Table Of ContentENHANCING
DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS
FROM HUMANITARIAN
ARCHITECTURE TO COMMUNITY
RESILIENCE
Edited by
A. N M
UNO ARTINS
CIAUD,ResearchCentre forArchitecture, Urbanism andDesign,
FacultyofArchitecture, University ofLisbon, Lisbon,Portugal
M F
AHMOOD AYAZI
TheInstitute forDisaster ManagementandReconstruction,
SichuanUniversity andtheHong KongPolytechnicUniversity, Chengdu,Sichuan, China
F K
ATEN IKANO
Facultéde l’Aménagement,Université deMontréal,Montreal,Quebec,Canada
L H
ILIANE OBEICA
RISKam(ResearchgrouponEnvironmentalHazardandRisk AssessmentandManagement),
CentreforGeographical Studies,UniversityofLisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
Elsevier
Radarweg29,POBox211, 1000AEAmsterdam, Netherlands
TheBoulevard,Langford Lane,Kidlington,OxfordOX5 1GB,UnitedKingdom
50HampshireStreet,5thFloor, Cambridge,MA02139,UnitedStates
Copyright©2021ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Nopart ofthispublicationmay bereproduced ortransmittedinanyformor byanymeans, electronicor
mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording,oranyinformation storageandretrieval system,without
permissioninwritingfrom thepublisher.Details onhowtoseekpermission, further informationaboutthe
Publisher’spermissions policies andourarrangements withorganizations suchastheCopyrightClearance
CenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,canbefoundatourwebsite:www.elsevier.com/permissions.
Thisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontained initareprotected undercopyrightbythePublisher
(otherthanasmaybenotedherein).
Notices
Knowledgeandbestpracticeinthisfieldareconstantlychanging. Asnewresearch andexperiencebroaden
ourunderstanding, changesinresearchmethods,professional practices,ormedicaltreatment maybecome
necessary.
Practitionersandresearchers mustalwaysrelyontheir ownexperienceandknowledgeinevaluating and
usingany information,methods,compounds,orexperiments describedherein. Inusingsuchinformation or
methodstheyshouldbemindfuloftheirown safetyandthesafetyofothers,includingpartiesforwhom
theyhave aprofessionalresponsibility.
Tothefullestextentofthelaw,neitherthePublishernortheauthors,contributors, oreditors,assume any
liabilityforany injuryand/ordamagetopersonsor propertyasamatterofproductsliability,negligence or
otherwise,orfrom anyuseoroperation ofany methods,products,instructions, orideascontainedinthe
materialherein.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-Publication Data
Acatalogrecordforthisbookis availablefromtheLibrary ofCongress
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-Publication Data
Acataloguerecord forthisbook isavailablefromtheBritish Library
ISBN:978-0-12-819078-4
Forinformation onallElsevierpublications visitourwebsite at
https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals
Publisher:CandiceJanco
Acquisitions Editor: MarisaLaFleur
EditorialProjectManager:PatGonzalez
ProductionProjectManager:BharatwajVaratharajan
CoverDesigner: MatthewLimbert
TypesetbyTNQTechnologies
Contributors
KristjanaAdalgeirsdottir DianeE.Davis
AaltoUniversity, Helsinki,Finland Harvard University Graduate School of Design,
LaraAlshawawreh Cambridge,MA,UnitedStates
FacultyofEngineering,MutahUniversity,Karak, MahmoodFayazi
Jordan The Institute for Disaster Management and
AnouckAndriessen Reconstruction,SichuanUniversityandtheHong
Kong Polytechnic University, Chengdu, Sichuan,
KULeuven,Leuven,Belgium
China
AdityaBarve
EefjeHendriks
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban
RiskLab,Cambridge,MA,UnitedStates DepartmentofArchitecture,EindhovenUniversity
ofTechnology,Eindhoven,TheNetherlands
PabloBenetti
AdibHobeica
Post-GraduationPrograminUrbanism,Facultyof
Independent consultant,Coimbra,Portugal
ArchitectureandUrbanism,FederalUniversityof
