“Temporary” Housing to Heal: A Missing Piece of Post-Disaster Community Psychosocial Resilience Building

“Temporary” Housing to Heal:

A Missing Piece of Post-Disaster Community Psychosocial Resilience Building

Mu Chen

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from her hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

Uppsala University

Master’s in International Humanitarian Action

NOHA Master Thesis 30 ECTS January 2021

2

Abstract

Disaster survivors, facing many aspects of mental distress, sometimes are forced to stay in temporary housing for years. Their psychosocial needs have changed after the traumatic event, but existing temporary housing designs do not respond to their real needs, nor acknowledge the capacity within the community as a whole.

This thesis aims to answer the question of how post-disaster temporary housing contributes to psychosocial aspects of community resilience building.

Based on the literature review of existing studies on post-disaster temporary housing, discussions on key factors of community psychosocial resilience and the psychosocial impact of temporary housing were conducted in this thesis. These discussions were followed by a comparative case study on the implementation and follow-up actions of two post-disaster temporary housing projects in China and Japan.

The analysis of these two topics and the case study reveal gaps between humanitarians and architects, when they work together to develop temporary housing, as well as aspects that can be improved for temporary housing to better meet the needs of its inhabitants and empower them for improved recovery.

The results indicate that temporary housing has a psychosocial impact on its inhabitants.

By designing the built environment of temporary housing that strengthens shared

community identity and promotes mutual help from community members, community

resilience can be better fostered. Achieving this will require better coordination between

humanitarians and architects, as well as the involvement of other interdisciplinary

professionals.

3

Preface

I have always wanted to talk about architecture in the context of humanitarian action.

Being exposed to both disciplines, the connections grew naturally. At the same time, it also made me forget that the majority of people from these two disciplines would not necessarily find it easy to understand each other.

However, the conversations between these two fields are so few and excluded, that I was not sure if people cared for the common grounds between them. Especially among my architect friends, for a long time I thought that their choice of working for the private sector was for the lack of interest in contributing to the public.

The fact is, our existing architectural education system and environment are simply not designed for those who can benefit from design the most. Students are educated with theoretical and highly technological knowledge with limited contact with communities and little education on social responsibilities and social needs. The professional world focuses too much on creating modern-day marvels simply from an aesthetic point of view.

Despite many young (future) architects carrying an interest in serving the public, they often do not know the needs or how to go about it.

There must be more discussions bridging architecture and humanitarian action. We have huge needs in the built environment, and a good combination of these two fields has the potential to address them, yet not much effort has been made to connect the two.

I would like to thank my colleagues from both fields for acknowledging the importance of this thesis topic. The mission to connect these two amazing groups of world shapers has been the largest motivation for me to conduct this research.

However, it has been a battle with continuous fear to finish this thesis, at the same time, it also brought me endless power and encouragement, especially in the special year of 2020.

I cannot give enough thanks to my colleagues and friends who have always believed in

me and never stopped encouraging me. Especially to Susanne, Nikita, Ms. Shiling Xu,

Chloe (who will soon give birth to the luckiest little boy in the world), Zach and Amy,

4 thank you all so much for spending your time with me, reading my texts, talking about my ideas and writings, sacrificing your own time for peace in this chaotic time. I could never imagine working on this thesis without the enormous support from each of you.

I want to thank Miguel for your understanding and kindness, especially for your cozy Art Studio, where I end up spending a lot of nights. It has been the best late-night library I have ever been to. Of course, thanks also to the two amazing cats of yours, Flint and Nami.

They kept me company and always reminded me to be calm in this rather lonely and stressful journey.

Thanks to all my new friends in Mexico, thank you for making this foreign country so warm and welcoming. I never imagined I would feel so encouraged in a completely foreign environment to finish this challenge that I had been fearing for such a long time.

At last, with the hope carried out by a new year, I wish good health for everyone and the

world to be moving towards a more humanitarian reality.

5

Table of Content

Abstract ... 2

Preface ... 3

Chapter 1. Introduction ... 7

1.1 Research Problems and Aims ... 7

1.2 Research Questions and Methods ... 9

1.3 Previous Academic Research ... 12

1.3.1 Architectural Focuses on Temporary Housing ... 12

1.3.2 Humanitarian Focuses on Temporary Housing ... 14

1.3.3 Conclusion of Previous Academic Research ... 16

1.4 Relevance to the Humanitarian Action ... 17

1.5 Limitations ... 18

1.6 Thesis Outline ... 19

Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework ... 21

2.1 Introduction to Theoretical Framework ... 21

2.2 Community Psychological Resilience ... 21

2.2.1 Resilience ... 21

2.2.2 Community ... 21

2.2.3 Community Psychological Resilience ... 22

2.3 Psychosocial Capacity Building Model ... 23

2.3.1 Psychosocial Support ... 23

2.3.2 Psychosocial Capacity Building Model ... 24

2.4 Shared Social Identity Approach ... 25

2.5 Conclusion of Theoretical Framework ... 29

Chapter 3. Post-Disaster Temporary Housing’s Psychosocial Effects ... 31

3.1 The Built Environment’s Psychosocial Effects ... 31

3.2 The Loss of Home ... 32

3.2.1 Home and Homeless ... 32

3.2.2 The Loss of Home in Disaster ... 32

3.3 Post-Disaster Temporary Housing... 33

3.3.1 Temporary Housing ... 33

3.3.2 New Home? ... 33

3.3.3 Home to Homeland ... 34

3.4 Conclusion of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing’s Psychosocial Effects ... 34

Chapter 4. Case Studies ... 35

4.1 Introduction to Case Studies ... 35

4.2 The 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China ... 37

4.2.1 Disaster Background ... 37

4.2.2 Temporary Housing Responses ... 37

4.2.3 Research and Follow Up Actions ... 38

4.3 The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Japan ... 39

4.3.1 Disaster Background ... 39

4.3.2 Temporary Housing Responses ... 39

4.3.3 Research and Follow Up Actions ... 41

4.4 Case Study Conclusions ... 43

4.4.1 The 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China ... 43

6

4.4.2 The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Japan ... 44

4.4.3 Comparative Conclusions ... 45

Chapter 5. Case Study Discussion ... 47

5.1 Built Environments that Promote Mutual Help and Shared Social Identities ... 47

5.1.1 Temporary Housing Units Design ... 47

5.1.2 Temporary Housing Units Layout ... 49

5.1.3 Public Spaces ... 50

5.1.4 Entry and Relocation System ... 51

5.2 Coordination between Humanitarians and Architects ... 51

5.3 Interdisciplinary Approach in Temporary Housing Development ... 51

5.4 Temporary Housing Remarks on Chinese Disaster Responses ... 52

5.5 Community Participation in the Planning Process ... 52

Chapter 6. Conclusions ... 54

6.1 Recommendations ... 54

6.2 Contributions and Limitations ... 55

References... 57

Appendix ... 69

7

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Problems and Aims

When disasters strike, hundreds of thousands of people lose their homes. In response, communities react quickly and offer help, including in the development of shelters.

