department of civil and environmental engineering ...thesis presentation department of civil and...

Sustainability in the Post-Disaster Temporary Housing

Tacloban city, Leyte province, Philippines-12/25/2013 - Source: AFP/ Ted Aljibe

Barcelona, September 2016

Management for Urban Areas

PhD. Candidate

Seyed Mohammad Amin Hosseini

Thesis Directors PhD. Albert de La Fuente PhD. Oriol Pons

Doctoral Program in Construction Engineering

DO

CTO

RA

L TH

ESIS

PR

ESEN

TATI

ON

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

We cannot stop naturaldisasters but we can armourselves withknowledge: so many liveswouldn't have to be lost ifthere was enough disasterpreparedness.

Petra Nemcova

Architects mostly work for privileged people,people who have money and power, Powerand money are invisible, so people hire us tovisualize their power and money by makingmonumental architecture. I love to makemonuments, too, but I thought perhaps wecan use our experience and knowledge morefor the general public, even for those whohave lost their houses in natural disasters.Shigeru Bam

Displaced Population

Sustainability in the Post-Disaster Temporary Housing Management for Urban Areas

Protracted displacement following disasters worldwide in 2014/2015

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the ArtOperational

Conclusion

16,000

13,000

230,000

3

Population Exposure to Natural Hazards


Population in largecities exposed toearthquakesincreases from 370to 870 millionbetween 2000 and2050.Source: World Bank 2009

What is an estimation of future displaced population?

Source: Mitchell L. Moss, 2012

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

4

Years

Popu

latio

n

East Asia and PacificEurope and Central AsiaLatin America and CaribbeanMiddle East and North AfricaSouth AsiaSub-Saharan AfricaOrganisation for EconomicOther High Income Economies

Temporary Housing


Post-Disaster Temporary Housing definition

Staying with family/friendsPost-Disaster Temporary Housing Types

Rented apartments/accommodations

Public facilities

Newly Constructed Temporary Housing

Shipping containers or mobile homesNot Available (require new construction)

Available Accommodations

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

What are the main problemsof Post-disaster housing?

Economic

Social

EnvironmentalSust

aina

bilit

y

5

SustainabilityProblem


Construction Industry

Raw Material Consumption

Natural Hazard Short Time Huge Amount

DI

SA

ST

ER

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

6

Energy Consumption

Green Gas Emissions

Temporary HousingCharacteristics


USA2005

Mexico1985 Iran

2003, 2012

Turkey1999, 2011

China2008

Japan1995, 2011

New Zealand2011

Indonesia2004

High Demand

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

7

Displaced Population Pressure Climate Condition

Lack of Other Options Avoiding the Mass Exodus of Population

Why were decision-makers forced to choose temporary housing units?



USA2005

Mexico1985 Iran

2003, 2012

Turkey1999, 2011

China2008

Japan1995, 2011

New Zealand2011

Indonesia2004

Why were decision-makers forced to choose temporary housing units?

Natural hazards cannot be eliminated.

Temporary housing is required.

Temporary housing has negative impacts.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

8

Temporary Housing Assessment

Objective


The main objective of this research is to propose a

platform for decision-makers for dealing with

temporary housing in natural hazard-prone

urban areas.

Choosing themost suitabletemporaryhousing strategy

Selecting anoptimized sitelocation

Selecting themostsustainable areasubsets fromvariousalternatives

Selecting themost optimalTHU alternativein terms ofsustainability

Flexible Adaptable Sustainable Solution

Stakeholders’ Preferences

Specific ObjectiveModel I Model II Model III Model IV

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

9


Literature Review

Descriptive

Operational

SSustainable

THTemporary

Housing

MManagement

UUrban Area

Thirty-two Researches

Case Study Five Recovery Programs

Site Location

Units Technology

Decision-Making Mistakes

Sustainability Twenty Researches Sustainability Requirements

Lack of Precise Information

Decision-Making Six Models Decision-Making Requirements

General Strategy Site Location Set of Sites Unit Technology

Main Vertexes

Methodology


Problem Definition &

Finding Reasons

Dividing & Organizing Issues

Designing Models

Designed Models

AHP MIVES Knapsack

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion Shannon’s Entropy LCA

11


Integrated Approach

DescriptiveS

SustainableTH

Temporary Housing

MManagement

UUrban Area

Integrated Approach


Which are the main requirements involved in post-disaster

accommodation strategies and the constituents?

