The common theme of all emergency shelters and transitional shelters is that they provide shelter and in general a better level of comfort than the shelter people were housed in immediately after the disaster.
Following on from my last post considering the differing requirements of transitional shelters: – Is it that expectations are different depending on the location – because of the standard of living before hand? Particularly between rich countries & poor countries, for instance a basic cabin in rural Pakistan (eg.) following a massive earthquake would seem much more… (luxurious?) than the same basic cabin in the UK following a flood.
Is it the level of loss that the becomes the defining element for peoples requirements / expectations following a disaster? If you have lost everything in a tsunami or earthquake what would be your expectations / requirements for a shelter compared with someone whose house had been flooded and was now drying before they can return and were thus in temporary shelter.
Please note – I am not saying that one loss is greater than another – whatever the disaster ANY loss is awful and deeply personal and affects people differently…(can this also have an effect on peoples expectations / requirements?)
If we get right down to the basic level of the theme: a need for shelter is it a places climate that is the biggest defining element of the requirements of a transitional shelter – protection from cold weather, hot weather, rain, snow, large diurnal temperature swings..etc?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
1 comment:
On further thought is a standard solution shelter appropriate? Responsible?
Can one design suit the Himalayas in winter, Samoa in summer, or the UK in November?
Post a Comment