Housing is provided by aid agencies to fill the needs of displaced communities. However,

“There is nothing worse than answering well the wrong question.” – Alejandro Aravena

“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” – Winston Churchill

Built environments, especially housing, are not only cold walls and roofs. They create the environment where people are the most vulnerable. Well thought out designs and aid respond to real needs as well as make people feel valued and dignified. This especially should be taken into consideration in the context of providing housing for the “homeless”, after a disaster.

Disasters

There are no purely “natural” disasters. Disasters are usually categorized into three types:

natural disasters (e.g. tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes), technological disasters (e.g. nuclear meltdowns, chemical spills), and complex disasters (e.g. genocides, terrorism, armed conflict, mass shootings) (Halpern and Tramontin, 2007). However, a disaster is never only determined by the mere physical environment, it is an outcome of a mix of social and political factors (Alexander, 2000). Even with the seemingly non- man-made “natural” disasters

, it is the disaster risk management (involving culture, social, political, technological aspects, resources, etc.) together with the natural world, that result in a disaster after the occurrence of an extreme natural process (Pescaroli and Alexander, 2016). This explains why societies suffer different levels of loss from a similar scale of an extreme natural process (Miller and Pescaroli, 2018)

.

Therefore, if the extreme natural process is only a part of the disaster, then the term post-

1

This term is debatable under the context of global climate change crisis as research has found that there are more disasters happening caused by climate change (Environment Agency, 2015).

2

This thesis will use the terms “disaster” and “‘natural’ disaster” to refer to the conventional natural disaster concept. The term “post-disaster” will be used to refer to scenarios after the occurrence of a “natural”

disaster.

8 disaster is also often misused. The extreme natural process may have ended, but the man- made factors remain complicated. The manner in which societies respond is also a contributing factor to the impact of disasters.

Temporary Housing

Temporary housing is not so temporary. It is easy to look down on a “temporary” solution;

although they are planned for shorter-term use (less than 3 years), people often need to stay longer than initially planned, which can turn into decades (Gionvinazzi et al., 2011).

In fact, as of October 2020, nearly nine years after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, there are still around 2,000 people in temporary housing (Reconstruction Agency, 2020).

As a new home for disaster survivors to move into after a traumatic event, losing families, friends, home and belongings, carrying unsettled mental states, it goes without saying that temporary housing is a significantly important part of a disaster response.

However, instead of being a safe shelter for survivors to heal and recover, the design of the temporary housing built after the 1995 Hanshin Earthquake in Kobe indirectly resulted in 238 cases of kodokushi (death alone and unnoticed) (Smith, 2016). Since then, the Japanese government has regulated their temporary housing interventions to reduce kodokushi cases. Despite the generous participation of many Japanese architects who were primarily experienced in the disaster construction field, including Pritzker Prize

winners Toyo Ito and Shigeru Ban (Igarashi, 2012), incomplete data of 230 kodokushi cases in temporary housing was reported six years after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (Bris and Bendito, 2019).

Why have the world’s best architects failed to successfully design temporary housing?

What did the architects not understand about it and how could humanitarian actors better engage the professional skills of experienced architects? How should good temporary housing be constructed and how does it affect disaster survivors?

Community

The term ‘social capital’, defined by Portes (1998), stands for the social connection and corporation that benefit the individual and the community. It is widely agreed that a

3

One of the most influential architecture awards, often referred to as the Noble Prize of architecture.

9 community possesses inner capacities and capabilities to recover from a disaster and other disturbances. The term ‘community resilience’, encompassing these capabilities, is widely discussed; however, it has yet to become a building block of post-disaster intervention planning. This notion as well as an understanding of the community in question bear ultimate importance for the success of such interventions. An increasing number of community-based approaches promote purchasing resources locally, hiring locally, and using locally available materials. However, studies show that social capital is the least wounded when a disaster strikes compared to physical, economic and human capital (Dynes, 2002). Therefore, as a post-disaster strategy is aimed at restoring normalcy, everything possible must be done to engage the survivors in the process, rather than seeing them solely as victims. It is only logical to include the affected community as much as possible in the process of rebuilding and restoring.

Aims

This thesis aims to create an understanding of temporary housing built for disaster survivors, not merely as a physical shelter or a place for individuals to temporarily spend a few nights while waiting for the “real and permanent” solution, but as a complex tool that can and should aid the affected community as a whole to recover and be ever more resilient. To that end, this thesis will apply a multidimensional theoretical framework of appraisal for temporary housing based on several key criteria such as level of isolation, capacity to facilitate community connections, cultural adaptability, and others.

Using the above-mentioned criteria, the thesis will take a deep dive into the various psychosocial effects that housing can have on the affected community and individuals, to investigate ways to align the utilitarian task of building sufficient temporary housing with the theory and practice of building community resilience, both by providing aid and by promoting mutual help within community members. Later, the thesis will try to identify current developments and gaps through a comparative case study analysis encompassing two of the most devastating disasters in recent years.

Lastly, the thesis will fulfill its initial goal, by presenting a set of recommendations as to

what architects and aid agencies can take into consideration when developing post-

disaster temporary housing, from the standpoint of connecting or reconnecting inhabitants,

building community resilience, and facilitating psychosocial recovery or development.

10

1.2 Research Questions and Methods

This thesis aims to answer the research question:

How can post-disaster temporary housing contribute to the psychosocial aspect of community resilience building?