Which are the differences between implemented post-disaster

accommodation strategies?

Five Cases Three Vertexes Customizable Strategy

Choice Phases

Decision-Making Process Algorithm

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

13

Case Study


Turkey-1999

Iran-2003

Indonesia-2004

USA-2005

Italy-2009

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

14

Case Study


Turkey-1999

Iran-2003

Indonesia-2004

USA-2005

Italy-2009

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

15

Integrated Approach


Main VertexesIntroduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Natural DisasterLocal Characteristics Post-disaster Housing Properties

The temporary housing stage

cannot be concealed.

The elements can lead to

antithetical effects.

Findings

Decision-making Algorithm

Choice Phases

16

Integrated Approach


Choice PhasesFig 3.4. The choice phases of PDAincluding the elements and connections

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

17

Integrated Approach


Decision-Making Algorithm

Fig 3.5. Decision-making process algorithm of PDA

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

18

Start of Selecting Suitable PDA

Availability

Yes

Conditions

No

Assigning in the Alternative List

Yes

Is there any other alt.?

Yes

Defining Outcomesof Using Alternatives

Comparing Results

Determining Final Alternative(s)

Is possible to

provide from abroad?

No

Yes

No

No

Filtering

Comparing

Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Integrated Approach for Dealing with Post-Disaster Accommodations

Hosseini, S. M. A., Pons, O, Mendoza, C., and de la Fuente, A.,

Journal of Disasters

19


Sustainability

DescriptiveS

SustainableTH

Temporary Housing

MManagement

UUrban Area

Sustainability


What is the sustainability of post-disaster housing?

Building Industry

Natural Disaster

Social Environmental

Sustainability Area

Economic

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Findings

Sustainability index can vary for different areas.

Complex Problem

21

Concerns Requirements Limitations and Impediments

Potentials


Decision-Making Models

DescriptiveS

SustainableTH

Temporary Housing

MManagement

UUrban Area

22


Decision-Making Model

Which are the main requirements for the decision-making process

to deal with post-disaster housing?

Which is the most suitable method to assess the post-disaster

housing sustainability focusing on the aforementioned main

requirements?

Previous Studies

Site Selection

TOPSIS

AHP

GIS

MADM

Fuzzy

Optimizing

Temporary Housing Selection

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

23



Customizable Approach

Multifacetedissue

Diverse Stakeholders

Two Diverse Systems

Life Cycle

Quality

Which are the main requirements for the decision-making process to deal withpost-disaster housing?The characteristics of post-disaster housing decision-making processes

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

24



Which is the most suitable method to assess the post-disaster housingsustainability focusing on the aforementioned main requirements?

AHP TOPSIS MIVES ELECTRE

SAW Fuzzy

Indicator-Weighting System Utility Theory

MIVES Method

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

25

Definition


The integrated value Model for Sustainable Assessment from the Spanish

(MIVES) consists of a multi-criteria decision-making method that

incorporates the concept of value function.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

XmaxXmin

S-Shape

Concave

Convex

Lineal

V(Xi)

Indicator

1

0

Requirement%IndicatorCriterion

AHP

Shannon’s Entropy

26


Operational

Site Selection

General Model

Units Selection

A Steps Scenario Strategy



I

The problems of post-disaster housing can worsen when an initial

chosen strategy is changed by decision-makers in order to select a

more suitable one.

Bam Earthquake2003

Ache Tsunami2004

Tent Temporary Housing Unit

Camp(Grouped)

Yard of Previous Housing(Dispersed)

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

28



I

Step Scenario Strategy

DP numbers/TH Alternatives

Sust

aina

bilit

y In

dex

1

0

Step

1

Step

2

Step

3

Step

N

DP-Step 1DP-Step 2

DP-Step 3

DP-Step N


Alternatives

Temporary Housing Units

Host FamiliesSu

stai

nabi

lity

Inde

x

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

29



I

Step Scenario Strategy

DP numbers/TH Alternatives

Sust

aina

bilit

y in

dex

1

0

Step

1

Step

2

Step

3

Step

N

DP-Step 1DP-Step 2

DP-Step 3

DP-Step N


Alternatives

Temporary Housing Units

Host FamiliesSu

stai

nabi

lity

Inde

x

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational



I

Suggested ModelIntroduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

35



I

Sustainability indexes of temporary housing

Sustainability Concept Essential Factors

Health

Well-being

Economic Social

Provision Cost

Maintenance Cost

Culture

Pollution

Reusability

Environmental

Consumption

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

36



I

Analysing

(P: private yard of DP´s previous housing; C: camp site; T: tent; U: unit/THU)

