tent

Category

Notes

Price

Circa $300

Durability

Score 5/5

Poor, often refugees have belongings which damage fabric Flexibility Minor modifications possible however alterations can compromise strength.

Disaster application Used in almost all disaster to house affected population Lifespan Minimum lifespan is 1 year, but often last longer (and can be more easily replaced) Ease of assembly Requires experience/technical knowledge

1/5

Sense of ownership After modification some potential, but generally not Sphere compliance UNHCR family tents are intended for 5 up to 5 persons and therefore comply with 3.5m2 Obvious flaws Lack of weatherproofing

3/5

3/5 5/5 2/5 2/5

Name:

UNHCR Family Tent for Hot Climate

Year:

2011 design, however tents are the oldest ‘provided shelter’

Description:

Rigid frame, fabric tent for 5 persons.

Pros:

Rapid deployment, universally recognised, tried & tested, affordable for donors cheap ($300), lightweight compared to old versions. Precedent that works

Cons:

Deterioration issues in use & storage. Difficulty in erection, inappropriate for winter, canvas damaged by possessions

The tent is the longest standing shelter responses. One of the first examples of an agency led mass implementation in the wake of a disaster, is after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, when tents were distributed and erected in public parks and open spaces by voluntary agencies, the army, red cross, and the local government, in the days directly after the earthquake (Ashmore, 2012, p.109) although seen in many iterations, principles have varied little and the tent is still the primary shelter response to provide shelter in a disaster situation.

Whilst there is no ‘internationally agreed’ tent, UNHCR currently provide 2 types of shelter in emergency situations, lightweight emergency tents and a heavier duty canvas tents.

Tents are often stockpiled and ready to deploy in the event of disaster; the ease of manufacture/storage/distribution is what leads to its success.

(Ashmore, 2004) Given that the tent is recognised as the most universal of emergency shelters, the tent acts as benchmark from which to compare other prescribed proposals analysed in this report.

Yes n/a 5

Moss Air-drop Shelter

Name:

Moss Air-drop Folding Portable Shelter

Year:

Patented 1971

Description:

Tent based emergency shelter, when dropped from aircraft acts as parachute and self-erects.

Ease of deployment & immediate use

Pros: Cons:

Lack of control over position, questions over appropriateness

Whilst most certainly designed with benevolent intentions, the Moss Air-drop Shelter never found a role in disaster relief and has long been met with criticism.

When designing the Air-drop, Moss had the intention of providing a solution to the longstanding transportation problem which is inherent within humanitarian responses.

Category

Notes

Score

Price

Unknown

n/a

Durability

Likely to be low, given its lightweight structure

1/5

Flexibility

Effectively none, except for site positioning

1/5

Disaster application Not developed beyond prototype

n/a

Lifespan

2/5

Ease of assembly

Likely to be same as a ‘tent’ but possibly less hardwearing Self assembly

5/5

Sense of ownership Intended as temporary shelter only

1/5

Sphere compliance Size unknown, however pre Sphere

n/a

Obvious flaws

n/a

Is the manufacture/transport cost worth the product compared to a conventional tent?

When reviewing the O’Dome shelter from the same manufacturer, Lloyd Kahn (in Brand, 1971, p.92) quipped “I assume it’s waterproof.” Although only mildly put off by the unconventional design, it does appear that shelter designs from Tension Structures Inc. were well constructed. Moss used the same fabric technology when producing leisure tents for Middle Eastern Sheiks. (Berry, 1977, pp. 128-130) However, it is noted that the design “did not catch on and was not popular with users,” (Davis and Alexander, 2016, p.228) presumably as a result of the tent’s unconventional installation and what in reality is a lightweight tent offering nothing better (and quite possibly worse) than the canvas tents it was intended to replace.

Another issue brought up, is the lack of control which the pilot will have over deployment. In realistic scenarios, upon jettisoning their payload, pilots have no control over landing positions; it would be impossible to choose landing positions with any degree of accuracy. Ian Davis (1978) writes “one issue that Mr Moss has still to reconsider is how to give his helicopter pilots a crash course on town planning!”