In order to better address the research question, three sub-questions will be answered:

1. What are the key factors in achieving the psychosocial aspect of post-disaster community resilience building?

2. How does post-disaster temporary housing psychosocially affect the affected communities?

3. Which strategies can be applied in post-disaster temporary housing development in order to contribute to the psychosocial aspect of community resilience building?

This thesis will be a desk-based qualitative research. The desk-based approach is especially important and necessary in the special year of 2020, when the world has been in a lock-down. Limited mobility and human contact have made it extremely difficult to go into the field and conduct field studies.

Data Collection

Three methods will be used in this thesis to collect data: internet-based research, intensive literature review, and case studies. I will explain each of these methods in detail in the following paragraphs.

Internet-based research is one of the most common methods used to collect data for

research as well as for forming ideas. The sources on the internet are well-connected,

therefore it is a good source for expanding ideas and finding logic behind pieces of

evidence. With limited access to physical libraries during the pandemic, the Uppsala

University Library Website and its online database, as well as Google scholar have been

extremely useful for data collection in this thesis. I was able to narrow my thesis topic

down using internet-based research. Being interested in the cross-sector of Humanitarian

Action and Architecture, I conducted searches using keywords like “humanitarian

architects”, “Humanitarian architecture”. In the results I came across Esther’s (2014)

book on 15 architects working with humanitarian actions. I was already familiar with

11 some of the architects and their projects, but especially interested in the project and interviews conducted by Michael Murphy. With more internet research about him, I was inspired by his TED Talk “Architecture that’s built to heal

”. After this, I conducted more research on architecture that helps people heal from physical mental disorders. I then identified that there were too many focuses on facilities like hospitals but very little on housing, which is also a very important construction and most people stay a longer time in housing than in hospitals.

The intensive literature review is also a good approach in a desk-based method. As the most commonly used method, it has pros and cons. The positive side of a literature review is that it allows you to learn from history, evaluate the development of research topics, as well as access big examples from others and study from various research aspects.

However, the downsides of a literature review include redundant information selection, personal interpretations as well as source bias (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007, pp.

201-202). When studying research on post-disaster accommodations using the literature review method, I was able to identify that there were more discussions between urban reconstruction and resilience, but very little on the relationship between resilience and temporary housing. On top of that, I noticed there were different focused interests from research conducted by various professionals when examining issues existing in temporary housing, varying from architects, public health professionals and non-medical aid workers. By comparing their different focuses, I identified gaps between this research and developed my final research questions from them.

Case study research has its advantages and disadvantages when compared to statistical methods. Some of the advantages of case study methods are: examining cases historically, connecting complex informal relations, and creating new theories. Like other research methods, there are also trade-offs within case studies. Some of the disadvantages can be biases against the case selections, as well as the lack of independence within cases (Bennett, 2004). In this thesis, a comparative case study consisting of two disaster responses involving huge temporary housing projects in China and Japan will be looked at, as well as the further academic research and actions which followed these two responses. Criteria for choosing these two cases will be further explained in the case study

4

Link to Michael Murphy’s Ted talk Architecture that’s built to heal:

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_murphy_architecture_that_s_built_to_heal.

12 chapter. When collecting data on these two cases, primary sources like reports from governmental organizations and aid agencies are used; secondary sources like previous research and reviews of those projects are also included in the case study. When researching the case in China, both English and Chinese are used to searching for relevant sources. Here I also identified a gap while searching in Chinese, whereby there was very limited research available in Chinese about post-disaster temporary housing.

Data Analysis

Qualitative methods were used to analyze the data collected using the above-listed methods. Even though some of the data collected was quantitative (for example, data describing disasters scales and numbers on the size of temporary housing), the majority of the analysis in this thesis will be interpretive. Collected information will be described, categorized and connected, using comparative, empirical, critical and constructive analysis.

Data collected from the literature review will be analyzed to answer the first two sub- questions, as well as to set up the theoretical framework of this thesis. Case study data and its analysis will be used to answer the third sub-question.

1.3 Previous Academic Research

This section will provide a brief introduction of the previous academic research that has been done around post-disaster temporary housing and discuss the aspect of social and psychological impacts on affected communities among the conducted research. A clear difference in research focus is identified when categorizing the researchers to architectural and humanitarian professionals. Thus, the following subsections will present research from these two groups of researchers and conclude with the differences between them as well as identify the gaps in previous research.

1.3.1 Architectural Focuses on Temporary Housing

The book Humanitarian Architecture: 15 Stories of Architects Working After Disaster,

by Charlesworth (2014), an Architecture and Design Professor at Royal Melbourne

Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, which includes contributions from fellow

13 architects involved in post-disaster

built environment design, is one of the first books to promote the involvement of architects in the humanitarian sector. In this book, she presents the growing engagement of architects that design for communities in the post- disaster context, and points out the main stimulator of this growing scene was the Global Financial Crisis in 2008

. Multiple architects’

temporary housing designs are presented in the book. These are Temporary Housing Units (the same individual housing) that need to be located and grouped at the site with or without the involvement of the architects (Charlesworth, 2014).

Wagemann

(2016, 2017) criticizes the popular “one-size-fits-all” design approach for post-disaster temporary housing units, in her PhD thesis, From Shelter to Home:

Flexibility in Post-Disaster Accommodation. The culturally insensitive practice often forces users to modify or abandon received housing, which may create safety issues (Wagemann, 2016, 2017; Félix et al., 2013, 2015). She argues the importance of including

“flexibility” in the design, to make it “home-like”. Her design solutions focus on individuals and families (Wagemann, 2016, 2017).

Félix and colleagues’ (2013, 2015) articles align with Wagemann’s flexibility strategy.

Their research promotes “human-oriented” approaches instead of the “design-based”

ones. They acknowledge the importance of community and the influence of public spaces, and argue for improvements involving site-selection, construction, size, physical performance, materials, comforting features, flexibility, and outdoor spaces. However, no detailed suggestions are given and their social and psychological analyses are also centered around individuals, without viewing the design as a solution for the community as a whole.

More research is focused on the logistical aspects of temporary housing, such as Lalane and Carlos (2017) which analyzes “user-environment relationships” from an architectural

5

The term disaster here covers a broader definition than is referred to in this thesis. It varies from “natural”

disasters to man-made and complex disaster including conflicts.