Case Weight

70E

c/15

S/15

En

50E

c/30

S/20

En

50E

c/25

S/25

En

48E

c/30

S/22

En

48E

c/22

S/30

En

47E

c/35

S/18

En

47E

c/18

S/35

En

45E

c/25

S/30

En

42E

c/36

S/22

En

42E

c/22

S/36

En

38E

c/33

S/29

En

38E

c/42

S/20

En

36E

c/42

S/22

En

35E

c/47

S/18

En

30E

c/48

S/22

En

30E

c/45

S/25

En

25E

c/50

S/25

En

20E

c/50

S/30

En

20E

c/30

S/50

En

15E

c/55

S/30

En

15E

c/70

S/15

En

15E

c/15

S/70

En

Main IndexIndicator

Bam

Seminars P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PEqual P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P CShannon’sEntropy

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C

Aceh

Seminar T T T T T U T T U T U U U U U U U U U U U TEqual U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U TShannon’sEntropy

T T T T T T T T T T T U U U U U U U T U U T

Seminars EqualShannon’s Entropy

Twenty-two Weights Scenarios

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

37

Camp(C)

Private Yard (P)

Tent (T)

Housing Unit(U)



IIncreasing social weights by the Entropy

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

38

0,15

0,25

0,35

0,45

0,55

0,65

Sust

aina

bilit

y In

dex

Requirements Weights

TentUnit

Tent

Unit



I

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Post-disaster Temporary Housing: A Steps Scenario Strategy forChoosing Sustainable Solutions

Hosseini, S. M. A., Pons, O, Mendoza, C., and de la Fuente, A.,

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

39


Site Selection

General Model

Units Selection

Site Location Selection I

Operational


Site LocationSelection

II/I

Improper Site Selection

Turkey-Istanbul 1999 Iran-Bam 2003

Italy-L’Aquila 2009Great Eastern Japan

Earthquake 2011

The objective of this chapter is to present a new model that is capable

of selecting an optimized location for TH by assessing economic,

social, cultural, and environmental aspects.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

41



II/I

Methodology

LocalRequirements

Estimation of Displaced Population

Determination ofAlternative Sites Demanded Area

EvaluatingSustainability Index

Final Results

MIVES

Site LocationCharacteristics

Requirements Definition

Data Collection Stakeholders Definition

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

42



II/I

Center for Earthquake and Environmental Studies of Tehran

(CEST)

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

18,000 Casualties 610,000 Displaced Population

90,000 Damaged Residential Buildings

TehranIntroduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

8.15 Million

686.3 km²≈ (70,000 ha)

43



II/I

Six Alternatives

Four Individual Sites

Twenty-three SitesTwo Alternative

Sets

A1-A4

Set B

Set C

B1-B5

C1-C14, B2, B4, and B5

160,000 Displaced Population

100 ha

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

44

Tehran



II/I

Sustainability Indexes of Alternatives

R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗

𝜆𝑅𝑖 . 𝑉𝑅𝑖

I1. Land Price

I2. Cost of Site Preparation

I3. Access

I4. Population Covering

I5. Distance from Source of Danger

I6. Property and Land Use Zoning

I7. Neighbourhood Acceptability

I8. Landscape Respect

I9. CO2 Emission

𝑉𝑅𝑘 = 𝑖=1

𝑗

𝜆𝐶𝑅𝑖,𝑘 . 𝑉𝐶𝑅𝑖,𝑘 𝑉 = 𝑖=1

𝑗

𝜆𝑖,𝑘 . 𝑉𝑖,𝑘 (𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑑)Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

45



II/I


R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗


I1. Land Price


I3. Access






I9. CO2 Emission


𝑗


𝑗


Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

DP Access

Emergency Services Access

46



II/I


R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗


I1. Land Price


I3. Access






I9. CO2 Emission


𝑗


𝑗


Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Density

School

Hospital

Green Area

Police

Fire Stations

47



II/I

Six Alternatives

Twenty-three Sites

Analysing

Characteristics

Value of Indicator

126354

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

WeightAssignment

Meetings & Seminars

University Professors & Local Experts

Requirement%

IndicatorCriterion

Alternative I VR1 VR2 VR3 VC1 VC2 VC3 VC4 VC5A1 0.61 0.59 0.50 0.73 0.59 0.37 1.00 0.50 0.80A2 0.55 0.47 0.92 0.35 0.47 0.92 0.91 0.50 0.30A3 0.37 0.18 0.46 0.58 0.18 0.41 0.68 0.50 0.61A4 0.52 0.28 0.49 0.91 0.28 0.41 0.82 0.75 0.96B 0.43 0.13 0.78 0.60 0.13 0.79 0.75 0.58 0.61C 0.47 0.09 0.93 0.65 0.09 0.99 0.72 0.73 0.62