RiodeJaneiro,RiodeJaneiro,Brazil LilianeHobeica
LisaBornstein RISKam (Research group on Environmental
Hazard and Risk Assessment and Management),
School of Urban Planning, McGill University,
Centre for Geographical Studies, University of
Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Lisbon,Lisbon,Portugal
LizBrogden
RosemaryKennedy
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
SubTropical Cities Consultancy, Brisbane,
Queensland,Australia
Queensland,Australia
GeorgiaCardosi
Faculté de l’Aménagement, Université de Mon- SusanN.Kibue
Department of Architecture, Jomo Kenyatta Uni-
tréal,Montreal,Quebec,Canada
versity of Agriculture and Technology, Juja, Nai-
SandraCarrasco
robi,Kenya
Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning,
FatenKikano
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria,
Faculté de l’Aménagement, Université de Mon-
Australia
tréal,Montreal,Quebec,Canada
SolangeCarvalho
ChetanKrishna
Post-GraduationPrograminUrbanism,Facultyof
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban
ArchitectureandUrbanism,FederalUniversityof
RiskLab,Cambridge,MA,UnitedStates
RiodeJaneiro,RiodeJaneiro,Brazil
JiaLu
RaquelColacios
School of Architecture, Universitat Internacional University of Toronto, Centre for Landscape
Research,Toronto, Ontario,Canada
deCatalunya,Barcelona,Spain
KellyLeilani Main
MauroCossu
Faculté de l’Aménagement, Université de Mon- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban
tréal,Montreal,Quebec,Canada RiskLab,Cambridge,MA,UnitedStates
vii
viii
Contributors
A.NunoMartins JudithI.RodríguezPortieles
CIAUD, Research Centre for Architecture, Department of Architecture, Harvard University
Urbanism and Design, Faculty of Architecture, Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA,
University ofLisbon,Lisbon,Portugal UnitedStates
FadiMasoud HelenaSandman
University of Toronto, Centre for Landscape AaltoUniversity,Helsinki, Finland
Research,Toronto, Ontario,Canada BenjaminSchep
MihoMazereeuw BuildtoImpact, Group 5 Consulting Engineers
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban B.V.,TheHague,The Netherlands
RiskLab,Cambridge,MA,UnitedStates MiiaSuomela
DavidO’Brien AaltoUniversity,Helsinki, Finland
Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning, CynthiaSusilo
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, KULeuven,Leuven,Belgium
Australia
PietervandenBroeck
MayankOjha
KULeuven,Leuven,Belgium
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban
AlexandervanLeersum
RiskLab,Cambridge,MA,UnitedStates
BuildtoImpact, Group 5 Consulting Engineers
Angeliki Paidakaki
B.V.,TheHague,The Netherlands
KULeuven,Leuven,Belgium
Foreword
Diane E. Davis
Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA, United States
The multiplying disasters of the 21st century remind us that we live in a world at risk.
Vulnerabilities associated with environmental degradation, climate change and extreme
weatherevents,earthquakes,healthepidemics,andcivilwars orotherviolentconflictshave
destabilized fragile ecosystems, intensified social inequalities, fueled migration, and thrown
themostdisadvantagedamongusintoadownwardspiralofprecarity.TheglobalCOVID-19
pandemicismerelythelatestdisastertodrivethispointhome.The“risksociety”thatUlrich
Beck warned about in the 1990s is our reality. Recurring disaster is now normalized. To the
extentthatnopartoftheworldcanescapethisfuture,riskmayendupbeingthegreatglobal
equalizerdevenifsocialclasses,neighborhoods,cities,andnationswillcontinuetounevenly
experiencetheeffectsandtraumaofanygivendisaster.Althoughthetraumaticimpactsofa
singledisastereventmaybehardtopredictinform,timing,andintensity,thestarkrealityis
thattherewillalwaysbeanother.Thisisexactlywhydisasterpreparednessmustbethenew
modus operandi of our times, and why this volume arrives at the right moment.
