See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303385085

Need for Adaptation. Transformation of Temporary Houses

Article  in  Disasters · February 2017

DOI: 10.1111/disa.12228/full

CITATIONS READS

15 552

1 author:

Elizabeth Wagemann
Universidad Diego Portales
33 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Disaster Risk Reduction View project

Design Thinking as a methodology to encourage creative motivation and an entrepreneurial attitude in first year university students // Design Thinking como
metodología para fomentar la motivación creativa y la actitud emprendedora en estudiantes universitarios de primer año View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth Wagemann on 22 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

doi:10.1111/disa.12228

Need for adaptation: transformation of

temporary houses
Elizabeth Wagemann Research Associate, Department of Architecture, University
of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Building permanent accommodation after a disaster takes time for reasons including the removal
of debris, the lack of available land, and the procurement of resources. In the period in-between,
affected communities find shelter in different ways. Temporary houses or transitional shelters
are used when families cannot return to their pre-disaster homes and no other alternative can
be provided. In practice, families stay in a standard interim solution for months or even years
while trying to return to their routines. Consequently, they adapt their houses to meet their mid-
term needs. This study analysed temporary houses in Chile and Peru to illustrate how families
modify them with or without external support. The paper underlines that guidance must be
given on how to alter them safely and on how to incorporate the temporary solution into the
permanent structure, because families adapt their houses whether or not they are so designed.

Keywords: housing extensions, incremental housing, temporary housing,

transitional shelter, user-initiated transformations

Temporary and transitional

There is no standard approach to housing families after a disaster, because every con-
text is different. Families and communities build and acquire shelter in diverse ways,
depending on the resources available and the actors involved in the emergency,
recovery, and reconstruction processes. Hence, households obtain shelter through
self-building, with the support of governments, and/or with the backing of national
and/or international organisations. Who is engaged and in which way shelter is
attained is determined by the type and the scale of the disaster, the local context, the
climatic conditions, the political and security situation, and the ability of the affected
population to meet its shelter-related needs (Sphere Project, 2011). Although responses
usually are particular to each case, the humanitarian sector has established some com-
mon practices, such as using large structures (community buildings and schools, for
example) as collective shelters, utilising temporary camps, rented houses or flats, and
transitional shelters, and repairing damaged houses (Shelter Centre, 2012).
  Temporary houses or transitional shelters serve as post-disaster accommodation
when no other alternative can be found, and when affected families are unable or
unwilling to return to their pre-disaster homes or land (Sphere Project, 2011, p. 244).
The terms temporary and transitional have been used to refer to both the process
and the building solution, but there are some conceptual differences. Most notably,
‘temporary’ refers to a building that will be used for a defined and short period of
time, whereas ‘transitional’ refers to a process that bridges a gap.

Disasters, 2017, 41(4): 828−851. © 2017 The Author(s). Disasters © Overseas Development Institute, 2017
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 829

  Quarantelli (1982) noted the lack of conceptual distinctions in the realm of shelter
and housing, as well as the absence of a specific vocabulary to describe them. He
defined three categories of accommodation used after a disaster and prior to the
securing of permanent housing: emergency shelters; temporary shelters; and tempo-
rary housing. The difference between emergency and temporary shelter is blurred,
but the main distinction is the amount of time that the accommodation will be used,
and the activities that will be developed there. Quarantelli (1982) also distinguished
shelter from housing: housing implies the resumption of household responsibilities
and activities in the new quarters. Thus, temporary housing is defined as a tempo-
rary accommodation in which families can resume their activities and routines for
months or even years, but it is not intended to be permanent.
  Temporary housing has been used after recent large-scale disasters to facilitate
swift recovery and to allow time for safe rebuilding (Johnson, 2007a), such as in Iran
(earthquake, 2003), Indonesia (earthquake and tsunami, 2004), the United States
(hurricane, 2005), Peru (earthquake, 2007), China (earthquake, 2008), Italy (earth-
quake, 2009), Chile (earthquake and tsunami, 2010), and Japan (earthquake, 2011).
However, temporary housing programmes have attracted conflicting opinions. Some
argue that the provision of temporary housing is expensive, inadequate, inappropriate,
unnecessary, and unsustainable, and that it diverts funding from permanent recon-
struction (Davis, 1978; Quarantelli, 1982; Bolin and Stanford, 1991; Barakat, 2003).
Others, though, suggest that it can support rapid recovery and allow time for commu-
nities to rebuild safely ( Johnson, 2007a; IRP, 2010; Félix, Branco, and Feio, 2013).
Despite the criticisms, temporary housing programmes continue to be used in many
cases because they are a cheap, quick, and scalable solution that families can use
while adequate permanent housing is designed, planned, and built, which can take
years ( Johnson, 2007b).
  The term ‘transitional’ was used increasingly from the late 1990s to define shelter
and settlement as an ongoing process (Saunders, 2004, p. 164). By the beginning of
the new millennia, the ‘transitional housing unit’ was seen as a more durable solution
that could be improved incrementally once the immediate post-disaster phase had
passed (Barakat, 2003, p. 16). The Shelter Centre (2012), supported by the United
Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), introduced the concept of a transi-
tional shelter approach (TSA) following the Indian Ocean tsunami of December
2004, which is based on consensus on general approaches to fulfilling shelter needs
(Corsellis and Vitale, 2005). Within the TSA, ‘transitional shelter’ was defined as a
‘shelter which provides a habitable covered living space and a secure, healthy living
environment, with privacy and dignity, to those within it, during the period between
a conflict or a natural disaster and the achievement of a durable shelter solution’
(Corsellis and Vitale, 2005, p. 11). The TSA supplies a shelter that can be reused later
in more permanent structures, that can promote the transition to more durable shel-
ter, and that can be upgraded, expanded, and relocated (Sphere Project, 2011, p. 252).
830  Elizabeth Wagemann

  However, despite being one of the default choices of many large agencies in the
past decade, the TSA has become a controversial strategy (Burnell and Sanderson,
2011; Davis, 2015). It can be a useful solution that fills the gap when time is needed
to plan good reconstruction, but in other situations, when there is proper pre- and
post-disaster planning, it may be possible to eliminate this interim stage by accelerat-
ing reconstruction (Davis, 2015). In addition, transitional shelters have proved con-
troversial and have been criticised for being inappropriate and ineffective, such as
those built in Sri Lanka in 2004, where some organisations focused on quantity
rather than quality (D’urzo, 2011). Another example is Haiti in 2010, where some
transitional shelters evolved into a more expensive and resistant solution, not being
cost-effective in comparison to the price of a permanent house (Calzadilla and Martin,
2011). Moreover, other approaches, such as semi-permanent and core houses or cash
vouchers, which could be more appropriate in some instances, are not always feasible
for various reasons; here, temporary houses or transitional shelters can be a viable
alternative (IFRC, 2011).