48



II/I

Analysing

Accessibility (I3) and Population Cover (I4)

Land Price (I1), Neighbourhood Acceptability (I7), Emissions (I9)

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

49



II/I

AnalysingAlternative sets (B & C)

Minimum Values of Economic Requirements

High Values of Social Requirements

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

Satis

fact

ion

Valu

e

I

VR1

VR2

VR3

Fig. 7.6. Sustainability index (I) and requirement values for the six alternatives

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

OperationalSu

stai

nabi

lity

Inde

x

Soci

alE

nvir

onm

enta

l

Eco

nom

ic

50



II/I

Sixteen Weights Scenarios

Analysing

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

0,60

0,65

0,70

Sust

aina

bilit

y In

dex

(I)

A1

A2

A3

A4

B

C

Fig. 7.7. Sustainability indexes of the six alternatives with different requirement weights (economic (Ec), social (S), and environmental (En))

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

A1

A2

C

A3

51


II/I

Model Validation

Analysing

TOPSIS

ELECTRE

SAW

Decision-Making Models

Shannon’s Entropy (SE)

(SE/W) (SE/NW)

Weight Assignment system


Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

52


II/I

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Multi-criteria Decision-Making Method for Sustainable SiteLocation of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in Urban Areas

Hosseini, S., de la Fuente, A., and Pons, O. (2016). "Multicriteria Decision-MakingMethod for Sustainable Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in UrbanAreas." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001137, 04016036.

Volume 142, Issue 9 (September 2016)

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

Submitted: 19 June 2015Accepted: 04 December 2015Published: 07 March 2015

Sustainability in the Post-Disaster Temporary Housing Management for Urban Areas 53


Site Selection

General Model

Units Selection

Site Location Selection II

Operational



II/II

Set of Sites Location for Temporary Housing

This chapter aims to provide a platform to assist decision-makers to

determine most sustainable alternative set(s) of sites among wide

range of possibilities.

Alt. 1

Alt. 4

Alt. 3

Alt. 2

Alt. 5

σ𝟏𝒋𝑨𝒏 = X

(Demanded Area)Maximum

Sustainability Index

{ Alt. 1, Alt. 2}

{ Alt. 1, Alt. 3, Alt. 4}

{ Alt. 2, Alt. 3, Alt. 4, Alt.5}

Set of sites, whose total area is equal or close to the required area,

with maximum sustainability index.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

55

Individual Site(s)

Set(s) of Sites



II/II

Methodology

MIVES

Knapsack

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y So

urce

s

Definition of Problems

Definition of Sustainability

Indicators

Definition of Requirements

Definition of Boundaries

Definition of Possible Alternatives

MIVES

Knapsack Algorithm

Final Results

Data Gathering & Analysis Phase Operation (Screen) Phase

AHP SE/AHP SE/NW

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

56



II/II

Nineteen Alternative Sites (S1-S19)

Areas : From 2.3 to 40.0 ha

MIVES

Knapsack50 ha ≤Area< 55 ha


Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

57

S1S2

S3S5S4

S6

S7

S8 S10S11

S9S12 S13

S14S16

S15

S18S17

S19



II/II

Results

AHP SE/AHP SE/NWWeight System

Set

SI

S2, S4, S5, S6,S17, S18, S19

S3, S4 S2, S3

0.52 0.60 0.69

A B C

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

58



II/II

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9

Indi

cato

r's p

artia

l sus

tain

abili

ty in

dex

ISI,i

Indicators

AHP (A)

AHP (B)

AHP (C)

SE/AHP(A)

SE/AHP (B)

SE/AHP (C)

SE/NW(A)

SE/NW (B)

SE/NW (C)

Fig. 8. 3. Partial sustainability indexes of the indicators by considering weights of criteria and requirements based on applying the three methods for the optimal subsets