6

Oxfam Igloo

Name:

Oxfam “Hexagonal Igloo”

Year:

1970s (deployed 1974)

Description: Pros:

Polyurethane hexagonal/octagonal double skinned rigid structures Weatherproof, strong, long lasting.

Cons:

Delayed construction, inherent fire risk

The Oxfam Igloo was a short lived project, designed with the intention of creating a instantaneous emergency shelter response. The downfall of the project came as a result of Ian Davis’ (1978) report on the unsafe nature of the construction materials which were found to be flammable and when burned, produced toxic fumes.

Category

Notes

Price

Unknown

Durability

Score n/a

Hard wearing materials, creating strong, weatherproof shelter Flexibility Walls difficult to adapt, internal spaces difficult to inhabit Disaster application 463 used in Lice, Italy. Low occupancy

4/5

Lifespan

1/5

Under 1 year (Bauer, 2003)

Ease of assembly

2/5 1/5

Prefabricated components allow rapid construction Sense of ownership Uninhabited after 12 months, therefore low

5/5

Sphere compliance Size unknown, however pre Sphere

n/a

Obvious flaws

n/a

Flammability and subsequent toxic fumes (Davis, 1978)

1/5

The nature of material choices in shelter designs is particularly important. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of FEMA caravans were issued by the government, however it was found that the caravan fabric was laced with formaldehyde, causing a range of heath issues to inhabitants. (Gates, 2015) This problem of toxic fumes inspired the creation of the Exo-Reaction reviewed next.

Another problem identified by Davis, certainly not unique to the Igloo, was the fact that delivery of the units was some 60 days after the event due to transportation delays, ultimately rendering the shelter a failure. (ibid) During the late 1960/70s, domes were becoming an increasingly popular method of housing. Pioneered by architects such as Buckminster Fuller, they were seen as a future trend for living due to their strength. However, due to the interior shape of domes, a long standing criticism is how furniture is difficult to place, as well as the idea that in many cultures, the form is totally unacceptable. (Davis and Alexander, 2016, p.301: Davis 1978)

7

Exo-Reaction

Name:

Exo-Reaction Housing

Year:

2011

Description: Pros:

Lightweight rigid, stackable carcasses with hi-tech features Ease of deployment, lockable, weather proof, 5-10yr lifespan, reusable, community configurations Lack of windows,, greater expense than tent, lack of flexibility

Cons:

The Exo-Reaction housing is a classic example of a designer using their skills and good intentions, to create a “humanitarian product.” Much in the same thinking of Bill Moss’s air-drop shelter, the Exo is an off-the-shelf product designed to offer affected populations with a comfortable and useable home. Again, transportation is addressed as a matter of priority.

Category

Notes

Price

Circa $6000

1/5

Durability

Hardwearing exterior

5/5

Flexibility

Score

Units can be conjoined, but, standalone units are not flexible Disaster application Only at prototype stage

3/5

Lifespan

5-10yrs

4/5

Ease of assembly

Rapid installation, 2 parts/internals

5/5

n/a

Sense of ownership Walls cannot be altered, but internal options can be selected to suit users’ wants/needs Sphere compliance 6.7m2 only suitable for 1 person (beds for 4)

3/5

Obvious flaws

n/a

Expensive, energy consuming manufacturing.

Long lead times

no

Designed as an alternative to the caravans provided in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Exo uses modern technology to provide a shelter with in-built features such as secure locking, integral lighting, and ventilation.

(Reaction, 2015) However, whilst the shelters cost around ‘only’ $6000 (Griffith, 2015) per unit, this dwarfs the cost of other NFIs, making it difficult to legitimise the usage as a disaster response.

The Exo is designed to be a powered unit, requiring cables to be laid around the site, often in disaster situations, electrical power is not available, and whilst batteries can power the unit, these may well not be available in the wake of a disaster.