The contributions in these pages can be seen as part of an essential toolkit for the risk
society, as originally conceptualized by Beck (1992, p. 21), because they do offer a “way of
dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself.”
Focusing on naturally triggered and human-made disaster contexts, and with
an understanding of the spatial and social complexities that mediate any given disaster’s
overall impacts, the authors in this collective volume review both successful and failed stra-
tegiestorecoverfromdisastrousevents,aswellasinitiativesrelatedtodisasterriskreduction.
Drawing on case studies from around the world, they examine the role of design thinking,
community involvement, government policies, and expert interventions in enabling or
constrainingeffectivedisasterpreparednessandresponse.Thelargeraimofanycloseanalysis
ofwhatworksandwhatdoesnotistobeabletolearnfrommistakes,soastobepreparedto
confront the next disaster down the road. This volume takes a much-needed step in that
direction.
Yet, because the array of disasters examined here is relatively broaddranging from
housingissuesinthecontextofforceddisplacement,hurricanes,andearthquakestovolcano
eruptionsd,noone-size-fits-allstrategyfordisasterpreparednessemergesfromthesepages.
Rather, by sharing a wide range of responses, this volume challenges the reader to think
critically about disaster mitigation, including certain strategies that have become more
popularinrecentyears,aswellastheirshort-andlong-termimpacts.Amongthemostnovel
contributions in this regard are the chapters that focus on design competitions as well as on
the shifting terminology deployed by humanitarian-shelter specialists.
One thread that does run through all the chapters is the focus on design, albeit deployed
on a variety of scales. Given the urgency of housing in many disaster contexts, the
ix
x
Foreword
contributingauthorspaidconsiderableattentiontoinnovationsinsheltertypologiesandthe
larger humanitarian discourse of architects. Yet, because disasters frequently require the
reconstruction of social relationships that unfold on the neighborhood scale, and not merely
thebuildingscale,urban-designthinkingisnecessarytoreconfigurecommercialactivitiesor
community-based collective spaces. Equally important, the sensitivity to both building and
urban-design thinking that permeates this volume is nestled within an appreciation for
variations in the territorial scales of disaster response, from the local to the regional to the
global.
Inadditiontowhatthisvolumeoffers,itisalsoworthnotingwhatitastutelyavoids.With
a focus on disaster preparedness in its title, the editors do not cater to the obsession with
resilience (although the word resilience does manage to appear in some of the chapter titles
and section headings). Some might see this as an ill-considered move, if only because the
notion ofresilience hastaken the disaster-related policy,design,andurban-planningworlds
by storm. However, resilience is a tricky word, readily veering into the ideological. Defined
as the ability to cope and adapt so that individuals or communities survive and thrive,
resilience is all about bouncing back to normal after a disaster. Some authors use resilience to
refertothereestablishmentofsystemequilibriumafterashock.Othersuseitastherationale
for a new and expanding repertoire of toolsdfrom novel technologies to reconfigured
mapping and building productsdthat guide us to a secure urban and global future. What-
ever its application, those who emphasize resilience have faith that with enough attention
and effort, the future can be better.
Yet,inadditiontoundervaluingifnotignoringthestarkrealityofacceleratingrisks,noted
in the outset of this essay, many of those who embrace the concept of resilience tend to
overlook the inter-relationalities of risk. There are trade-offs among forms and patterns of
resilience,notjustamongdifferentresidentsorbetweenlocationsinthesamecity,butalsoin
terms of immediate versus long-term gains in livability. Indeed, coping strategies in some
domains (say environment) may actually reinforce structural problems that create risks in
other domains (say inequality). Urban, social, economic, and environmental ecologies are
connected locally and across scales that link cities to regions and beyond. Therefore, any
resiliencestrategymust begroundedin anappreciation oftheentirelandscape ofa cityand
its properties as a system embedded in a larger regional or even global ecology.