6

The movement is clearly new to the humanitarian field where a great amount of participation from architects has been urgently needed for a long time. Yet there is still a huge gap between the capacity and responsibilities of architects and their contribution towards the public including in the humanitarian sector (Powell, 2016).

7

Including Shigeru Ban, who was awarded the 2014 Pritzker Architecture Prize for his humanitarian and social architecture contribution and design innovation within them, e.g. the material usage of paper tubes and shipping containers (Pritzker Prize, 2014).

8

Elizabeth Wagemann, PhD from the Department of Architecture in University of Cambridge.

14 perspective. Their research assesses needs from the standpoint of individuals and households. Biswas (2019) advocates for early preparation and fast response in temporary housing. He refers to the terms of community collectivity and resilience, focused on their needs and emphasizes the impact of timelines and efficiency of temporary housing projects on mental recovery. Dabiri and colleagues (2020) propose a “site-based”

approach for temporary housing, concerning risk consequences of poor site choices.

Perrucci and Baroud (2020) reviews trends and issues existing in current temporary housing development. They suggest to: (1) store prefabricated temporary housing prior to a disaster; (2) model and innovate designs for lower costs of storage or transportation;

(3) apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

to evaluate temporary housing sustainability; (4) provide the affected community with normalcy and well-being by combining post-disaster shelters, temporary housing and permanent housing into one, for community resilience.

1.3.2 Humanitarian Focuses on Temporary Housing

A system review was conducted by Disaster Risk Reduction researcher Johnson in 2007 as well. She promotes prefabricated temporary housing, and suggests: (1) fast availability;

(2) using local service and resources; (3) applying local living standards on sites and functions; (4) planning service life considering costs and needs; (5) prioritizing easy to clean (Johnson, Lizarralde and Davidson, 2006; Johnson 2007a).

Kuwabara and colleagues (2008) advocate that temporary housing is an important environment for survivors to recover from psychological distresses. Caia and colleagues (2010) were the first to investigate the psychosocial impact of temporary housing with different qualities by gathering data from survivors of an earthquake. Their research demonstrates survivors living in temporary housing of wooden dacha are found psychosocially healthier than those living in mobile temporary housing transformed from shipping containers two years after the same traumatic earthquake. Their research focuses on the temporary housing type that individual households receive.

9

LEED is a sustainable building rating system, one of the most highly adopted rating systems globally

(Perrucci and Baroud, 2020).

15 Donovan’s (2013) book

is one of the first one to address the relationship between post- disaster psychosocial recovery and urban design. She urges urban planners to foster community resilience by facilitating and empowering the community (Baldwin, 2016).

Koyama and colleagues’ (2014) research investigates the mental health impact of two temporary housing allocation methods: “group allocation”, where original community members are relocated in the same temporary housing complex; and “lottery allocation”, where survivors are randomly selected to live in different temporary houses. The results suggest that people living together with the original community tend to receive and provide more social support and are found to be mentally healthier. Therefore, different levels of community collectiveness among the temporary housing complex do have an impact on survivors’ mental health.

Smith (2016) is the first one to investigate the relationship between the mental health of disaster survivors and the design of the temporary housing complex they live in (which directs them to different lifestyles). His research points out a temporary housing complex that contributes to less social interaction and connections could be one of the factors which resulted in kodokushi in Tohoku after the Hanshin Awaji earthquake in 1995.

Based on Smith’s research, Bris and Bendito (2019) further prove the connection between temporary housing complex design and the mental health of its residents by comparing different temporary housing complex solutions provided after different disasters in Japan.

Temporary housing complexes that promote more social isolation have higher rates of kodokushi. They urge that the design of temporary housing complexes needs to be changed to meet the real needs of affected people.

Sekiguchi and colleagues (2019) are the first to research the severity of social isolation of “natural disaster” survivors after moving out from temporary housing to permanent housing. The results suggest that people who move to permanent housing in the fifth year experience more social isolation than the ones that continue living in temporary housing.

10

Jenny Dononvan is a Professor of Social Medicine at the University of Bristol, her book Designing to

Heal: reconstructing communities after disasters is based on her personal experiences in presented

interventions, many audiences find it too personal and lacking more subjective solutions (Ugur, 2014).

16 1.3.3 Conclusion of Previous Academic Research

By analyzing previous research conducted from architectural and humanitarian focuses, differences and gaps remain in and between these two groups.

Architects are one of the more recent participants in post disaster construction and reconstruction, their research focuses more on design innovations (e.g. style, material, interior spaces, technology) and logistical issues (e.g. costs, construction, storage, time, material recycling). They generally understand the social and psychological impact of the built environment on users and pursue ways to meet their needs. However, the understanding of the needs is often not accurate in the context of a post-disaster intervention, as the needs and priorities of the same community change after a traumatic event. Moreover, their usual design focus is centered around users (multiple individuals).

In a special period of time where community is more important than ever, their individual focuses often neglect the real areas they can contribute to. Last but not least, architects enjoy “creating” new things, in this case, redefining “homes” for hundreds and thousands of post-trauma disasters. The enormous power and responsibility easily blinds them from prioritizing the capacity, strength and even bigger potential that already exists within the community.

When it comes to humanitarian-focused research, the investigation of relationships between temporary housing and mental or psychosocial health has just recently started.

They tend to see temporary housing as a “product” instead of a “process” (Turner and Fichter, 1972). It is important for the humanitarian field to recognize the differences and significance of temporary housing from other post-disaster intervention approaches.

Humanitarian workers are more aware of the community resilience in general, however they are also needs-oriented, overlooking the capacity of the community itself.

In conclusion, a huge gap still remains between the understanding and focus of temporary

housing from the standpoints of architects and humanitarians, and both groups prioritize

too much what the community needs, rather than what the community has and what it can

do. Architectural professionals’ idealistic interpretation of user needs can have serious

consequences within the survivor community, while humanitarian workers barely

question and are unaware of the impact of temporary housing, other than being a roof

over community members’ heads. There has been a trend of more psychosocially

17 sensitive research on temporary housing being conducted in the recent years by both groups. However, they have not seemed to start facilitating and empowering community resilience, instead of “creating” it, by recognizing and mobilizing communities as a whole and generating the power from within. Therefore, this thesis aims to close the divide between humanitarians and architects on temporary housing, and fill the gap between their understandings and the inner capacity within the community for achieving community resilience.