Transition to what? And second use

The process of building a permanent solution generally requires more than one
year for numerous reasons, such as the time it takes to remove the debris, the lack
of available land if there is displacement, the cost of materials due to an increase in
demand after a disaster, and compliance with building codes. During the recovery
process, therefore, temporary and transitional houses are adapted and modified by
families to meet their needs, according to their capacities, resources, security of
tenure, and status (IFRC, 2011). These alterations can be seen as a move towards a
durable solution, but in many cases they are done without any knowledge of build-
ing, with a dearth of technical supervision, and with poor quality materials.
  The term ‘transitional’ used in the TSA emphasises the concept of process: a tran-
sition from emergency to permanent communities and houses (Kennedy et al., 2008;
Leon et al., 2009). However, the TSA raises concern about the limits of humanitar-
ian responsibility and the handover to a government, the process from emergency
to the return to sustainable livelihoods, and the lack of attention to the transition
(Collins, Corsellis, and Vitale, 2010). Past experience, such as in Aceh, Indonesia,
and Sri Lanka after the tsunami of 2004, shows that the transition can be forgotten
owing to an urgency to implement programmes. This leaves no time to incorporate
the full scope of the process, raising the question ‘transition to what?’. Kennedy et al.
(2008, p. 34) say that it is a ‘transition to a less vulnerable state than before’.
  Another criticism of shelter as provided under the TSA pertains to the absence of
flexibility in the designs. Structures deteriorate and turn into permanent poor qual-
ity housing, creating slums (Burnell and Sanderson, 2011; Gray and Bayley, 2015).
This is because few human and economic resources remain after shelters are built,
resulting in poor quality permanent housing that does not address long-term problems
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 831

(Gray and Bayley, 2015). Moreover, this can be a consequence of the lack of guidance,
training, and assessment during the process.
  A further criticism is that some features of the approach which are defined as cru-
cial are not always needed. For instance, mobility is a characteristic of transitional
shelters because it provides a solution when land rights are unclear, so the building
can be moved later to a permanent site. Yet, the best examples of the approach are to
be found in areas with secured plots, where mobility is not necessary (Clermont et
al., 2011). In this respect, they are very similar to more traditional ‘semi-permanent
shelter’ or ‘core housing’ approaches that can be completed later and become perma-
nent housing.
  By contrast, the term ‘temporary’ used in the TSA means that dwellings are expected
to be utilised for a fixed, short, amount of time. Experience indicates, though, that
housing interventions in the early stages after a disaster will affect long-term housing
provision because temporary solutions tend to become permanent (Barakat, 2003).
Hence, temporary housing raises the following question: what does one do with the
houses when the temporary phase comes to an end? Some researchers have exam-
ined ‘second use’ of temporary houses. Arslan and Cosgun (2007) identify two pos-
sibilities: ‘passive measures’ in which temporary houses are turned into permanent
stock or assume other functions; and ‘active measures’ in which temporary houses or
parts of them are sent to another area or stored. Johnson (2007a) defines five options,
based on temporary houses built in the regions of Bolu and Marmara, Turkey, after
two devastating earthquakes in 1999: long-term use; dismantling and storage; reuse;
sale; and demolition. These options have advantages and disadvantages. Long-term
use is considered problematic because it can lead to illegal occupancy when used by
displaced groups, as well as other forms of social dysfunction, such as high crime in
temporary unplanned settlements ( Johnson, 2007a). Nevertheless, on land owned
by families, it can be an extension of the permanent house or part of it (IRP, 2010;
Wagemann, 2015). Dismantling the unused units and storing them for a future dis-
aster is an alternative, but it could be inefficient from the standpoint of resources,
owing to transportation costs, and the time required for disassembly and assembly
( Johnson, 2007a). Reuse, similar to dismantling, can entail extra costs in terms of
transporting, dismantling, and reassembling the units (Johnson, 2007a). In addition,
the quality of the houses and the materials after use can be poor, or not good enough
for reuse as long-term dwellings. This option, however, seems to be advantageous,
as the materials can be a resource for families or communities (Félix, Branco, and
Feio, 2013). The alternative of selling the units or parts of the house can help to
recover some of the initial costs. Lastly, demolishing the houses is the least efficient
option because it means that they are discarded, and the resources used for the tem-
porary houses are not recovered ( Johnson, 2007a).
  Experience of temporary housing programmes shows that reusing and recycling
can enhance the efficiency of the approach. The three most sustainable ways of reus-
ing the houses are: (i) the same function without making changes—that is, rent to
low-income residents; (ii) the same function with changes—that is, after additions
832  Elizabeth Wagemann

use them as core houses; and (iii) different function—that is, employment as a com-
munity centre or a health facility (Arslan, 2007; Johnson, 2007c; Félix, Branco, and
Feio, 2013). Thus, alternatives for reuse of dwellings or parts of them can be incor-
porated in the design and strategy. Nevertheless, if these characteristics are integrated
into the design of temporary houses, the aims of the approach might be even more
similar to the transitional shelter concept, whereby the solution provided is not tem-
poral anymore but a transition to something else.

User-initiated modifications
Examples of modifications made by households to their own temporary structures
and transitional shelters are to be found in different countries around the world. Yet,
there are not many studies of such activity in the medium and long term. One reason
for this could be that those involved in post-disaster relief and recovery generally do
not return to past project sites to conduct evaluations of the long-term impact of
early post-disaster programmes, so it is unusual to see what happens to temporary
structures and transitional shelters over time (Kelman et al., 2011; Doninger, 2013).
Exceptions are the case studies compiled in Still Standing. Looking Back at Reconstruction
and Disaster Risk Reduction in Housing (Schilderman and Parker, 2014). This book
assesses the impact of programmes several years after their completion, with the aim
of learning from experience and informing future projects. However, the bulk of the
cases reviewed are permanent post-disaster houses rather than temporary houses.
  Most of the literature on transformed, adapted, and improved houses focuses not
on disasters but on low-cost, social, and informal housing, mainly in developing
countries. But this work does provide methodological approaches, as well as sound
conclusions that can be extrapolated to post-disaster contexts. Tipple, Masters, and
Garrod (2000), for instance, compared cases of self-help transformation (alterations
and extensions) of government-built houses in Cairo (Egypt), Dhaka (Bangladesh),
Harare (Zimbabwe), and Kumasi (Ghana). They examined the factors that influ-
enced the modifications and the resources spent on the extensions. The conclusions
reveal that the physical characteristics of the house seem to be an important factor
in making the changes, even more influential than the income and the size of the
household. The findings support a positive view of transformation, highlighting that,
in general, the standards of the extensions are as good as or are better than those of
the original house, and that anyone who has the space to modify is likely to do so
(Tipple, Masters, and Garrod, 2000). Another observation is that changes made to the
houses produce variety out of uniformity, in terms of house size, number of occupants,
space per household, tenure, use, and value and cost (Tipple, 1999, 2000; Tipple,
Owusu, and Pritchard, 2004). The alterations provide households with personalised
and customised houses that satisfy their particular needs and desires.
  The studies by Tipple and Ameen (1999) and Tipple, Owusu, and Pritchard (2004)
of self-initiated transformation of permanent housing show that changes to dwellings
yield improvements and do not necessarily lead to the creation of slums. Other studies
of user modification of their house concentrate on Ethiopia (Shiferaw, 1998), Israel
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 833