Totheeditors’credit,itispreciselytheselatterinsightsthatthreadthroughthechaptersof
this book and make it such a welcome addition to the disaster literature. These sensibilities
are, for instance, well represented in the chapter that lays out a clustering methodology for
land-use planning built around a nuanced understanding of ecology. Beyond individual
contributions, a concern with inter-relationality across scales is also seen in the volume’s
overall organization, which moves from a focus on shelter in the first section to an exami-
nation of housing’s embeddedness in community contexts in the second section. The third
section carries forward the thread of housing and communities, but examines them through
thelensoftheglobaldynamicsthatkeepmanydisaster-responseagenciesfocusedonshelter.
The whole exercise lands with one of the volume’s most synthetic pieces, built around a
purposeful exploration of links between vulnerabilities, poverty, and disaster.
Given their professional backgrounds, this volume’s editors know quite well that design
thinking can be a tool for unpacking inter-relational complexities. Thanks to their practical
experience, they are aware that adequate disaster preparedness is built around an under-
standing that any single design project or intervention will have implications far beyond its
xi
Foreword
targeted scope, both in scalar and sectorial terms. Yet, to enable constructive action in a
contextofmultiplyingandinterconnectedvulnerabilities,itisalsoimportanttoreturntothe
idea of risk, and to design, build, and plan for a world of prevalent risk as much as for
resilience.Wemustalwaysstaypreparedforthenextdisaster.Thiswillrequiremorethanan
ongoing engagement with new building and design techniques. Disaster experts will also
need anewwayof thinkingabout the connectivity ofpeople,places, andspacesthat allows
communitiestorecoverfromonedisasterwhilepreparingforthenext.Doingsosuccessfully
must involve interdisciplinary interaction and dialog among the various design, planning,
and architecture professionals represented here, who will inevitably need allies in the social
sciences, biological, engineering, technology, and public-health professions to prepare for a
futureof permanent risk. There is still much to bedone,yet the pathway forward isalready
being charted, incrementally, through the grounded efforts and scholarly reflections con-
tained in this timely volume.
Reference
Beck,U.(1992).Risksociety:Towardsanewmodernity.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Introduction
A. Nuno Martins1, Mahmood Fayazi2,
Faten Kikano3, Liliane Hobeica4
1CIAUD, Research Centre for Architecture, Urbanism and Design, Faculty of Architecture,
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; 2The Institute for Disaster Management and
Reconstruction, Sichuan University and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Chengdu,
Sichuan, China; 3Faculté de l’Aménagement, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada; 4RISKam (Research group on Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment and
Management), Centre for Geographical Studies, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
In mid-August 2020, when we write these words, the world is going through an un-
precedentedemergencysanitarycrisis.Inabouteightmonthsafterthefirstcasewasreported
in China, the new Corona virus contaminated more than 21 million people, took more than
760 thousand lives, and caused the collapse of healthcare systems (WHO, 2020a). It has
imposed the closure of borders and the lockdown of cities, as well as home quarantine and
social-distancingpracticesonascaleneverseenbefore.Further,theCOVID-19pandemichas
severelyaffected nationaleconomies,decreasedGDPs,andcausedthelossofmorethan300
millionjobsworldwide.Giventheabsenceofeffectivedrugs,epidemiologistspredictthatthe
pandemic would continue for several months, if not years, until the development and
implementation of a vaccine.
Like in other disaster situations, the pandemic has exacerbatedregional and international
inequalities. Although the sanitary crisis has affected individuals from all social groups, the
WorldHealthOrganizationconsidersthatthemostvulnerablepopulationsinurbansettings
include dwellers of informal settlements, homeless persons, families living in inadequate
housingconditions,forciblydisplacedpeople,andmigrants(WHO,2020b).Atthispoint,itis
possible to anticipate the convergence of this pandemic with climate-related and human-
induced crises in many geographies, which will eventually call for adequate cross-
analyses. When vulnerability and poverty increasingly go hand in hand, and hazards shift
frompredictedpatterns,extremeeventsshouldbetakenasthenewnormal(UNDRR,2019).