1.4 Relevance to the Humanitarian Action

Shelter is an important sector in humanitarian action. It forms a part of the Cluster Approach

– it provides safety, protection and prevents diseases. It is also crucial for human dignity and mental recovery. In 2019, 24.9 million displacements were caused by about 1,900 “natural” disasters, which was the highest number recorded since 2012, and about 3 times the number caused by conflicts (European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations [ECHO], 2020). Moreover, the number of “natural”

disasters has been increasing continuously, which has and will continue to damage housing (Félix et al., 2013), resulting in more displacements and creating higher demands for post-disaster housing.

Temporary housing is an important process of post-disaster housing. Survivors often need to be accommodated in temporary housing for years, which is a crucial period of time for them to recover from the traumatic event.

When studying the mental impact of a disaster on survivors, most research tends to look at post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and other acute mental disorders.

However, a much higher number of survivors suffer other mental illnesses. These people do not need clinical treatments and find it harder to receive professional support (The Inter-Agency Standing Committee [IASC], 2007). For them, the environment they are placed in is especially important, in terms of how it makes them feel and whether it is supportive. Without addressing the underlying long-term mental issues, more social

11

The Cluster Approach is a group of UN and non-UN humanitarian organizations leading the coordination

of identified main sectors of humanitarian action during a humanitarian and emergency relief (OCHA,

2020).

18 problems are likely to follow in development, human rights and peace (IASC, 2007).

Therefore, humanitarian actors should implement activities in this aspect, where the built environment, especially temporary housing, has a significant contribution.

Architects are experts in the built environment, however, there has been a big divide between architects and humanitarians (Scott-Smith, 2017). The reason lies in the different career priorities of the two professions. Many architects are interested in the involvement of humanitarian actions, but find it hard to find common language in humanitarian agencies’ way of working (Scott-Smith, 2019). Cases like the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake temporary housing turnout also demonstrates that even the best architects do not know how to work in the post-disaster context. Therefore, it is important to address the gap between humanitarians and architects for adequate housing projects that will truly be for the people.

The last part comes from the people, people of the community. Humanitarian workers almost always need to carry a great urgency to address needs, and there are always too many. It becomes a tendency for aid agencies to jump in and start to look for needs. If the power within the community can be recognized, mobilized and empowered, we will be able to reimagine a new humanitarian scene, with much more effective aid that promotes communication, collaboration and equality.

1.5 Limitations

One limitation of this thesis is that data has only been collected from information available in English and Chinese. This can be a problem when trying to collect data for the case study in Japan. Even though many English pieces of literature are available on temporary housing projects in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami response, the lack of Japanese literature availability can result in a bias in the analysis of the actual academic scenery in Japan on this issue.

Another limitation is that this thesis does not elaborate on the temporary housing solutions

of renting houses or living with relatives. It will only focus on the cases where

prefabricated or other newly constructed temporary housing is provided for disaster

survivors.

19 Additionally, the conclusions from case studies of China and Japan may not apply in the global scare. These two countries are geographically close to each other and share similarities in their cultures, population density, capacities for infrastructures, etc. For many developing countries outside of China, the solution of prefabricated temporary housing is often found to be too pricey for implementation. Some scholars estimate that the price of temporary housing may be three times the price of permanent housing, because all infrastructure, like electricity, gas, water and latrine systems, needs to be installed but only for a short time of use (Hadafi and Fallahi, 2010). In addition, most prefabricated temporary housing is imported from abroad and, even when it is left within its usage cycle, is often never reused or recycled.

Lastly, this thesis does not take into account the design needs of post-disaster temporary housing in the new context of the Covid-19 pandemic, where social distancing is encouraged to be considered in the built-environment planning and design (Megahed and Ghoneim, 2020). More coherent discussions on coordinating and prioritizing different needs should be conducted in complex situations when involving a pandemic or other crises.

1.6 Thesis Outline

This thesis will consist of six chapters. The outline will be presented in this section.

Chapter 1 will give an introduction to the existing problems and research aims; then

present research questions and methods to collect and analyze data; followed by previous

research that has been conducted, and identify patterns and gaps between them; as well

as addressing its relevance to the Humanitarian Action; and limitations that are beyond

the discussion of this thesis. Chapter 2 will introduce the theoretical framework that will

be adopted in this thesis, and give an answer to the first sub-question by discussing the

psychosocial aspect of community resilience. Following this, Chapter 3 will answer the

second sub-question by talking about the psychosocial aspects of temporary housing, by

first introducing the psychosocial effects of the built environment and discussing the

definition of home and its new definition in a disaster; followed by the definition of

temporary housing with its possible role in a post-disaster context. Chapter 4 will present

20

the research findings on two chosen cases and conclude with the comparison between

them. Chapter 5 will develop discussion from chapter 4 and combine it with the

theoretical framework that is presented in chapter 2 in order to answer the third sub-

question. Finally, Chapter 6 will conclude all research findings and provide

recommendations.

21

Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1 Introduction to Theoretical Framework

This chapter will introduce two theories that will serve as the theoretical framework of this thesis: the psychosocial capacity building model and shared social identity. It will then discuss the connections between these two theories. Finally, it will link them with the practices of the post-disaster built environment.

2.2 Community Psychological Resilience

This section aims to introduce community resilience and discuss it from the psychosocial perspective.

2.2.1 Resilience

The word “resilience” can be traced back to its Latin origins, resilo and resilire, which stand for “bounce back” (Manyena et al., 2011). However, it is very rare for any system to bounce back to exactly the same state as the original one (Meerow and Newell. 2016), therefore Adger explains resilience as a “capacity (…) to adapt to uncertainty and surprise”

(2005).

In Disaster Risk Reduction, the following definition given by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) is widely adopted: “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner” (UNISDR, 2009, p. 24). Resilience is prioritized as one of the four main tasks in the United Nations’

(UN’s) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (UNDRR, 2015).

2.2.2 Community

The term “community” can be identified as people that share “fate” within specific

geographic boundaries (Norris et al., 2008; Sharifi, 2016). It is often associated with a

neighborhood, a certain geographic area, shared living and collectiveness (Aldrich and

Meyer, 2014; Mulligan et al., 2016). At the same time, it also carries differences and

22 conflicts (Beer, 2019). A community manifests shared experiences, attachments, connections, common interests and differences.