Other negative factors, as seen with the Oxfam Igloo, is the feasibility of rapid deployment (Davis, 1978) as well as lead times, a problem particularly sensitive to shelter sector. Even when using simple material such as tents, manufacturing is delayed by material shortages, (Ashmore, 2004) when more complicated products are required the implications are only exaggerated.

8

Refugee Housing Unit - Better Shelter

Name:

UNHCR-IKEA Better Shelter (RHU)

Year:

2013/2015

Description:

Modular framed structure with rigid wall and roof panels

Pros:

Transportation, flexibility (internal walls, fenestration options) Too ‘good’ for temporary accommodation

Cons:

Designed as a collaborative effort between UNHCR and IKEA, the Better Shelter offers a shelter design considered more acceptable to displaced peoples.

As with the Exo-Reaction seen above, features such as locking and provision for power and light contribute to making the shelter more acceptable to inhabitants.

The shelter was designed with the intention of creating a “more dignifying temporary housing solution” (Loki, 2013) Category

Notes

Score

Price

$1150

4/5

Durability

Hardwearing Panels

5/5

Flexibility

Interior space can be easily divided up, walls can be fitted with doors etc. as required Disaster application Currently in (relatively) small scale usage

4/5

Lifespan

Minimum 3 year lifespan

4/5

Designed for 4 people to assemble between 4-8 hours Sense of ownership Integrated lighting, photovoltaic and reconfigurable internals Sphere compliance 17.5m2 , suitable for up to 5 people

4/5

Obvious flaws

n/a

Ease of assembly

4/5

Controversially the Better Shelter has been deemed by some governments as too comfortable for refugees. The perceived problem is that if provided conditions are acceptable, then it will incite refugees to stay. (Baker, 2013) This criticism, whilst somewhat austere, is a legitimate concern, especially in conflict situations (i.e. Syrian refugees in Lebanon; as described in Baker’s article.) Local governments can be reluctant to provide accommodation for displaced people when situations become protracted and without a foreseeable end date.

3/5 yes

9

Dwelling After Disaster There is distinct difference between a shelter and a dwelling. The former is little more than necessity, whereas dwelling implies a more sensitive description, providing its inhabitants with a sense of comfort, identity and reasoning.

Given that the ‘provided shelter’ proposals identified in this essay seek to provide a solution to housing, it is clearly identified that none can satisfy all the needs required from its users.

Were housing developers to propose residential developments of single story, single room pre-constructed buildings, they would, understandably, be rejected. Therefore this same idea can be translated into shelter responses, an ideal situation would be to provide Dwelling after Disaster.

One of the main arguments against shelters such as the Oxfam Igloo and others which use a pre-formed shell, is the transportation time that is inherent. Ian Davis (1978.) describes another set of issues which are also brought about with many other shelter forms, especially the Exo-Reaction, and the Better Shelter.

1. The shelters themselves are culturally unacceptable 2. They delay in deployment after disaster has struck is unacceptable 3. Safety risks (from toxic gases in FEMA caravans, to fire risks with the Oxfam Igloo, materials are often unsuitable) 4. Prohibitive cost (especially when transport & development incorporated) 5. The shelters themselves generate little or no employment, which is one of the best ways donors can help kick-start recovery Perhaps a tarpaulin is the best form of prescribed emergency shelter as: • Users can construct it themselves, thereby taking ownership of the result

• Tarpaulins are unmistakably temporary objects, therefore users will not feel ‘trapped.’ Also, land owners will be less threatened by such temporary forms of shelter • Donors are able to rapidly, cheaply and effectively distribute such items, with the minimum of wasted funds or materials.

Therefore rendering the role of the designer obsolete.

Technology is also a potentially negative factor within prescribed shelters, whilst it is relatively simple to repair a rip in tent (canvas being a simple material, familiar to many,) when describing “ferro-cement domed permanent dwellings” in India, Davis (2016, p.301) points out how inhabitants are unable to repair cracks and damage as local builders have no knowledge of the material.

