Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Interim Housing Provision Following Earthquake Disaster

  • Regan PotangaroaEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_350


Core housing; Housing; Recovery phase; Shelter; Transitional housing


The provision of interim housing following an earthquake disaster is important because it is the first substantial community step away from the effects of a sudden and unexpected seismic event and back towards some “normality.”

It is defined as housing that is “short term that can be in place for 1 month to 2 years – preferably on sites close to the damaged housing. (To the extent that displaced residents can remain near their previous homes means that economic impacts are reduced.) Interim housing will be needed because those organizations “donating” temporary shelter space need to reclaim that space for its original uses as schools – community centers – churches – that serve the community.” (ABAG 2008).

The idea of “shelter in place” is important not only from a psychosocial perspective of those affected but moreover as part of the subsequent recovery and reconstruction. Shelter in place will...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. ABAG (2008) Long term housing recovery Pub. by Earthquake and hazards program local and regional disaster recovery planning issues Association of Bay Area Governments Issues paper, 8 July 2008Google Scholar
  2. ARC (2012) Preferred sheltering practices for emergency sheltering in Australia. The application of international humanitarian best practice. Pub. by Australian Red Cross, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  3. Arslan H, Coşgun N (2007) The evaluation of temporary earthquake houses dismantling process in the context of building waste management. In: International earthquake symposium Koceau, Turkey 22–26 Oct 2007Google Scholar
  4. Cancern (2014) Newsletter # 113, 31 January 2014. http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.n2/blog/2014/1/cancern-newsletter-113-31-January-2014. Accessed Feb 2015
  5. Chang Y, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Seville E (2011) Identifying factors affecting resource availability for post-disaster reconstruction: a case study in China. Construct Manage Econ 29(1):37–48Google Scholar
  6. da Silva J (2010) Lessons from Aceh Key considerations in post-disaster reconstruction. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby/Warwickshire, p 63. ISBN 978 1 85339 700 4. www.practicalactionpublishing.org
  7. Davidson C, Johnson C, Lizarralde G, Sliwinski A, Dikmen N (2007) Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int 31:100–115Google Scholar
  8. Davis I (2007) Learning from disaster recovery guidance for decision makers. International Recovery Platform (IRP), Geneva and Koba, p 24Google Scholar
  9. Davis I (2010) What is the vision for sheltering and housing in Haiti? Summary observations of reconstruction progress following the Haiti earthquake of January 12th 2010 online at www.onuhabitat.org/haiti, accessed Feb 2015
  10. DHS (2013) Unless modified, FEMA’s temporary housing plans will increase costs by an estimated $76 million annually. Department of Homeland Security, Washinton, DC, p 3Google Scholar
  11. EERI (2004) Learning from earthquakes. Social and public policy issues following the Bam, Iran, Earthquake. EERI special earthquake report, California, Aug 2001Google Scholar
  12. EERI (2008) Reconnaissance report on the China Wenchuan Earthquake May 12, 2008. Chu-Chieh J. Lin, Associate Research Fellow of NCREE Juin-Fu Chai, Research Fellow of NCREE, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. EPYPSA (2011) Estudios Proyectos y Planificación S.A. An evaluation of the Haiti earthquake 2010 meeting shelter needs: issues, achievements and constraints. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Geneva, p 5Google Scholar
  14. Ferris E (2010) Earthquakes and floods: comparing Haiti and Pakistan. The Brookings InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  15. Giovinazzi S, Stevenson J (2012) Temporary housing issues following the 22nd Christchurch earthquake, NZ. In: 2012 NZSEE conference University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  16. Haas J, Kates R, Bowden M (1977) Reconstruction following disaster. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewitt J (2013). Errors of commission. In: AUBEA 2013 conference, Auckland, 20–22 Nov 2013Google Scholar
  18. IASC (2010) Shelter Cluster Haiti transitional shelter technical guidance 19/02/10. Shelter Cluster technical working group, Port au PrincesGoogle Scholar
  19. IASC (2011) United Nations Inter Agency Standing Committee operational guidelines on the protection of persons in situations of natural disasters. The Brookings – Bern Project on Internal Displacement, IASC, Geneva, Jan 2011Google Scholar
  20. IOM (2012) Haiti: from emergency to sustainable recovery IOM Haiti two year report (2010–2011), pp 9–11, 37-3B. http://www.com.int/Jah 19/webdav/shared/main site/activities/countries/docs/haiti/10M-Haiti-Two-year-Report-2010-2011-From-Emergency-to-sustainable-Recovery.pdf. Accessed Feb 2015
  21. IRP (2009) International Recovery Platform, recovery status report. The Yogyakarta and Central Java Earthquake 2006 with Gadjah mada uni. pub. IRP Kobe Dec 2009Google Scholar
  22. Jha A, Barenstein J, Phelps P, Pittet D, Sena S (2010) The social dimension of housing reconstruction. In: Safer homes, stronger communities: a handbook for reconstructing after natural disasters. World Bank, Washinton, DC, pp 59–76Google Scholar
  23. Johnson C (2002) What’s the big deal about temporary housing? Planning considerations for temporary accommodation after disasters: example of the 1999 Turkish earthquakes. In: TIEMS disaster management conference 2002, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson C (2007) Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat 31(1):36–52Google Scholar
  25. JRF (2008) Two years after the Java earthquake and tsunami: implementing community based reconstruction, increasing transparency. Java Reconstruction Fund progress report 2008, World bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/wrote/en/2008/01/97921 accessed Feb 2015