In the context of a disaster, it has been found that survivors share a higher sense of community identity, therefore giving more social support (including mental support) to each other, and at the same time, expecting more social support from fellow community members (Drury et al., 2009; Williams and Drury, 2009). Ntontis and colleagues (2017) further demonstrate the importance of shared community identities, as it promotes collectivity and defines “boundaries”. These community boundaries can be expanded to bring in more inclusion and create more social support, yet can also be more narrowly defined to exclude certain people from the community from receiving support (Reicher et al. 2006; Reicher and Hopkins, 2001). This thesis will apply the definition of community as a group of people with shared fate (a disaster), and will acknowledge that the boundaries of the community can be influenced.

2.2.3 Community Psychological Resilience

The principal focus of community psychological resilience is to recognize and develop the advantage of individuals or a community, not to prioritize working on overcoming shortages (Luther, 2006; Buikstra et al., 2010). The recognized advantages which contribute to community resilience are leadership, connections, communications, social support, living values (e.g. the readiness for change), social inclusion, learning ability, the sense of belonging (Kulig et al., 2008; Norris et al., 2008; Buikstra et al. 2010), and built environment and nature (Buikstra et al. 2010). Berkes (2010) demonstrates in his research that a community has the potential to strengthen these advantages. Although it is widely noted within the community resilience theory that “whole is more than the sum of its parts” (Norris, et al., 2008, p. 128), that also indicates that a community consisting of resilient individuals is not guaranteed to be a resilient one as a whole (Pfefferbaum et al., 2005; Rose, 2004). While Iacoviello and Charney (2014) argue that the psychosocial approach that strengthens the resilience of individuals can also contribute to community resilience, more efforts must be put into achieving it by strengthening the community collectively, as a whole.

In conclusion, in the context of a disaster, the community shall be viewed as a source for

accomplishing community psychosocial resilience, and the level of inclusiveness of a

23 community can be influenced by shared identities. Community psychosocial resilience can be defined as members of a community joining together to cope with the disaster and learning to “bounce forward” (Davoudi, 2012; Folke, 2006; Harris et al., 2018; Meerow and Newell. 2016; Vale, 2014) to a new normalcy as a whole, through a psychosocial perspective. By acknowledging, empowering and expanding the community identity, more support inside the community can emerge within a changing and uncertain environment, enabling community resilience to be better achieved (Magis 2010;

Armitage et al., 2011).

2.3 Psychosocial Capacity Building Model

This section aims to introduce the psychosocial capacity building model, by first presenting the current developments in the field of psychosocial support, then bringing in the concept of strength-based approaches, the principles and aims of Miller’s psychosocial capacity building model. This section will end with explanations on mutual help from community members, which is a key approach emphasized in this model.

2.3.1 Psychosocial Support

IASC (2007) clarifies that disasters usually cause serious psychological and social consequences among the disaster-struck society. While it is a common practice to examine the social and psychological impacts, such as PTSD and other acute distress, only a comparatively small population actually suffer from them. The long-term psychosocial and mental health issues tend to be neglected, and these underlying issues may further risk development, peace and human rights. The definitions for “mental health”

and “psychosocial well-being” are not commonly understood within health organizations and non-health aid agencies. Historically, the notion of “psychosocial rehabilitation” and

“psychosocial treatment” were used to define interventions for individuals with mental disorders in approaches other than the biological type. Aiming to promote and protect psychosocial well-being, and to prevent and treat mental disorders, IASC (2007) published a guideline

to address the gaps within current post-disaster interventions. In the guidelines, they introduced the concept of “mental health and psychosocial support

12

IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings.

24 (MHPSS)” as the approach of any internal or external support under those aims (Sim and Garai, 2019).

The term “psychosocial” ties the connection between both psychological and social aspects, which includes behaviors, emotions, relationships, culture, etc. (Psychosocial Working Group, 2003). The focus of psychosocial support lies in individuals’ social and mental well-being, it aims to promote resilience within post-disaster survivors (Sim and Garai, 2019). It is partly against the common practices of overlooking community and collectiveness while overemphasizing the individuals (IASC, 2007; Miller, 2012).

2.3.2 Psychosocial Capacity Building Model

Given the consideration that most of the disaster-affected population does not need clinical treatment (IASC, 2007; Sim, 2015), Bisson and colleges (2015) demonstrate the approach of “natural recovery”, where no external intervention is needed. Instead of treating disaster survivors as a group that only carry problems, it is important to recognize their resources and capacity (Kam, 2012). This idea is applied in strength-based approaches, where individual assets are emphasized for development (Miely et al., 2019).

Similarly, Walker (2006) argues that humanitarian workers should better understand communities using an “asset lens” rather than the conventional “problem lens”, more work should be focused on identifying the strengths and assets of the community for achieving resilience. Therefore, when assessing the psychosocial needs of an effected community, one important aspect is to also examine the local assets and capacities within the community other than local needs (Wessells, 2007).

Psychosocial capacity building model is a unique post-disaster tool firstly proposed by Miller

(2012) in his book Psychosocial Capacity Building in Response to Disasters.

This model promotes resilience in all levels, from “individuals” and “families” to “social groups and communities” (Sim and Garai, 2019). There are four principles in this model:

(1) Culturally informed. Awareness of the local culture and working in line with it. (2) Empowering local capacities. Encouraging community development, acknowledging local capacities and strengthening them. (3) Prioritizing individual assets and resilience.

13

Joshua Miller is a professor of School for Social Work in Smith College. He has experience in social

work involving survivors of September 11 attacks, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Indian Ocean

tsunami, the 2010 Haitian earthquake, the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China and the armed conflict in

Uganda (Honda, 2013).

25 Keeping in mind the resilience and assets in individuals, empowering them and mobilizing them. (4) Putting families, social groups and communities at the center.

Designing and conducting interventions towards communities as a whole, not only individuals. (Sim et al., 2019). It believes that more effective assistance comes from self- help and mutual help, rather than from the outside (Sim and Garai, 2019).