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Economic Requirement Social Requirement Environmental Requirement

59



II/II

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 SBI2 SBI3 SBI4 SBI5 SBI6 SBI7 I8 I9

Wei

ght (

%)

Indicator/Sub-indicator

AHP

SE/AHP

SE/NW

Fig. 8. 5. Assigned weights to the indicators and sub-indicators by the three methods

AHP

SE/AHP

SE/NW

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Economic Requirement Social Requirement Environmental Requirement

60



II/II

Twenty-eight Requirements’ Weighting Distributions

Sensitivity Analyze

AHP SE/AHP

28

0

28 2826

0 0

5

02

28

23

28

8

16

25

8

12

4 4

7

10

15

5

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S11 S12 S13 S14 S17 S18 S19

Ni

Alternative Site

AHP

SE/AHP

Fig. 8. 6. Frequency of each site (Ni) depending on the weighting technique

Diverse Sets

Economic

Social

Environmental

S2, S4, S5, S6, S17, S18, S19

S3, S4

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

61



II/IIFig. 8. 7. Sustainability indexes of the chosen subsets by AHP and SE/AHP based on twenty-eight weights scenarios

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

62

Twenty-eight Requirements’ Weighting Distributions

Sensitivity Analyze

AHP SE/AHP

Diverse Sets

Economic

Social

Environmental



II/II

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

A Combination of Knapsack Algorithm and MIVES for ChoosingOptimal Complex of Temporary Housing Sites Location: A CaseStudy Tehran

Hosseini, S. M. A., Pons, O, and de la Fuente, A.,

Journal of Building and Environment

63


Site Selection

General Model

Units Selection

Temporary Housing Units Selection

Operational


Housing UnitsSelection

III

USA2005

Mexico1985 Iran

2003, 2012

Turkey1999, 2011

China2008

Japan1995, 2011

New Zealand2011

Indonesia2004Strategy Selection Site Location

Housing Units

The objective of this chapter is to present a model for selecting the

optimized temporary housing unit technology by considering local

characteristics and sustainability.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

65



III

Bam Temporary Housing Units

Methodology

Bam Earthquake 2003

75,000 Displaced People

A total of 35,905 Units

26,900 Units on Private Properties

9,005 in 23 Camps

Housing Foundation of Islamic Republic of Iran (HFIR)

Ministry of Defence

MIVES

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

66



III

Bam Temporary Housing Units

Eight AlternativesFour Walls

Two Roofs

Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Block (AAC

Block)

Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU)

Pressed Reeds Panel (PR)

3D Sandwich Panel(3D)

Galvanized Iron Sheets, 2 cm

Corrugated Galvanized Iron, 4 cm

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

67



III

Indicator Definition

National Building Regulation

International Codes

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

68

University Professors

Local Experts



III

Indicator DefinitionIntroduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Natural Disaster Risk

Fire Resistance

Acoustics Range

Thermal Resistance

Cultural Acceptance

Skilled Labor

Flexibility

69



III

AnalysingIntroduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational


Technology Characteristics

Material (Components)

Parameters

Value of Indicators

AHP

Seminar

HFIR’s Expert

University Professor

70



III

Result

00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,9

1

AAC CMU PR 3D

IVR1VR2VR3

I VR1 VR2 VR3 VC1 VC2 VC3 VC4 VC5 VC6AAC 0.50 0.76 0.39 0.20 0.74 0.87 0.43 0.34 0.25 0.11CMU 0.53 0.62 0.39 0.49 0.63 0.59 0.29 0.55 0.48 0.51

PR 0.53 0.55 0.19 0.79 0.55 0.52 0.21 0.15 0.74 0.93D 0.36 0.28 0.38 0.46 0.32 0.06 0.61 0.02 0.43 0.52

Fig. 9.6. Requirements values for the four alternatives

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

71

Sust

aina

bilit

y In

dex

Soci

alE

nvir

onm

enta

l

Eco

nom

ic



III

Sensitivity Analyze

Environmental Indicator Assessment

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

AAC CMU PR 3D

VIk

I7I8I9I10

Fig. 9.7. Environmental indicator values for the four alternatives

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

72

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

Ene

rgy

Con

sum

ptio

n CO

2E

mis

sion

s

Was

te M

ater

ial



III

CMU PREnvironmental

Indicator Assessment Sixteen Requirements’ Weighting Distributions

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

0,60Su

stai

nabi

lity

Inde

x (I

)

AACCMUPR3D

Fig. 9.8. Sustainability indexes of the four technologies with different requirement weights (economic (Ec), social(S), and environmental (En))

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

73

Sensitivity Analyze

CMU



III

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

Multi-criteria decision-making method for assessing thesustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units technologies:A case study in Bam, 2003

Hosseini, SM Amin, Albert de la Fuente, and Oriol Pons. "Multi-criteria decision-makingmethod for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing unitstechnologies: A case study in Bam, 2003." Sustainable Cities and Society 20 (2016): 38-51.