The present context indeed highlights that preparedness should be duly entrenched in both
regular development efforts and post-disaster settings, making the publication of this book
even more pertinent.
Together with three other Elsevier books each related to one of the four priorities of the
SendaiFrameworkforDisasterRiskReduction(UNISDR,2015),thispublicationisanoutput
oftheeightheditionoftheInternationalConferenceonBuildingResilience,heldinLisbonin
November 2018.It gathers original contributions by authors from aroundthe globe, most of
them with a background in architecture and research. Nearly half of the chapters focus on
humanitariandesignwhereastheothersdiscusscommunityresilience.Together,theypresent
xiii
xiv
Introduction
a wide understanding of the fourth Sendai priority: “Enhancing disaster preparedness for
effective response and to ‘Build Back Better’ in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction”
(UNISDR, 2015, p. 14).
MostlybasedonfieldresearchconductedintheGlobalSouth,thisbookdealswithresilient
responses and building capacities in relation to hazardous events, bringing some timely
practicalexperiencesandtheoreticalinsightsinthisregard.Itisorganizedinthreeparts.PartI,
devoted tohumanitarianarchitecture, putstogether six contributions thataddress emergency
sheltering and housing, disaster risk reduction (DRR), and post-disaster interventions
(rebuilding and recovery). These contributions analyze communication and educational stra-
tegies with the aim of consolidating this field of knowledge. As a whole, they disclose the
meaning and define the scope of humanitarian-architecture practice. The risk and resilience
pair, as well as the notion of community design, permeates the assignment of architects
engaged in both the disaster and development arenas. The changing role of architects and
urban designers in times of climate change and the increasing number of vulnerable com-
munitiesworldwidearetherebyabottomlinetorethinkarchitecturaleducationandtraining.
Exploringhumanitariandesignandunderstandingresilienceasasocioecologicalcapacity
that can be fostered through and within community-based DRR processes, Part II concen-
trates on humanitarian design and resilience building as a means to enhance community
preparedness. In this regard, architecture, urban design, and community preparedness are
addressed to face not only standalone disastrous events but also more regular urban threats
andrisks,suchaseviction,gentrification,precarioushousing,andhealthinequality.Thefour
contributions in this part emphasize architects’ diverse roles in supporting such capacity-
buildingprocessesintheGlobalSouth,ineitherDRR,post-disaster,ordevelopmentcontexts.
These roles eventually promote the full exercise of the “right to the city” (Lefebvre, 1968/
1995),asstatedinthecomprehensivevisionoftheNewUrbanAgenda(UN-Habitat,2017).As
such, the authors call for architects and other built-environment professionals to not only
foster the active participation of communities in DRR but also engage, with a spirit of
consensus and compromise, in (aided) self-help design and construction processes. The
chapters of Part III reveal that these processes can benefit from taking place in a framework
that also acknowledges the responsibilities of governmental actors.
Part III brings new insights and fine nuances for concepts such as inclusive governance
and community resilience. For instance, the authors here emphasize the link between global
dynamics, whether economic or political, and national and local systems, with the vulnera-
bilityofcommunities.Thisawarenesspositivelyaffectstheadoptedpoliciesandresponsesin
the management of crises at different levels of governance. Moreover, through a number of
casestudies,thefourcontributions inthispartrevealnovelaspectsofcommunityresilience.
Strategiessuchasstakeholders’participationandtheempowermentofcommunitiesaffected
by disasters, often depicted as key elements for DRR, are reassessed. The main messages of
Part III imply that these approaches prove to be less beneficial if they are not concomitant
with supervision by state officials, and guidance from experts.
In Chapter 1, Liz Brogden and Rosemary Kennedy delve into the inconsistencies and
contradictions found in the humanitarian-shelter terminology. The authors consider that the
plethora of terms, some of which being applied only in particular organizations or
geographical contexts, inhibits the engagement of new practitioners and researchers in the
humanitariansphere.Thus,basedonthereviewof65keydocuments,theauthorsdevelopeda
comprehensive shelter-terminology framework. The 8 categories and 25 subcategories gather
347 shelter terms, which concern both material and technical-support elements. Such a
xv
Introduction
frameworkisatimelycontributiontopromoteclearerunderstandingamongstakeholdersand
the steady development of humanitarian architecture, planning, and engineering.