(Etzion et al., 2001; Portnov, Odish, and Fleishman, 2005), Mexico (Murphy et al.,
1997), Peru (Garcia-Huidobro, Torres, and Tugas, 2008), Saudi Arabia (Al-Naim and
Mahmud, 2007), the former Soviet Union (Bouzarovski, Salukvadze, and Gentile,
2011), and Tanzania (Nguluma, 2003). Although the focus and the methodology vary
from case to case, some elements are analysed in most of the studies, such as the main
changes made to the houses and the factors that influence the alterations.
  Apropos post-disaster accommodation, there is less literature available on modifi-
cations made by households, despite flexibility and adaptation being cited as desirable
characteristics in temporary housing and transitional shelter programmes. Ikaputra
(2008) assessed adaptations of post-disaster houses by families in the village of Ngelepen,
Indonesia, which an international organisation provided after the Yogyakarta earth-
quake on 27 May 2006. The study, conducted four months after the construction
of the shelter, used a ‘community self-evaluation’ to gather information, with the aim
of understanding the strengths and the weaknesses of the shelter from the inhabit-
ant’s perspective. The main observation was that families made improvements to an
imported design (a dome), adapting it to their culture, climate, and need for space.
For instance, they added canopies, eaves, porches, and verandas, which are typical
features of traditional tropical houses, to protect doors and window frames from
the rain (Ikaputra, 2008). In another example, Parva and Rahimian (2014) looked
at the transformations made by families to their permanent post-disaster houses in
the city of Lar, Iran, following the earthquake on 11 July 1961. The study com-
prises an analysis of different time periods and uncovers similarities and differences
between cases, with a focus on the architectural characteristics of the changes and
people’s motivations for making them. The study recommends that the design of
post-disaster accommodation should address transformability (to suit local patterns
and lifestyles), adaptability (the addition of new parts), and capability to reflect dif-
ferent requirements (indoor circulation).

Adaptation of temporary housing in Chile and Peru

Fieldwork was carried out in Chile and Peru in 2012 to aid understanding of modi-
fications made to temporary houses by users. The main objective was to identify the
steps involved in the alteration by families of their temporary houses and to pinpoint
similarities and differences through a comparison of cases from both countries. Chile
and Peru were selected based on the following aspects:

• the occurrence of a disaster of magnitude in the past few years;

• the use of temporary houses to shelter the affected communities;
• the use of the same house model for sheltering after the disaster;
• different climatic zones (desert and ocean), to compare the shelter in different
contexts; and
• different type of land situation (displaced communities in Chile; non-displaced
communities in Peru).
834  Elizabeth Wagemann

  Chile and Peru are located in the ‘Ring of Fire’, an area with one of the highest
levels of seismic activity in the world. Consequently, they have suffered many earth-
quakes throughout their history and it is likely that they will face more in the future.
Although the two countries share a history of repeat disasters, there are important
differences between them, pertaining, inter alia, to building materials and methods,
climate, geography, and vernacular architecture. It is crucial to consider them when
designing housing solutions, whether temporary or permanent, because the design
must meet local conditions. However, following the 8.1-magnitude earthquake in
Peru on 15 August 2007 and the 8.8-magnitude earthquake in Chile on 27 February
2010, prefabricated and flat-pack houses were seen as a fast way to solve the shortfall
in housing, although these solutions usually do not take into account local charac-
teristics (Barakat, 2003).
  In both countries, the same model of temporary housing was used (along with
other shelter approaches): a shack built with prefabricated timber panels and assembled
on site by volunteers with simple tools, called ‘mediagua’ in many parts of Latin
America (see Figure 1)—the term comes from the concept ‘media-agua’, meaning
a shed roof (one slope). Although these mediaguas currently have two slopes, the
name is still in use. The temporary house is built with 15 poles that serve as a foun-
dation or as stilts, 8 prefabricated timber panels (2 for the floor and 6 for the walls),

Figure 1. Non-modified temporary house in Peru (after five years of use)

Source: author.
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 835

a wooden truss for the roof, corrugated metal sheets for the roof cover, two windows,
and one door. The useable area is defined by a rectangle of three by six metres, creat-
ing a footprint of 18 square metres. The reason for using this prefabricated solution as
a temporary house is the need for speed, scale, and economy of resources, limiting
the possibility of thinking about other aspects in more depth, such as adaptation in
the medium and long term. This temporary house has been used in other countries
in Latin America and the Caribbean by TECHO, a non-governmental organisation
(NGO) that seeks to overcome poverty in developing countries. While disaster recov-
ery is not the main objective of TECHO, it has built temporary houses in different
countries after disasters, such as in Peru in 2007 and in Chile and Haiti in 2010. The
temporary house used by TECHO was selected as a case study because it is repeat-
able, prefabricated, and, although it was not designed with transition in mind, it has
been modified by families in different contexts.
  The study was not an evaluation of the failures or successes of the temporary hous-
ing programme implemented, but instead an initiative to understand household
practices in the medium term. Three questions guided the study: (i) how do families
modify their temporary shelters?; (ii) why do they modify them?; and (iii) what are
the characteristics of the process? The key aim was to comprehend how families living
in the same type of temporary house adapt it to suit their different needs and culture.