  26. Kipa M, Potangaroa R, Wilkinson S (2013) Iwi resilience? The Maori response following the February 22, 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In: AUBEA 2013 conference, Auckland, 20–22 Nov 2013Google Scholar
  27. Kristin D, Hedda F, Liu J, Zhang H (2012) Recovering from the Wenchuan earthquake. FAFO-Report 2012:39, Oslo. ISBN 978-82-7422-917-4, ISSN 0801-6143. www.fafo.no/english
  28. Lloyd-Jones T (2006) Mind the gap! Post-disaster reconstruction and the transition from humanitarian relief. RICS, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lyons M, Schilderman T, Boano C (2010) Building back better: delivering people-centred housing reconstruction at scale. Practical Action, Rugby; South Bank University/IFRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. MBIE (2012) Guidance to assist the development of temporary accommodation to house workers in greater Christchurch. NZ Government; Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Wellington, Sept 2012Google Scholar
  31. MCDEM (2004) National civil defence and emergency management CDEM strategy 2003–2006. Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management, NZ Govt, Wellington, pp 14–16Google Scholar
  32. McIntosh J (2013) Chapter10: The implications of post disaster recovery for affordable housing. In: Approaches to disaster management – examining the implications of hazards, emergencies and disasters. Intech, RijekaGoogle Scholar
  33. Natural Hazards Center (2001) Holistic disaster recovery ideas for building local sustainability after a natural disaster. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado 482 UCB, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  34. OCHA (2012) What is the cluster approach? OCHA on message: the cluster approach. UN office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs. https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/120320_OOM-ClusterApproach_eng.pdf
  35. Potangaroa R (2005) The strategy for a shelter program. Report for UNHCR Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Technical Coordinator UNHCR Bandar Aceh, 24 Jan 2005Google Scholar
  36. Potangaroa R (2006) The development of a permanent shelter program for Aceh, North Sumatra. In: Proceedings of the scientific forum on the tsunami, its impact and recovery regional symposium, AIT, Thailand, 6–7th June 2005Google Scholar
  37. Potangaroa R (2010a) The seismic gap: issues of seismic design in post disaster reconstruction. i-Rec2010 participatory design and appropriate technology for post-disaster reconstruction, AhmadabadGoogle Scholar
  38. Potangaroa R (2010b) Lessons learnt as part of the terms of reference deliverables. Shelter cluster technical coordinator available via the Shelter Cluster Web site. Haiti, Nov 2010Google Scholar
  39. Potangaroa R, Wang M, Chang Y (2009) Identifying resilience in those affected by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. J Eng Sci (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. Potangaroa R, Wilkinson S, Zare M, Steinfort P (2011a) The management of portable toilets in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch after the february 22, 2011 earthquake. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 2011(2):35–48Google Scholar
  41. Potangaroa R, Mattar Neri R, Brown D (2011b)The design development and costs of several key housing issues for Delmas 19, Port Au Prince. Report for the British Red Cross Haiti, Dec 2011Google Scholar
  42. QG (2010) Form23 temporary accommodation buildings checklist.(version 1) The State of Queensland (Department of Infrastructure and Planning). Queensland Government, Brisbane, May 2010Google Scholar
  43. Quarantelli EL (1995) Patterns of shelter and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prev Manage 4(3):43–53Google Scholar
  44. Rees-Gildea P, Moles O (2012) Lessons learned & best practices. In: The international federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Shelter Programme in Haiti 2010–2012, IFRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  45. Roychansyah M (2009) Chapter 3: sector-specific recovery and Case Studies: 3.1 Shelter international Recovery Platform recovery status report. The Yogyakarta and Central Java Earthquake 2006, IRP Washington, DC, p 9Google Scholar
  46. SAMB (2009) Regulating temporary farm worker housing in the ALR. Discussion paper and standards. The Sustainable Agriculture Management Branch Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  47. Setiawan B (2007) Lessons from Aceh and Jogya. Towards better disaster management. Partnership for Governance Reform, Yogyakarta, Dec 2007. ISBN 978-979-26-9629-9Google Scholar
  48. Shelter Cluster Philippines (2014) Shelter and environment – an overview Typhoon Yolanda response. Philippines, Haiyan Shelter Cluster, 12 Jan 2014 download from https://www.sheltercluster.org/
  49. SPHERE (2011) The Sphere project, the humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby. ISBN 978-1-908176-00-4Google Scholar
  50. TIME (2005) After the tsunami: a time to build. Special issue, 4 Apr 2005, 165(14)Google Scholar
  51. UNCRD (2008) The disaster management planning Hyogo Office of the United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). Report on the 2008 Great Sichuan earthquake, Mar 2009. Available at http://www.preventionweb.net/files/13114_UNCRDSichuanReport200903EN.pdf
  52. UNHCR (2007) Handbook for emergencies, 3rd edn. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  53. UNHIC (2005) Guidelines on housing repair and construction. United Nations Humanitarian Information Centre for Sumatra, Book 3 SWG, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  54. USAF (2001) Temporary lodging design guide. United States Air Force, Brooks AFD, Texas, Rec 2001Google Scholar
  55. Wikipedia (2008) 2008 Sichuan earthquake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquake
  56. Wikipedia (2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake. Accessed Feb 2014
  57. Wilson W (2013) Homelessness in England – commons library standard note. Published 12 Dec 2013, Standard notes SN01164Google Scholar
  58. Zuo K (2010) Procurement and contractual arrangements for post-disaster reconstruction. PhD thesis, Auckland University School of Engineering, p 60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unitec School of ArchitectureAucklandNew Zealand