Mutual help is a key indication of this model, through which a community’s inner strength can better play its role. The term mutual help refers to help given by community members to each other. As Miller (2012, p. 223) explains in his book: “groups create a situation in which mutual understanding, healing, mutual aid, and support can occur. This means that people with common experiences are from one another and forming links and relationships, rather relying on an ‘expert’ to help them recover…Groups bring in multiple perspectives and create a support system, which is more likely to endure, as opposed to an outside person who is likely to leave”. Mutual help is the approach as well as the outcome of Miller’s model, it is a key factor to achieving community resilience.

In conclusion, the psychosocial capacity building model is a strength-based approach, that is, to acknowledge the inner strength of a community, take actions to reconnect social bounds and create collectivity, and promote mutual help and healing inside the community for recovery and resilience (Sim and Garai, 2019). This thesis will adopt Miller’s (2012) psychosocial capacity building model as a theory, especially its focus on mutual help, to examine the psychosocial sensitivity of post-disaster temporary housing interventions for reaching community resilience.

2.4 Share Social Identity Approach

This section will talk about the role of the shared social identity, and elaborate on Drury et al.’s suggestions on the social identity approach.

The term social capital is used to represent the social connection and network in a community (Aldrich and Meyer, 2014), which is often determined by a specific geographical location (Ntontis et al., 2020). However, a community can be defined as people that experience the same fate, which can go beyond the geographic limitation.

That is where the shared social identity comes into play, it has a broader application inside

26 a community compared to social capital. Cultural heritage, professional affiliations, ethical lineages and religious beliefs can also become important factors in the building of a shared identity of a community.

As well as examining community resilience based on the social connection that already existed prior to the disaster, it also very is important to acknowledge the psychosocial changes within members of a community when they experience an emergency or traumatic event (Ntontis et al., 2020). The term “psychosocial” ties the connection between both psychological and social aspects, which includes behaviors, emotions, relationships, culture, etc. (Psychosocial Working Group, 2003).

Disaster survivors have been found to share a higher sense of community identity when experiencing the same fate (a disaster), this facilitates the change of self-identification from “I” to “We”. It encourages people to give more social support (including mental support) to each other, and expect similar support back from fellow community members (Drury et al., 2009; Williams and Drury, 2009). It aligns with Miller’s psychosocial capacity building model, which encourages mutual help from within the community.

Community development involves capacity building, community empowerment, and community participation that creates a sense of ownership (Cavaya and Ross, 2019).

Shared community identity serves as the intermediate for community development to foster community resilience (Ntontis et al., 2020).

Community identity helps to promote collectivity and define “community boundaries”

(Ntontis et al., 2017). It is important to take into consideration that these community boundaries can be expanded to incorporate more inclusion and create more social support, or more narrowly redefined which would exclude a certain group of people from the community (Reicher et al. 2006; Reicher and Hopkins, 2001).

Drury et al. (2019) suggest 12 main directions for achieving community resilience through a psychosocial perspective when using a social identity approach. The following paragraphs will select and combine some of these main directions that are relevant to the post-disaster temporary housing development, and elaborate with independent arguments:

1. Acknowledge and enhance the actual social identity in the community (Drury et

al., 2019).

27 Any given community, both pre- and post-disaster, possesses a certain identity that can rarely be described as a monolithic one. It would be much more accurate to approach that identity as composed of overlapping identities of major groups comprising the community in question. And this mix of identities is often unnoticed or overlooked during times of normalcy but comes to the utmost importance during and after an emergency or a disaster. Each member of a community is likely to have certain religious beliefs, professional affiliation, cultural heritage and ethnic lineage that they would identify themselves with. Each of the above-mentioned factors will play its roles in forming the shared identity of a community, but only those with the largest capacity for uniting people will become inherently characteristic of this identity.

For example, in a township with various professional groups but a single set of strong religious beliefs shared by 90% of residents, it is highly likely that community identity would form around the religion, and professional affiliation wouldn’t be as important from the psychosocial standpoint. On the contrary, in an occupation-oriented community that is formed around a certain industrial plant, mining enterprise, etc. it is a profession that will serve as a fundamental factor of identity building, irrespective of different ethnic, or religious groups that might comprise the population. It is also possible that two identities shared by the majority of residents merge into one community identity (e.g.

Shia engineers, Slavic sailors, indigenous miners).

One good example can be seen in post-disaster reconstruction in Christchurch, New Zealand after its 2011 earthquake. After the iconic Anglican Catholic cathedral – Christ Church Cathedral (built around 200 years ago) – was severely damaged in the earthquake, the British Anglican Church decided to demolish the architecture. The public refused this decision about their symbolic building. The case was brought to the supreme court, and received the court design for reconstruction in late 2015. The British Anglican Church then announced its reconstruction plan two years later (Westgate, 2020).

Given all of that and the notion that in communities of disaster survivors, the emergency itself becomes a significant part of identity, it is clear that acknowledging and enhancing the community identity is a very important factor to assist the improvement of collective mental health, and to procure shared confidence and mutual help among the residents.

2. Understand the community and its norms, and always work in line with them

28 (Drury et al., 2019).

The very term post-disaster intervention, including temporary housing projects, deals with a large number of things being brought into the community in question. And by things, one should not only mean physical objects. Humanitarian personnel, emergency services and construction workers from all over the world suddenly appear at the disaster site and some of them can be naturally viewed as aliens by the inhabitants of the struck community. To minimize the damage of such collision of identities and to prevent conflicts, it is crucial that everyone involved in the interventions are made aware and are respectful of the identity of the community in question and its norms, laws and traditions.

It is equally important that all the items brought into a community, from food, sanitary goods to furniture and housing, are made and adjusted with community norms in mind.

Cultural diversity needs to be cared for at all times and one should always know that something seen as universally usable in their home region can be seen as useless or even disrespectful in the community in question.

One example is in Tamil Nadu, India after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.

Many temporary housings were abandoned for their culturally inappropriate design. The metal material chosen for its roof and poor ventilation resulted in indoor temperature up to 50oC. And its small space was not possible to accommodate a normal family of six to eight members in the community (Gulahane and Gokhale, 2012).