Figure 2. Example of a modified temporary house in Dichato, Chile, 2012

Source: author.
836  Elizabeth Wagemann

  One of the challenges during fieldwork was to recognise the houses after some years
of use, owing to the extensive changes made (see Figure 2). Specific cases were selected
for analysis with the goal of exploring the nature of the modifications beyond abstract
concepts. A multiple case study was chosen as the research design, to strengthen the
findings and to seek theoretical replication with which to make analytical conclu-
sions. In terms of methodology, the cases were not considered as samples, but were
examined in depth, since the aim was not statistical generalisation but rather the
illumination of theoretical propositions (Yin, 2014, p. 36). In total, 27 houses were
assessed, from 10 settlements visited in the 2 countries. The selection of a diverse range
of cases produced a variety of situations from different geographical areas. The cases
are not necessarily representative of temporary houses used in other countries or regions,
but they do provide empirical information on the modifications, and thus can elu-
cidate ideas concerning adaptability and flexibility of future designs. The cases were
picked to exemplify an assortment of alterations made to the temporary houses in
terms of configuration (front, back, or side extensions) and the extent of the altera-
tions (no change, slight change, or extensive change).
  Combined data collection tactics were employed to generate a visual description
of the process of modification over the years, comparing different cases. These tactics
were: face-to-face semi-structured interviews with residents (household size and
composition, cost of the materials used, and process of construction); surveys of the
houses (dimensions and materials); structured observation of the houses (production
of on-site drawings and photographs); and consultation of archival documents (journals,
reports, and other public documents). Based on the information gathered, drawings
of the houses were made at the same scale and a comparative matrix was produced.
  The comparison of the cases shows three stages in the process of adaptation:
stage 1 (day one, when the temporary house was built); stage 2 (in the middle of the
process); and stage 3 (when the house was visited). The study focuses on the additions
and the changes and improvements made by residents, with or without external sup-
port, and how these can be extrapolated as patterns of use.

Transformation of temporary housing in Peru after the 2007 earthquake

The province of Ica in Peru was hit by an 8.0-magnitude earthquake on 15 August
2007, causing considerable loss of life and livelihoods. The most damaged cities were
Chincha Alta, Ica, and Pisco, where (including surrounding areas) almost 600 people
lost their lives and around 320,000 were left homeless (Ministerio de Vivienda,
Construcción y Saneamiento, 2008, p. 7). In addition, 52,154 houses were destroyed
and 23,632 were severely affected, resulting in 75,786 units being declared uninhabit-
able (Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, 2008, p. 8). The majority
of the damaged buildings were built of stone: adobe and brick masonry structures
(Kwon, 2008). Five key factors contributed to the severity of the damage: the con-
struction of buildings in vulnerable areas (liquefaction); the precariousness of hous-
ing construction; informal and consequently poor construction practices; a dearth
of professionals involved in design; and the lack of supervision of construction by
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 837

families and compliance with regulations (Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y

Saneamiento, 2008).
  Community emergency shelters, tents, and temporary hospitals were erected ini-
tially in the area. The national government coordinated the civil and armed forces
(Sistema Nacional de Defensa Civil) during the immediate response and requested
support from the United Nations (UN). The UN coordinated the distribution of
humanitarian aid from the Pisco Air Base (Talavera and Lopez, 2008). In the second
stage, the Peruvian government built some 1,500 transitional homes, supplemented
by temporary housing, totalling approximately 15,000 units, built by NGOs such as
Caritas, the Centro de Estudios y Prevención de Desastres (PREDES), the Interna-
tional Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), TECHO, and World Vision (Ministerio
de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, 2008, p. 16).
  TECHO (named ‘Un Techo para mi Pais’ at the time of the earthquake) built
1,211 houses, accounting for roughly eight per cent of the temporary housing stock
provided in the country, between 2007 and 2008 in Chincha, Ica, and Pisco provinces,1
mostly to support peri-urban villages called centros poblados. Although connected to
the main cities by road, these villages had fewer possibilities of receiving assistance
from many organisations because they are dispersed across the region, and thus dif-
ficult to reach. The centros poblados selected for analysis were chosen with the aim of
studying temporary solutions in villages of different scale. So, houses in bigger settle-
ments, such as Bernales (Pisco) and Santa Rosa (Chincha), were analysed alongside
small centros poblados that comprise just a couple of streets, such as Caucato, El Palmar,
and Mensía (Pisco) and Cañapay (Chincha).
  Fifteen modified houses in the villages visited were selected for analysis based on
their different types of transformation and on field observations and the complete-
ness of the information supplied by households. The cases were studied and compared
in three dimensions: socio-cultural aspects; physical aspects (architecture and mate-
rials); and economic aspects. Figure 3 provides a visual description of the changes
throughout the years that summarises all of the cases. Although the analysis involved
three categories, they proved to be completely interlinked, and some similarities were
found in the adaptations (see Figure 4), but with different morphologies. For instance,
physical changes made by families were to cope with the climate, and increases in
the size of houses were driven by the composition of the household, the size of the
land, or the availability of funds.
  Common transformations observed are as follows:

• An increase in the size of the house through the addition of new rooms. The dimen-
sions of the houses at the time of the visits ranged between 56 and 131 square metres,
revealing a big difference in the capacity of families to extend. Most limitations
were due to plot size, the availability of resources, and the situation concerning
land rights.
• The removal of floor panels for use in extensions. The timber floor was not desir-
able to families and the panels were seen as adequate material to extend or improve
 838 

Figure 3. Summary of 15 modified temporary houses studied in Peru, 2012

Elizabeth Wagemann

Source: author.
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 839

  Figure 4. Summary of modifications made to temporary houses in Peru, 2012

Source: author.

other parts of the house. Apparently it was easy for residents to build a concrete
slab, and therefore to use the panels to build new rooms.
• The addition of shaded porches. In most cases, an early supplement was an inter-
mediate shaded space between the exterior and the interior, such as a terrace or
porch built with matting of woven bamboo or a similar material (see Figure 5).
The appendage of a ventilated shaded space was an essential improvement given
the region’s climate (coastal desert), helping to cool the house, acting as a buffer
between the street and the house, and offering a space for families to socialise. Back
porches or other shaded areas were used as a kitchen, dining room, or living room.
• The use of the kitchen in an exterior area. Owing to the dry and hot climate, the
kitchen and dining room were in many cases in an exterior but covered space.
In addition, because of fumes and smoke produced by cooking with coal, some
households found it desirable for the kitchen to be an exterior room.
• The insertion of new doors and windows. Families made such changes to insert a
new access route, connect new rooms to the house, or to gain more light in the house.
The addition of new doors and windows underlined the inflexibility of the design.
840  Elizabeth Wagemann

Figure 5. Porch/intermediate space built with mats of woven bamboo in front of a

temporary house in Peru, 2012

Source: author.

• The entire shelter (or some parts of it) serving as an extension or first floor after
the construction of the permanent house. The transitional house was not seen as a
disposable element.