When looking at any ‘prescribed shelter’ design, reservations must be made against those using modern materials; both the Exo-Reaction and the Better Shelter use plastic as a main component, however it is far more difficult to repair plastic than ‘traditional’ materials such as timber and masonry. The Better Shelter has wall and roof panels made from PET that can be removed once damaged and recycled. (Loki, 2013) The Exo-Reaction however, is a totally prefabricated unit, repair of such materials is often unfeasible Johan Karlsson (Loki, 2013) describes how the Better Shelter takes a small group of people around 4 hours to erect, while design such as Exo-Reaction and the Moss air drop shelter provide an immediate response. Karlsson points out that so long as a shelter takes no longer than a day to erect, then it meets the initial requirements, the implication being that a ‘roof over ones head’ is not necessary until nightfall.

Therefore, focus should, perhaps, be put onto intentionally temporary items, such as tarpaulins, in which erection times still fulfil the category of being erected within 1 day.

10

Are we reinventing the wheel?

Ian Davis (2016) describes the sheer amount of designs he has personally come across, how every agency dealing with shelter has an abundance of possible shelter designs, none of which have proved a more acceptable model. Shelter designs are common across design and engineering industries and whilst it is evident there is a need to provide shelter, the fact of the matter, as with most humanitarian roles, is that individuals should be at the centre of reconstruction, and providing a shelter in the form of a product is either unacceptable or inappropriate.

Designers, albeit with good intentions, seem to be missing the point, a tent is not necessarily the best shelter option after disaster, but it does seem to fit many of the criteria deemed necessary to provide an effective emergency shelter response, when other options (repair of buildings, hosting, temporary residence elsewhere etc.) are not possible.

A crucial element within disaster response is the fact that a house is often the single biggest piece of investment that a person will contribute to throughout their life. When forced to live in temporary shelters, dignity is automatically compromised, no matter what the design. Put simply, whilst an emergency shelter is a necessity, by its very nature inhabitants will have an innate dislike due to the fact that is an unsatisfactory replacement for the home they have lost.

It is important for designers to realise that disasters are often not suitable testing grounds for their designs and ideas. Ian Davis (2016) describes the implementation of prescribed shelters as a “callous and reckless folly.”

The appropriateness of housing within every context can be contentious.

However when emergency shelters are necessary, beneficiaries are already in a vulnerable position; if a shelter does not meet their requirements then it can potentially increase their vulnerability and therefore extrapolate the disaster.

If the task of a designer (architect, urban planner, landscape designer etc.) is to create “places with meaning, not merely spaces” (Davis, 2011, p206) it is imperative that these issues are taken into account whenever designing with the realms of the built environment. This theory is all-the-more important when applied to residential projects, and even though a humble shelter is simply that, a shelter is still a home and should thus be treated as such.

Richard van der Laken (2015) concurs with the sentiment; it is the responsibility of designers to improve situations for all. However, he takes a very different standpoint to the majority of those working in the sector.

Laken states that “every self respecting designer should do something. Come up with new ideas, dust down old ideas and place them in a new context.”

This is exactly the sort of thinking that Davis (1978, 2016) and others have repeated often as being inappropriate.

Whilst it remains important that designers, and those in positions to help, should continually strive to improve the situations as they arrive, it is always the case that those who are in need should be able to help themselves as ultimately, they will arrive at the best, individual solution.

Official guidelines (Ashmore, 2004) advise against the use of “prefabricated, flat-packed and container shelters” as a shelter response due to the cost, lengthy production and transport times as well as, all too often, the designs themselves are not suitable.

Shelter will remain a feature which the humanitarian sector will have to continually (and more frequently deal with) and while there is no perfect solution to the need for a ‘universal shelter,’ some conclusions can be drawn which in turn may help in the future.