Volume 20, January 2016, Pages 38–51

Journal of Sustainable Cities and Society

Received 2 July 2015, Revised 20September 2015, Accepted 21September 2015, Available online 25September 2015

74


Conclusion


Conclusions

Main Conclusions

A new conceptual modeloriented to select thesustainability of post-disaster temporary housingstrategy alternatives

General Model

A new model tosupport decision-makers in choosingsite locations forpost-disastertemporary housingunit

A new model toassist decision-makers in choosingset of site locationsfor post-disastertemporary housingunit

Site Selection

SetSelection

A new model toassess thesustainability ofpost-disasterTemporary housingunitsUnit

Selection

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

76


Conclusions

Designed Models Conclusions

Sites that had other functions prior to selection and already had facilities could

achieve higher sustainability indexes.

The assigned weights by different techniques had considerable impacts on

choosing optimal alternatives for TH. Therefore, it is required to consider

stakeholders concerns about priorities of indicators by involving all experts in

this process.

However, some technologies seems unsuitable alternatives for temporary

housing units at first glance. These could obtain the highest sustainability index

due to other parameters.

To make a proper decision it is required to detect problems, define possible

responses, determine all characteristics of responses based on different

conditions without prejudice.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

77


Conclusions

Specific Conclusions

A direct relationship between stakeholder's satisfaction and the

local initial conditions is difficult to be established.

Site location of all post-disaster accommodation types in general has

substantial impacts on economic, social, and environmental aspects,

even more than units technologies.

Some parts of TH issue, have been formed based on some myths and

prejudices that need to be assessed with pinpoint accuracy in order to

realize truths, as some studies have done.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

78


Conclusions

Future Perspective

Combination of MIVES and GIS to

determine initial stages site locations.

Analysing the

suitability of

conventional

residential buildings

based on the core-

housing concept

Analysing the decision-

making models,

especially weight

assignment system to

increase adaptability

of models to this issue.

Combination of MIVES and knapsack to

consider suitable distribution of displaced

population in rental units.

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

Ongoing Research

Continuous Research Line

Analysing the

impacts of shape,

form, and area of

temporary housing

units on

sustainability index.

79

First, that all possible steps should be taken to alleviate human suffering arising out ofcalamity and conflict, and second, that those affected by disaster have a right to life withdignity and therefore a right to assistance (Sphere Project,2004).

Muhammed Muheisen/AP

Wor

king

Pla

n

Sustainability in the Post-Disaster Temporary HousingManagement for Urban Areas

Barcelona, September 2016

Thanks for Your Attentions


Annex

Natural Disaster

Introduction


Descriptive

State of the ArtMIVES

State of the ArtMain Chapters

Conclusion

Natural disasters are caused by a complex combination of natural hazards anddisastrous human actions (Blaikie et al. 2014)

What is a natural disaster?

Disastrous Human Actions Natural Disasters

Source: EM-DAT

Natural disastershave affected twohundred andeighteen millionpeople each yearon averagebetween 1994 and2013 (The Centre forResearch on theEpidemiology ofDisasters (CRED)2015).

Case Study

Urban AreaCharacteristics


Source: UN-Habitat, Global Urban Observatory Urban Indicators Database 2015

Urban slum population at mid-year by region (thousands)

There are around one billion peopleliving in slums, largely indeveloping countries (nearly one-third of all city-dwellers indeveloping countries) (UNHABITAT).

Source: Julius Mwelu / UN-Habitat

Why is necessary to consider urban and ruralareas individually?

Lack of statistics

Unsuitableshelters quality

Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study High Density Land Scarcity Land Price

Displaced Population Abilities and Requirements

Slums

SustainabilityProblem


Construction Industry

consumes 24% of the rawmaterial (Bribia et al. 2009)

more than 30% of all annualrange of green gas emissions (SbciUNEP 2009).

consumes the 40% of the globalenergy consumed (Sbci UNEP 2009).