  The shape of the plot influenced future expansion. In many cases the plots were
narrow and rectangular (4 × 20 metres), with the short side facing the street—a
common feature in settlements in the region. Hence there were few possibilities for
building: the most common configuration seen was positioning the house parallel
to the long side and perpendicular to the street. On bigger rectangular plots or plots
of other shapes, the house was built parallel to the street with direct access to it. In
those cases, an early modification was to insert a new door on the back, so the house
had front and back access. The orientation of extensions appears to be governed by
availability of plot space instead of factors such as sunlight or protection from the wind.
  The cost of the temporary house was approximately USD 1,000 in 2007. Families
estimated the amount of resources expended on modifications and extensions during
the interviews: six families spent between USD 1 and 500; four families spent between
USD 500 and 1,500; four families spent between USD 1,500 and 2,500; and one family
spent more than USD 2,500. It was possible to conclude using on-site observations that
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 841

the resources expended were not linked to the dimensions of the extensions but to
the materials used and the source of funding. For instance, households living in the
biggest houses (131 and 114 square metres) estimated that they had spent USD 500
or less, covering large areas with lightweight materials, such as bamboo in the main
structure, and esterilla (woven bamboo mats) and plastic (inexpensive materials in
the region) to cover the house. By contrast, families that spent between USD 1,500
and 2,500 were all assisted by the government through the ‘Bono 6000’ donation
system, a programme to help those affected by the earthquake buy materials and
reconstruct their houses. A grant of approximately USD 2,000 (PEN 6,000) was avail-
able to owners of destroyed houses, as well as to tenants and informal property owners
without tenure papers, to pay for building-related labour and to purchase materials
from select hardware stores (Huber and Narvarte, 2008, p. 24). Lastly, the family that
had spent more than USD 2,500 had already started to construct part of the perma-
nent house—the temporary house was an extension on the first floor. It received
non-refundable funding from the government, known as ‘Techo Propio’, to help families
with a monthly income of less than USD 640 to purchase, construct, or repair perma-
nent houses. The amount depended on the intended use of the funds (Ministerio
de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, n.d.): between PEN 15,400 and 19,250
(USD 5,000 and 6,300) to buy a house; between PEN 13,475 and 18,095 (USD 4,400
and 5,900) to build a house; and PEN 8,855 (USD 2,900) to repair a house.
  Households living in the temporary housing reviewed also received support from
other organisations, which focused on improving quality of life and the health of
affected families. Caritas supplied materials to families with children to allow them
to improve kitchens and build toilets, whereas the International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) supported the construction of permanent
houses by providing an enhanced and reinforced version of the traditional quincha
(cane or timber framework covered in mud and plaster).
  The temporary houses studied in Peru were thus recycled and reused because fam-
ilies viewed them as an investment, or an endowment, as well as an object awash
with emotions and memories. During the interviews some families underscored the
importance of having a temporary house during the recovery stage, and hence their
attachment to it. However, some of the modifications noted could lead to future
problems. When the floor panels are removed, the structure of the house is weak-
ened. The house is destabilised because the wall panels are attached to the floor, and
the floor panels serve as bracing. Consequently, a design question arises: how to
remove the floor panels without weakening the structural strength of the house? An
initial solution would be to design a unit based on frames rather than panels. Another
issue concerns the addition of a ventilated shaded space. Shaded porches were incor-
porated in the temporary houses, as a cultural, environmental, and social element.
The resources spent on the floor panels could be invested instead in building inter-
mediate spaces, or larger temporary houses, and therefore meet basic living conditions
in this region of Peru. Moreover, the design should consider flexibility to expand in
the medium term, without weakening the structural system.
842  Elizabeth Wagemann

Transformation of temporary housing in Chile after the 2010 earthquake

and tsunami
Chile is one of the most seismically active countries in the world, with approximately
one earthquake of more than magnitude 8.0 on the Richter scale every 10 years
(Cárdenas-Jirón, 2013). Central and southern Chile were struck by an 8.8-magnitude
earthquake and consequent tsunami on 27 February 2010, affecting around 75 per
cent of the country’s population. The event claimed the lives of 526 people and
destroyed or seriously damaged more than 222,000 houses (Gobierno de Chile, 2014,
pp. 8, 18). The government centralised the provision of emergency shelter and tem-
porary housing. In total, 70,489 temporary houses were built after the disaster, of which
roughly 32 per cent (22,256) were built by TECHO, and about 65 per cent (45,817)
were built by the Government of Chile (Gobierno de Chile, 2014, p. 28).
  Both displaced and non-displaced families with destroyed homes received tempo-
rary houses as a medium-term solution. Households with destroyed houses that were
able to stay on their own land remained in situ. Families affected by the tsunami were
dispatched to temporary settlements owing to the extensive devastation of coastal
areas. These settlements were called aldeas (villages) rather than campamentos (camps)—
informal settlements built before the earthquake—and were built on rented land or
state-owned land. A total of 106 aldeas were built in 2010.
  The government realised, two years after the disaster, that the building of perma-
nent housing would take longer than planned and thus initiated a programme of
subsidised rent for families living in aldeas with the aim of closing the temporary
settlements before winter 2013 (Gobierno de Chile, 2013, p. 14). Many families,
though, did not want to move to rented accommodation because they thought it
would delay the construction of the permanent housing or that they would lose any
benefit from the government, since the subsidised rent programme was for a limited
period.2 So, 46 aldeas (1,442 families) remained in use three years after the disaster
(Gobierno de Chile, 2013, p. 14), and 12 aldeas (393 families) remained in use four
years after the disaster (Gobierno de Chile, 2014, p. 28).
  The construction of mediaguas was widely criticised by affected communities,
building experts, and architects in Chile. Families in different parts of the country
rejected the houses, preferring to stay in tents because they considered the houses to
be inadequate for the medium term. In addition, they contended that the provision
of temporary solutions would delay permanent housing programmes (Chilevision
News, 2010). Some affected families even torched their temporary houses to press
the government for better solutions, as the structures did not resist the first rains
(La Nación, 2010). Although the magnitude of the disaster required an immediate
response, and the fastest way forward was the temporary house, experts recognised
that this shelter was not adequate for the climate of the affected area. One of the main
criticisms was that the same type of house, initially designed for poor families living
in slums, had been used since 1930 and that social requirements were different now
owing to the development of the country (Bluth, 2010).
Figure 6. Summary of 12 modified temporary houses studied in Chile, 2012
Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses

Source: author.
843
844  Elizabeth Wagemann

 The aldeas chosen for analysis were in the regions of Bío-Bío and Maule, those
most affected by the earthquake and the tsunami. Similar to the Peruvian case, the
aldeas selected were pinpointed with the aim of studying temporary houses in settle-
ments of different scale. The aldeas visited in Bío-Bío region were Coronel and
Dichato, and in Maule were Curanipe and Pelluhue. Twelve illustrative cases were
selected for analysis (see Figure 6). The designated houses were drawn at the same
scale and the survey administered in Peru was applied in Chile.
  Some recurrences manifested themselves in the comparison of selected houses and
through direct observation. The following constitute the most frequent modifica-
tions of temporary housing (see Figure 7):