Judith I. Rodríguez Portieles’s Chapter 2 presents a typical humanitarian-architecture
experience. The author focuses on the joint recovery efforts of volunteers and community
membersinPuertoRicointheaftermathofhurricanesIrmaandMariain2017.Sheportrays
the sheltering initiative undertaken by the Techo NGO, which, based on a participatory
approach, supported affected communities by filling the gap of a deficient governmental
response.RodríguezPortieleshighlightstheroleplayedbylocalarchitectureprofessionalsto
adapt a timber module to resist hurricanes and to meet the needs and preferences of bene-
ficiary families. Her chapter pinpoints some best practices and areas of potential improve-
ment in disaster recovery.
Eefje Hendriks, Benjamin Schep, and Alexander van Leersum, in Chapter 4, also cover a
post-disaster reconstruction process, focused on the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal. Based on
extensive fieldwork and resorting to social network analysis, their study sheds light on
favorable conditions for the assimilation by local construction actors of knowledge on struc-
turalresistancetoearthquakes.Comparingtwodistrictsthatreceiveddissimilarreconstruction
technical assistance, the authors identify that communities in which external engineers had a
major role displayed lower levels of understanding than those in which assistance provision
involved a stronger network of local actors. This humanitarian-engineering study also em-
phasizestheneedofincreasingthedialogamongthestakeholdersinreconstructionprocesses.
InChapter3,KristjanaAdalgeirsdottirhighlightslessonslearnedfromthesuccessfulshelter
response to a volcano eruption in Iceland in the 1970s. A national body then imported 479
prefabricated houses donated by the Nordic countries to fulfill the temporary housing needs.
The author’s detailed account demonstrates how the resilience of these temporary structures
enabled them to remain in residential use even after their original users resettled back, in
contrast with many other recovery cases worldwide (Lizarralde, Johnson,& Davidson, 2010).
Through the new inhabitants’ adaptations, extensions, and technical upgrading, these transi-
tionalhousessucceededtoultimatelybecomepermanenthomes.Thelocalmanagementofthe
reliefoperations,theinvolvementofevacueesindecision-makingprocesses,andtheflexibility
inherent to the structures were all factors that contributed to the endurance of the houses.
Thethemeofcommunityinvolvementwithinhumanitarianarchitectureisalsorecurrentin
Chapter 5, which carefully details an experiment of participatory design led by Lara Alsha-
wawrehintheSyrianrefugeecampsofZaatariandAzrakinJordan.Theexperimentaimedat
identifying the refugees’ shelter needs in terms of space, functions, and circulation. Refugees
were solicited to design their “ideal” shelters by handling 3D mockups. Alshawawreh’s
findings reveal differences in the proposed designs according to the participants’ gender, an
oftenoverlookedissueinshelter-provisionoperations.Shealsohighlightsthepositiveimpacts
ofadaptedbuiltenvironmentsonrefugees’wellbeing,especiallythoseinprotractedsituations.
In Chapter 6, based on their pedagogical experiences and participation in the organization
of design contests, A. Nuno Martins, Liliane Hobeica, Adib Hobeica, and Raquel Colacios
analyze the 2018 and 2019 editions of an international humanitarian-architecture
competitiondthe Building 4Humanity Design Competition (B4H-DC). To identify design
patternsandexploreprevioussuccessfulexperiencesinbridgingthegapbetweenarchitectural
educationanddisaster-recoveryandreconstructiontraining,theauthorsalsoreviewtheDRIA
(Designing Resilience in Asia) and i-Rec (Information and Research for Reconstruction) in-
ternational contests. Through an in-depth analysis of the B4H-DC winning projects, their
researchdelvesintothedesigntoolsemployedbythecompetitionparticipantstoapproachthe