Natural Hazard Short Time Huge Amount

Negative Effects

DI

SA

ST

ER

Economic, Social, Environmental

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

84



Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

What are main reasons of Post-disaster housing problem?

Short time construction

Large amount of units

Disaster

Damages Displaced Population

Climate Conditions DP ConditionsPolitical Issues DP Pressures Others

Sustainability Problems

Human Errors



Rejection

What is the strategy of emergency managers to deal with the mentioned problems?

Or Acceptance

Other Alternatives

Available Perfect Results

Minimize Negative EffectsNegative Effects

Yes

No

What happens if displaced population does notreceive suitable temporary housing?

Displaced population provide low-qualityshelters for themselves as temporary housing(e.g., the Colombian recovery program after theArmenia earthquake, 1999 (Johnson et al. 2006)).

Source : http://saint-germains-children.org

? Nothing

Reality

Real Cases

Forc

ed

(It should be assessed)

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art


Conclusion

Case Study

Literature Review


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

This literature review is organized into threecategories: (1) temporary housing generic factors, (2)sustainability aspects, and (3) decision-makingmodels

Fig. 4.1. Comparison of citations times of different papers on PDH according Yi and Yang (till 2014) and Scopus (till 2016)

Twenty-seven researches havebeen reviewed to determinerequirements of the descriptivesection.

Previous Studies


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

What is a main shortfall in previous relevant studies?

The connection between achosen strategy and itsoutcomes is usually missedlink.

Sustainability Focus more on rural areas not onurban areas.

Focusing on disaster managementis higher than technical assessment.

Optimization

Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

Which are the main requirements involved in post-disaster accommodation strategies and

the constituents?

Which are the differences between implemented post-disaster accommodation strategies?

What are the social and physical outcomes of applying each post-disaster accommodation

strategy? (When/Where/How can each strategy of post-disaster accommodation provision

be applied?)

Fig. 3.1. Three main vertexes of post-disaster accommodation

Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

This section presents post-disaster accommodation arrangement, which includes: the time-scale, provision, and second life of temporary housing.

Time-Scale

Some accommodationshave the ability to beused for differenthousing recoverystages, such as: tents orwinterized tents, whichcan be applied foremergency shelter,temporary shelter, andTH phases.

Provision Styles Second Life

Time-Scale

Time-Scale

Provision

Second Life

Emergency Shelter

Temporary Shelter

Temporary Housing

Permanent Housing

PDA Arrangement

Post-disaster Housing Properties

Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

The social problems due to an unsuitablelocation normally happen when the displacedpopulation is forced to move to other areas,because according to (Davis 1978; Johnson 2002),displaced population prefers to live close to theprevious properties, communities, and activities(Aquilino 2011; Johnson 2002).

Site Location

Time-Scale

Provision

Second Life

PDA Arrangement

Not Available(Need to be constructed)

Available(Does not need to be

constructed)

Location

Construction

Location

Privacy

Post-disaster Housing PropertiesProvision

Site selection is a process thatinvolves many steps from planning toconstruction, consisting of an initialinventory, alternative analysis,assessment, detailed design, andconstruction procedures and services(Kelly 2010).

Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

Provision



constructed)

Location

Construction

Construction System

Labour

Site Location

Site Arrangement Prefabricated

On-site

Supply Kit

Ready-Made

Participation

Third party

Self-Built

Contractor

Community-Built

Dispersed Settlement

Mass Settlement

The participation method embracesconstruction approaches when displacedpopulation only (self-built) or displacedpopulation with community (semi self-built)undertakes to provide the accommodations.

The third-party labour method considers theconstruction approaches to provide displacedpopulation s´ accommodations by other peoplewithout the participation of the displacedpopulation in the construction process.

This method ishighly significantfor the constructiondelivery time andquality.


Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

Provision



constructed)

Location

Construction

Construction System

Labour

Material

Form

Site Location

Site Arrangement Prefabricated

On-site

Supply Kit

Ready-Made

Participation

Third party

Self-Built

Contractor

Community-Built

Conventional

Non-conventional

Shape

Storey

Dispersed Settlement

Mass Settlement


Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

Storage

Reuse

Landfill

Complete

Components

Location

Property Condition

Function

Same

Others

Same

Others

Time-Scale

Provision

Second Life

PDA Arrangement

Post-disaster Housing PropertiesSecond Life

Dining hall formed from four housing Units, Duzce, Source: Hakan Arslana,, Nilay Cosgun, 2008

Integrated Approach


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study

Storage

Reuse

Landfill

Complete

Components

Location

Property Condition

Function

Same

Others

Same

Others

Time-Scale

Provision

Second Life

PDA Arrangement

Post-disaster Housing PropertiesSecond Life

Turkey, 1999, UMCOR, Cassidy Johnson, 2007

Sustainability


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study Research Limitation

Limitations to achieve sustainability

Operational Barriers

Establishing a universal sustainability strategy

Characteristics of recovery program

Social Environmental

Sustainability Area

Economic

Fig. 4.2. Main requirements of PDH sustainability

The Requirements of Sustainability

Sustainability


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study Indigenous Material and Technologies

What is the misunderstanding of sustainability?

This complex had been constructed approximately 2500 years ago in Iran (Fallahi A. 2007). Arg-

e-Bam is the largest adobe complex in the world (Nakamura et al. 2005) and was constructed with

clay, mud brick, straw and trunks of palm (Manafpour 2008).

Arg-e-Bam, Iran, before (right) and after (left) Bam Earthquake, 2003.

Source : http://www.gettyimages.co.uk

This fact demonstrates that local technologies and materials are not only factors of

sustainability.

High Sustainability Index


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


Decision-making Process of Post-disaster Housing Approaches

Choosing suitable options among diverse limited alternatives

Determining suitable possible alternatives without having initial alternatives

For example, choosing a suitable site locationof THUs between initial chosen site.

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

For instance, a model isused for choosing a propersettlement by consideringall areas (see (Alparslan et al.2008)).


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


I

Life cycle phases of temporary housing


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


II/I


R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗


I1. Land Price


I3. Access






I9. CO2 Emission


𝑗


𝑗

𝜆𝑖,𝑘 . 𝑉𝑖,𝑘 (𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑑)

δ

Site Preparation

Utilities Quality


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


II/I


R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗


I1. Land Price


I3. Access






I9. CO2 Emission


𝑗


𝑗


Population

Covering

Maximize Coverage DP

Distribute Sites


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


II/I


R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗


I1. Land Price


I3. Access






I9. CO2 Emission


𝑗


𝑗


Distance from

Source of Danger

Danger Level

γ


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


II/I


R1. Economic

R2. Social

R3. Environmental

C1. Invest Capital

C2. User Safety

C3. Flexibility

C4. Land use

C5. Emissions

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑖=1

𝑗


I1. Land Price


I3. Access






I9. CO2 Emission


𝑗


𝑗


CO2 Emissions

Preparation Activities

LCA

Transportation



II/II

0

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

0,01

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 SBI2 SBI3 SBI4 SBI5 SBI6 SBI7 I8 I9

Indi

cato

r's s

atis

afac

tion

valu

e, V

i

Indicator/Sub-indicator

AHPSE/AHPSE/NW

Fig. 8. 4. Values functions of the indicators and sub-indicators without considering weights based on applying thethree methods for the optimal subsets

Introduction

Descriptive

State of the Art

State of the Art

Conclusion

Operational

105


Introduction

Descriptive



Conclusion

Case Study


II/II

(X1%*VEc)+(X2%*VS)+(X3%*VEn)=SI

Site LocationSelection (Annex)

I1. Land Price I2. Cost of Site Preparation

I3. Access I4. Population Covering

I5. Distance from Source of Danger I6. Property and Land Use Zoning


I7. Neighbourhood Acceptability I8. Landscape Respect

I9. CO2 Emission


SubI3-1. DP Access SubI3-2. Emergency Service Access


SubI7-3. School

SubI7-2. HospitalSubI7-1. Density

SubI7-4. Green Area

SubI7-5. Police Station SubI7-6. Fire Station

Temporary Housing Units(Annex)

I1. Building Cost I2. Reusability Cost

I3. Construction Time I4. Risk Resistance

I5. Comfort I6. Compatibility


I7. Energy Consumption I8. Water Consumption

I9. Waste Material I10. CO2 Emissions


Sub I4-1. Natural Disaster Risk Sub I4-2. Fire Resistance

Sub I5-1. Acoustic Sub I5-2. Thermal Resistance


Sub I6-1. Cultural Acceptance Sub I6-2. Flexibility

Sub I6-3. Skilled Labour

department of civil and environmental engineering ...thesis presentation department of civil and...

Documents