• Insertion of insulation and protection from the rain (see Figure 8). The winter in
Chile starts in June, yet most families received the temporary house between March
and May. The first modification, therefore, was to add layers to resist low tempera-
tures and the rain.
• Extension of the house. All households increased the usable space, and most doubled
the size of the house during the first year from 18 to 36 square metres. On average,
families were living in houses of 60 square metres—the biggest was 84 square metres
and the smallest was 45 square metres. The temporary houses adhered to the govern-
ment’s recommended layout and professional guidelines. These directives suggested

  Figure 7. Summary of modifications made to temporary houses in Chile, 2012

Source: author.
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 845

Figure 8. Waterproof layer added to temporary houses in Chile, 2012

Source: author.

a distance of three metres between houses, leaving limited space for expansion but
the opportunity (witnessed in several cases) to use the adjacent house as a struc-
tural support for an extension. In some cases two families used the extension as
a corridor or intermediate space. Nevertheless, when the adjacent temporary house
was moved, some families used the extra space to expand further. This practice
underlined the crucial need for space, and that families want to expand as much
as they can despite their temporary situation.
• Changes to existing doors and windows and the insertion of new openings. The
fixed location of doors and windows was a problem when families added new
rooms or changed the access points. Furthermore, most families made the two
small windows bigger and inserted new windows to allow more daylight into the
house, probably because of the amount of time they spend inside, especially during
the winter.
• Internal divisions. In many cases, the temporary house was divided to separate two
bedrooms, or a bedroom from the kitchen or dining room.
• Introduction of a front porch or front garden with a surrounding fence. One-half
of the cases studied created these intermediate spaces, separating the house from
public areas. The front gate is a common feature of houses in central and southern
regions of Chile, and was introduced for aesthetic and security reasons.
846  Elizabeth Wagemann

  In addition, the previous house served as a workplace as well as a domestic residence.

Hence, some households needed to expand the temporary house to resume their eco-
nomic activities and to generate income.
  The cost of the mediaguas built by TECHO in Chile was estimated at USD 907
in 2010 (Un Techo para Chile, 2010). Families estimated the cost of the modifica-
tions at between USD 1 and 500, except for one which spent between USD 500 and
1,500. There was no connection between the amount spent on the extensions and the
size of the houses, and the quality varied dramatically from one case to another.
Nevertheless, one of the biggest houses (70 square metres) made the most expensive
changes, with improvements of better quality, especially in terms of insulation. Most
families said that they used their own savings and received support from families
and friends to make the improvements. This reveals that solidarity was a significant
factor in the recovery process, and that social networks were vital after the disaster.
Nonetheless, the amount of resources expended on enhancing the temporary housing
appears to be small given the scale of the modifications observed during fieldwork.
One reason may be that most households received donations of materials from differ-
ent entities (rather than cash), the cost of which was not considered in the estimations.
Affected families acquired materials from local municipalities and the government
(insulation and timber), national organisations such as Hogar de Cristo (insulation
and timber), Mano de Mujer (timber), and Programa Puente (timber), and inter-
national organisations such as Oxfam (laundry area and toilets) and Save the Children
(insulation). In addition, that the houses were built on land provided for the short
term had an effect on the materials chosen for extensions, which are less expensive
than those used in permanent houses in the area. The most common materials were
corrugated iron and timber, which could be removed, reused, and recycled in the
permanent house.
  Modifications of houses can create some problems, but, as in Peru, potential solu-
tions can be devised for the future. When the wall panels are removed or voids are
made by cutting beams and columns from the frame of the panel, the structure of
the house is weakened. Chile is different to Peru in that families should not reside in
aldeas permanently (they are meant to be temporary settlements), yet the extensions
were similar in scale. Most Chilean families stated an interest in keeping the house
and using it as an extension of the permanent house, so there is a need for a more flex-
ible design and to show families how to use parts of the house safely and efficiently.
Insulation and waterproofing were the main challenges to families, and thus they
should be addressed when designing a temporary house for areas with a cold winter,
such as in the south of Chile.

Housing as a continuous process

Temporary houses are criticised for not being flexible enough to accommodate changes
and for being alien to the local context (Ikaputra, 2008; Marcillia and Ohno, 2012).
However, even though the cases reviewed here centred on flat-packed, prefabricated
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 847

post-disaster houses that are designed to be temporary, families adapted them to meet
their needs in the medium term while they looked for a permanent solution, either
self-built or provided by the government or another institution. In addition, when
families received their permanent home, the temporary house was extended to the
main building, when possible. In Peru, the temporary houses studied were set on
families’ own lands (non-displaced)—they lived there before the earthquake, and they
had established social networks (family and community). In these cases, families used
the temporary house as a starter home first and as an extension later. In Chile, the
temporary houses studied were constructed in temporary settlements. The govern-
ment coordinated the temporary settlements in a planned way, and most families
applied for subsidised state houses as a permanent solution. Most houses were mod-
ified extensively, even though residents knew that they would have to leave the tem-
porary settlements in the coming months or years. In both countries, governments
and NGOs invested resources in the improvement of temporary houses, such as insu-
lation, sanitation, shading, and waterproofing, allowing families to achieve a minimum
quality of living. Recognition of the existing needs of an affected population and
the sheltering process as a continuum is central, therefore, to achieving effective solu-
tions after a disaster.
  In Chile and Peru, very different contexts, families adapted the anonymous, proto-
typical, and repeatable house to their individual requirements. In some cases, changes
were so extreme that it was difficult to identify the temporary solution. From a com-
parison of cases, it is possible to discern three similar reasons for modifying the shelters:

• to create space;
• to cope with the local climate (hot summer and cold winter); and
• to facilitate local traditions, such as front porches and intermediate shaded spaces
for socio-cultural activities.