Ultimately, the main point of failure with almost all prescribed shelter options is the unsatisfactory living condition which these shelters provide. Until sensitive and responsible qualities of housing, such as flexibility, comfort, security etc. are provided with these designs, then they will inevitably fail.

11

Bibliography

trailers-brought-shelter-problems-katrina-victims/71342988/ (accessed 2nd December 2015)

Ashmore, J. (2004) A guide to the use and logistics of family tents in humanitarian relief.

[Online PDF] OCHA available at http://www.alnap.org/resource/8341 (accessed 20th November 2015)

Laken, R. (2015) ‘Design is more than perfume, aesthetics and trends’ Dezeen [Online Interview] available at http://www.dezeen.com/2015/05/19/richard-van-derlaken-what-design-can-do-refugee-crisis-ikea-better-shelter (accessed on 5th December 2015)

Ashmore, J. (ed.) (2012) Shelter Projects 2010. Geneva and Nairobi: IFRC, UN HABITAT, UNHCR. Ashmore, J. and Treherne, C. (eds.) (2013) Post-disaster Shelter: Ten Designs [Online PDF] IFRC available at Baker, A. (2013) ‘After a Long Delay, Lebanon Finally Says Yes to Ikea Housing for Syrian Refugees.’ Time [online] available at http://world.time.com/2013/12/16/ lebanon-says-no-to-ikea-housing-for-syrian-refugees-because-its-too-nice/ (6th December 2013) (accessed on 20th November 2015) Bauer, R. (2003) Guidelines for Post Disaster Housing. [online PDF] available at http:// www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/responding/services-for-thedisaster-affected/shelter-and-settlement/shelter-library/reconstruction/ (downloaded 5th December 2015)

Loki, R. (2013) ‘A Place to Call Home (For Now)’ Just Means. [Online Interview] available at http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/a-place-to-call-home-for-now-unitednations-rolls-out-new-high-tech-refugee-shelters-inspired (accessed on 20th November 2015) Reaction (2015) ‘Tech Specs’ available at: http://www.reactioninc.com/exo/tech-specs (accessed 26th November 2015) Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J. (2004) ‘Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organisational citizenship behaviour.’ in Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 25(2004) pp. 439-459.s

List of Illustrations

Berry, B. (1977) ‘Clever Engineering Shapes New Tent Designs’ in Popular Science.

211(4. October 1977) pp.128-130.

Page 3: IFRC (2013) ‘Overlapping Definitions’ [diagram] in Ashmore, J. and Treherne, C. (eds.) (2013) Post-disaster Shelter:Ten Designs [Online PDF] IFRC

Brand, S (ed.) (1971) The Last Whole Earth Catalog. December 1971. Canada: Random House

Page 5: by author ‘UNHCR Tent’ [illustration]

Davis, I. (1978) ‘Charity Begins with Homes’ in New Scientist. 79(1110. 6th July) pp.

14-17.

Davis, I (2011) ‘What have we learned from 40 years’ experience of Disaster Shelter?’ in Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions. 10(3-4) pp. 193-212.

Davis, I. and Alexander, D. (2016) Recovery from Disaster. Abingdon: Routledge Griffith, E. (2015) ‘This startup raised $10million to make disaster relief smarter, cheaper and safer’ FORTUNE [Online] available at http://fortune.com/2015/03/04/ reaction-housing (accessed 20th November 2015) Gates, J. (2015) ‘FEMA trailers brought shelter, problems to Katrina victims’ USA Today available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/28/fema-

Page 6: by author ‘Moss-Air-drop’ [illustration] Page 6: Moss, W. (1973) ’Moss Air Drop Shelter’ [patent diagram] USA Patent US3724473 A available at http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US3724473#backwardcitations (accessed 15th November 2015) Page 7: by author ‘Oxfam Igloo’ [illustration] Page 8: by author ‘Exo-Reaction’ [illustration] Page 9: IKEA/UNHCR (2013) ‘Better Shelter’ [exploded render] Better Shelter available at http://www.bettershelter.org/product (accessed 20/11/15)

12