3. Facilitate and maintain information and communication (Drury et al., 2019).

Emergencies or disasters are inherently characterized by uncertainty and rapid change that comes to replace normalcy and predictability. Most disaster interventions aim to restore normalcy with respect to the mental state of the community as well as with respect to its physical wellbeing, it is crucial that the community is given all the information that intervention planners have about the community’s fate, and even better, become a part of it. In that way, community members can regain at least a portion of the predictability that they used to have and which often brings emotional comfort.

Further, for the same reasons, even if some changes need to be made to the plan of post-

disaster recovery, all changes should only be made long after the community is aware of

them. Ideally, this involves discussions, where community members would feel like

29 participants in decisions that determine their fate. It needs to be kept in mind that survivors’ mental health is more vulnerable and that even the smallest change can be felt as catastrophic if it is sudden and comes without warning.

4. Apply social identity in community development (Drury et al., 2019).

Post-disaster recovery cannot be finished and normalcy cannot be achieved until disaster survivors are not seen solely as victims, neither by intervention planners nor by themselves. It is only when the community feels like it’s in control of its own fate that it can start to really develop, not just recover and rebuild. To achieve that as soon as possible, intervention personnel should engage survivors to participate as much as possible in all and every process. It is crucial that it is survivors who are seen as the ones rebuilding and restoring normalcy and emergency personnel are only seen as their helpers. To that end, social identity needs to be understood and applied properly.

Participants should be encouraged to participate in different activities and also in the overall planning of the post-disaster recovery with huge respect to their culture and identity. All of the intervention personnel need to abstain from promoting, even passively or unconsciously, values and traditions that are alien to the community in question. The lifestyle of the community should be preserved as much as possible.

To conclude, social identity is another key factor that contributes to community psychosocial resilience. Beyond the original social networks and connections, social identity creates a wider definition for the community. It serves as the basis for social support, collective coordination and empowerment, promotes mutual help within community members, facilitates the fostering of community resilience from the community itself (Ntontis et al., 2020).

2.5 Conclusion of Theoretical Framework

To conclude, this thesis will apply two theories as its theoretical framework: Miller’s

psychosocial capacity building model and a shared social identity approach based on

Drury et al.’s studies. Community resilience can be understood as members of a

community joining together as a whole, to cope with the disaster that struck them and

30 learning to bounce forward in the new context. Mutual help inside the community, and shared social identity are key factors to achieving community resilience, they are interconnected with each other. Both theories emphasize the importance of the community and its members in post-disaster recovery. The community has its capacity and willingness to self-help in the psychosocial perspective, which will contribute to community resilience. For aid agencies, it is crucial to identify and enhance shared social identity within the community, and mobilize communities to generate more psychosocial mutual help from inside.

It is clear that the post-disaster built environment fosters the habituating community’s

social behaviors and connections. Therefore, it is crucial that the built environment

promotes a sense of community identity, creates convenience for community

communications and fosters mutual help between community members. More

consideration should be given to how to be more inclusive and how to enhance social

identities. The built environment has the potential to be a space that generates hope and

support after a traumatic event, for community members to heal. This thesis will apply

the theoretical framework combining Miller’s psychosocial capacity building model and

Drury et al.’s shared social identity approach, to identify the psychosocially sensitive

strategies of post-disaster temporary housing development for reaching community

resilience. By doing so, this thesis aims to provide a new angle for understanding and

approaching temporary housing development for both architects and humanitarians to

address the real psychosocial needs and potentials within the affected community.

31

Chapter 3. Post-Disaster Temporary Housing’s Psychosocial Effects

3.1 The Built Environment’s Psychosocial Effects

This sub-chapter will provide an introduction into the psychosocial effects of the built environment. Statistically, people spend more than 90% of their lifetime in indoor spaces (National Research Council, 1981). It has been proven that the built environment can directly affect inhabitants’ mental health as well as alter psychosocial aspects of individual health (Evans, 2003). This section will introduce some of the selected aspects, which are related to the thesis’s research topic.

 Housing quality: problems like heat or humidity and maintenance issues, can mentally distress the inhabitants (Evans, 2003).

 Noise: unpleasant noise can result in more hopelessness in individuals (Evans, 2003).

 Corridors: students living in long-corridor rooms are found to share more hopelessness than the ones living in suites (Evans, 2003).

 A variety of social interaction spaces, from privacy to small and big groups, provides a better chance for regulating social interactions (Evans, 2003).

 Distance: shorter distance increases the chance of social interaction. By placing architecture closer to other people, or creating spaces where people are rather close to each other can result in more social interaction (Evans, 2003; Mazumdar et al., 2017).

 Crowding: high density may have a negative effect on social interaction and social support (Evans, 2003; Mazumdar et al., 2017).

 Natural elements result in less distress and more social capital (Evans, 2003;

Francis et al., 2012; Lund, 2013; Mazumdar et al., 2017).

 Public open spaces that hold community events and create space for community

members to meet are positively related to building the sense of community

identity (Francis et al., 2012).

32

3.2 The Loss of Home

3.2.1 Home and Homeless

There is a difference between a house and a home. When we talk about a house, we are more likely to talk about it as a property, an architecture, and an economic symbol.

However, when we talk about a home, it is attached to feelings, familiarity, and safety. It is easy for people to complain about “staying at home” during a pandemic, but they probably do not think about the scenario of not having a home to stay in under the same conditions. Home carries a sense of comfort that can easily be taken for granted (Seamon, 1979).

Home is a land-based concept (Molony, 2010), connected with a sense of securities from physical, mental, territorial, special and spiritual security (Somerville, 1992). Carboni (1990) describes the homeless state as powerless, with few choices, disconnected, uncertain, and with no identity.

3.2.2 The Loss of Home in Disaster

Research has shown that the loss of the home is one of the biggest contributors to distress for disaster survivors (Caia et al., 2010). Homeless populations do not just lose a house;

they lose their home, which subsequently damages their existing social connections and relationships (Miller, 2012). The loss of home resulting from a disaster profoundly disturbs psychosocial assets, such as land-based social identity (Labarda et al., 2020).

In a disaster, the loss of a home does not only happen to one or a few individuals; it often affects a group of people, or an entire community. Westgate (2020) indicates that the entire city of Christchurch suffered the sense of “homelessness” after the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake.

The following chapters will introduce temporary housing and discuss its role among the

homeless people and communities.