  The concepts of flexibility and adaptation should be included in any new strate-
gies, even if the houses are planned to be temporary. In practice, families use and
upgrade whatever is provided to them. Although standard, one-size-fits-all approaches
normally are utilised for economic reasons, flexibility can be a way to ensure that
structures can be adapted to service a variety of cultural needs and expectations
(Ashmore et al., 2003; Barakat, 2003; Leon et al., 2009). Not only is it critical that
temporary housing is immediately available, but also it is important, inter alia, to
fulfil social needs and achieve long-term outcomes ( Johnson, 2007b).
  Consequently, future designs should consider expansion to accommodate family
members, different uses, and upgrading. Flexibility provides families with the option
to customise their dwellings, and facilitates transformation, permitting them to view
the houses as multifunctional spaces and to feel attached to them (Félix et al., 2015,
p. 14). Some NGOs and manufacturers have built shelters based on frames that can
be moved later to a different location and with walls that can be upgraded with more
permanent materials. There are examples in Haiti, Indonesia, Pakistan, Peru, and
848  Elizabeth Wagemann

Vietnam (IFRC, 2011), although the medium-term results of these programmes have
not been studied in depth.
  Researchers and practitioners see flexibility as a crucial and desirable characteris-
tic of either temporary housing or transitional shelter (Davis, 1982; Kellett and Tipple,
2000; Barakat, 2003; Arslan, 2007; Lizarralde and Root, 2007; Johnson, 2007b, 2007c;
Arslan and Cosgun, 2008; Félix et al., 2013; Davis, 2015). Nevertheless, affected fam-
ilies are not offered guidelines on how to make future changes or to adapt the tem-
porary houses safely. Hence, there is an opportunity and an urgent need to develop
designs that deepen understanding of the progressive and incremental aspects of post-
disaster accommodation.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by CONICYT Becas Chile. The fieldwork conducted
in Chile and Peru was funded by grants from Santander Universities Division and
the Ecohouse Initiative. Special thanks to Dr Michael H. Ramage at the University
of Cambridge for his support and supervision.

Correspondence
Elizabeth Wagemann, Research Associate, Department of Architecture, University
of Cambridge, 1–5 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge CB2 1PX, United Kingdom.
E-mail: ewagemann@cantab.net

Endnotes
1
Author interview with TECHO-Peru representatives, Lima, Peru, 22 November 2012.
2
Author interview with families living in aldeas, Bío-Bío region, Chile, December 2012.

References
Al-Naim, M. and S. Mahmud (2007) ‘Transformation of traditional dwellings and income genera-
tion by low-income expatriates: the case of Hofuf, Saudi Arabia’. Cities. 24(6). pp. 422–433.
Arslan, H. (2007) ‘Re-design, re-use and recycle of temporary houses’. Building and Environment. 42(1).
pp. 400–406.
Arslan, H. and N. Cosgun (2007) ‘The evaluation of temporary earthquake houses dismantling pro-
cess in the context of building waste management’. Paper presented at the International Earthquake
Symposium, Kocaeli, Turkey, 22–26 October 2007.
Arslan, H. and N. Cosgun (2008) ‘Reuse and recycle potentials of the temporary houses after occu-
pancy: example of Duzce, Turkey’. Building and Environment. 43(5). pp. 702–709.
Ashmore, J. et al. (2003) ‘Diversity and adaptation of shelters in transitional settlements for IDPs in
Afghanistan’. Disasters. 27(4). pp. 273–287.
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 849

Barakat, S. (2003) Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster. Network Paper No. 43 (December).
Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Bluth, A. (2010) ‘Reconstrucción post terremoto ¿Por qué fallaron las mediaguas?’. LIGNUM. Bosque,
Madera, Tecnología. June. Techno Press, Fundación Chile, Santiago. pp. 32–40.
Bolin, R. and L. Stanford (1991) ‘Shelter, housing and recovery: a comparison of US disasters’. Disasters.
15(1). pp. 24–34.
Bouzarovski, S., J. Salukvadze, and M. Gentile (2011) ‘A socially resilient urban transition? The con-
tested landscapes of apartment building extensions in two post-communist cities’. Urban Studies.
48(13). pp. 2689–2714.
Burnell, J. and D. Sanderson (2011) ‘Whose reality counts?: shelter after disaster’. Environmental Hazards.
10(3–4). pp. 189–192.
Calzadilla, A. and I. Martin (2011) An Evaluation of the Haiti Earthquake 2010. Meeting Shelter Needs:
Issues, Achievements and Constraints. December. International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, Geneva.
Cárdenas-Jirón, L.A. (ed.) (2013) The Chilean Earthquake and Tsunami 2010: A Multidisciplinary Study of
Mw8.8, Maule. WIT Press, Southampton.
Chilevision News (2010). ‘Damnificados rechazan mediaguas y presionan al gobierno por vivien-
das definitivas’. 10 May. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VVTx4mJeoNs (last accessed on
16 January 2017).
Clermont, C., D. Sanderson, A. Sharma, and H. Spraos (2011) Urban Disasters: Lessons from Haiti.
Disasters Emergency Committee, London.
Collins, S., T. Corsellis, and A. Vitale (2010) Transitional Shelter: Understanding Shelter from the Emer-
gency through Reconstruction and Beyond. Case Study No. 5. ALNAP Innovations. Active Learning
Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, London.
Corsellis, T. and A. Vitale (2005) Transitional Settlement: Displaced Populations. Oxfam GB, Oxford.
Davis, I. (1978) Shelter after Disaster. Oxford Polytechnic Press, Oxford.
Davis, I. (ed.) (1982) Shelter after Disaster – Guidelines for Assistance United Nations Disaster Relief
Organization, New York, NY.
Davis, I. (2015) Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance. Second edition. International Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, Geneva.
Doninger, A. (2013) ‘Transition to What?’ Evaluating the Transitional Shelter Process in Leogane, Haiti.
September. MA dissertation. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
D’urzo, S. (2011) ‘News from the teardrop island’. In M.J. Aquilino (ed.) Beyond Shelter. Architecture and
Human Dignity. Metropolis Books, New York, NY. pp. 52–63.
Etzion, Y., B.A. Portnov, E. Erell, I. Meir, and D. Pearlmutter (2001) ‘An open GIS framework for
recording and analysing post-occupancy changes in residential buildings. A climate-related case
study. Building and Environment. 36(10). pp. 1075–1090.
Félix, D., D. Monteiro, J.M. Branco, R. Bologna, and A. Feio (2015) ‘The role of temporary accom-
modation buildings for post-disaster housing reconstruction’. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment. 30(4). pp. 683–699.
Félix, D., J.M. Branco, and A. Feio (2013) ‘Temporary housing after disasters: a state of the art survey’.
Habitat International. 40. pp. 136–141.
Garcia-Huidobro, F., D. Torres, and N. Tugas (2008) ¡El tiempo construye! Time Builds! Gustavo Gili,
Barcelona.
Gobierno de Chile (2013) Reporte de Cumplimiento de la Reconstruccion del Terremoto del 27 de Febrero de
2010. Ministerio Secretaria General de la Presidencia, Santiago.
Gobierno de Chile (2014) Reporte de Cumplimiento de la Reconstruccion del Terremoto del 27 de Febrero de
2010. Ministerio Secretaria General de la Presidencia, Santiago.
850  Elizabeth Wagemann

Gray, B. and S. Bayley (2015) Case Study: Shelter Innovation Ecosystem. Centre for Research in Innovation
Management, University of Brighton, Brighton, and Department for International Development,
London.
Huber, L. and L. Narvarte (2008) El Estado en Emergencia: Ica 2007. Proética, Consejo Nacional para la
Ética Pública, Lima.
IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (2011) Transitional Shelters.
Eight Designs. IFRC, Geneva.
Ikaputra (2008) ‘People response to localize the imported culture. Study case: the dome house in the
rural culture post Javanese earthquake, 2006’. Paper presented at the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008.
IRP (International Recovery Platform) (2010) Guidance Note on Recovery: Shelter. IRP Secretariat, Kobe.
Johnson, C. (2007a) ‘Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disasters: 1999 earthquakes in
Turkey’. Habitat International. 31(1). pp. 36–52.
Johnson, C. (2007b) ‘Strategic planning for post-disaster temporary housing’. Disasters. 31(4). pp. 435–458.
Johnson, C. (2007c) ‘Strategies for the reuse of temporary housing’. http://src.holcimfoundation.
org/dnl/6c13f94d-1259-4ce2-88bc-57b16352315d/F07-WK-Temp-johnson02.pdf (last accessed on
31 January 2017).
Kellett, P. and A.G. Tipple (2000) ‘The home as workplace: a study of income-generating activities
within the domestic setting’. Environment and Urbanization. 12(1). pp. 203–214.
Kelman, I., J. Ashmore, E. Leon, and S. D’urzo (2011) ‘From research to practice (and vice versa) for
post-disaster settlement and shelter’. Environmental Hazards. 10(3–4). pp. 262–278.
Kennedy, J., J. Ashmore, E. Babister, and I. Kelman (2008) ‘The meaning of “build back better”: evidence
from post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka’. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 16(1). pp. 24–36.
Kwon, O. (2008) ‘Damaging effects of the Pisco-Chincha (Peru) earthquake on an irregular RC
building’. Paper presented at the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China,
12–17 October 2008.
La Nación (2010) ‘Quema de mediagua en Penco: prometen agudizar protesta’. La Nación. 13 May.
http://www.lanacion.cl/quema-de-mediagua-en-penco-prometen-agudizar-protesta/noticias/
2010-05-13/081821.html (last accessed on 31 January 2017).
Leon, E., I. Kelman, J. Kennedy, and J. Ashmore (2009) ‘Capacity building lessons from a decade
of transitional settlement and shelter’. International Journal of Strategic Property Management. 13(3).
pp. 247–265.
Lizarralde, G. and D. Root (2007) ‘Ready-made shacks: learning from the informal sector to meet
housing needs in South Africa’. Presented at the CIB World Building Congress, 14–17 May 2007,
Cape Town, South Africa.
Marcillia, S.R. and R. Ohno (2012) ‘Learning from resident’s adjustments in self-built and donated
post disaster housing after Java earthquake 2006’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 36. pp. 61–69.
Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento (2008) Politica y Plan del Sector de Vivienda para
la Recuperacion Temprana y Reconstruccion, Sismo del 15 de Agosto de 2007. Ministerio de Vivienda,
Construcción y Saneamiento, Lima.
Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento (n.d.) ‘Techo propio [institutional]’. http://www.
mivivienda.com.pe/PORTALWEB/usuario-busca-viviendas/pagina.aspx?idpage =30 (last accessed
on 31 January 2017).
Murphy, A.D., L.M. Finsten, E.W. Morris, S.K. Pettit, and M. Winter (1997) ‘Household adaptations
to government housing designs in Oaxaca, Mexico’. Housing and Society: Journal of the American
Association of Housing Educators. 24(2). pp. 1–21.
Nguluma, H. (2003) Housing Themselves: Transformations, Modernisation and Spatial Qualities in Informal
Settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. PhD thesis. March. Department of Infrastructure, Division
of Urban Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
 Need for adaptation: transformation of temporary houses 851

Parva, M. and F.P. Rahimian (2014) ‘Transformability as a factor of sustainability in post-earthquake

houses in Iran: the case study of Lar city’. Procedia Economics and Finance. 18. pp. 431–438.
Portnov, B.A., Y. Odish, and L. Fleishman (2005) ‘Factors affecting housing modifications and
housing pricing: a case study of four residential neighborhoods in Haifa, Israel’. Journal of Real Estate
Research. 27(4). pp. 371–407.
Quarantelli, E. (1982) Sheltering and Housing after Major Community Disasters: Case Studies and General
Observations. Final Project Report No. 29. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Saunders, G. (2004) ‘Dilemmas and challenges for the shelter sector: lessons learned from the Sphere
revision process’. Disasters. 28(2). pp. 160–175.
Schilderman, T. and E. Parker (eds.) (2014) Still Standing? Looking back at Reconstruction and Disaster
Risk Reduction in Housing. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby.
Shelter Centre (2012) Transitional Shelter Guidelines. Shelter Centre, Geneva.
Shiferaw, D. (1998) ‘Self-initiated transformations of public-provided dwellings in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia’. Cities. 15(6). pp. 437–448.
Sphere Project (2011) Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. Third
edition. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby.
Talavera, G. and I. Lopez (2008) Historias de Latinoamerica. El Terremoto que Marco a los Peruanos. Revista
CIS (Centro de Investigacion Social TECHO). TECHO, Santiago.
Tipple, A.G. (1999) ‘Transforming government-built housing: lessons from developing countries’.
Journal of Urban Technology. 6(3). pp. 17–35.
Tipple, A.G. (2000) Extending Themselves: User Initiated Extensions to Government-built Housing in Devel-
oping Countries. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.
Tipple, A.G. and M.S. Ameen (1999) ‘User initiated extension activity in Bangladesh: “building slums”
or area improvement?’. Environment and Urbanization. 11(1). pp. 165–184.
Tipple, A.G., G.A. Masters, and G.D. Garrod (2000) ‘An assessment of the decision to extend government-
built houses in developing countries’. Urban Studies. 37(9). pp. 1605–1617.
Tipple, A.G., S.E. Owusu, and C. Pritchard (2004) ‘User-initiated extensions in government-built
estates in Ghana and Zimbabwe: unconventional but effective housing supply’. Africa Today. 51(2).
pp. 79–105.
Un Techo para Chile (2010) Informe Especial Chile Ayuda a Chile. Estado de efectivo recibido y desembolsos
19 de Abril y el 28 de Mayo de 2010. Construcción de Viviendas de Emergencia Fundación Un Techo para Chile.
Un Techo para Chile, Santiago.
Wagemann, E. (2015) ‘Making the temporary shelter a “home”. Transitional housing in Chile and Peru’.
Scroope: The Cambridge Architecture Journal. 24. pp. 120–127.
Yin, R.K. (2014) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Fifth edition. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.

View publication stats