• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Transitional shelter in post-disaster contexts

Transitional shelter in post-disaster contexts

Helpdesk Report
  • Brigitte Rohwerder
July 2016

Question

What have been the different approaches/strategies to transitional shelter in post-natural disaster contexts in developing countries and what lessons have been learned (with a focus on the non-technical aspects of transitional shelter)?

Summary

Literature on approaches to transitional shelter in post-natural disaster contexts reflects the variety of different approaches and definitions, which complicate understandings of transitional shelter and lessons learned.

There are three main approaches to transitional shelter, all of which incorporate disaster risk reduction measures to reduce household vulnerability:

  • An incremental process rather than a multi-phased approach (Shelter Centre/IOM).
  • Rapid, post-disaster shelter made from materials that can be upgraded or re-used in more permanent structures, or that can be relocated from temporary sites to permanent locations (IFRC).
  • Addressing the short to medium term needs of disaster affected households, involving the provision of inputs to create shelters consistent with internationally recognised guidelines (USAID).

A number of lessons can be drawn from brief case studies from Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Haiti, including:

  • Transitional shelter is cost-effective over time if implemented correctly, and provides good opportunities for scale-up by using common local and regional materials.
  • Meaningful engagement with affected communities/individuals is important to ensure they lead on it, design and implementation is context-appropriate and the needs of the marginalised and vulnerable groups are considered.
  • Knowledge of good, safe building practices is required so that houses incorporate disaster risk reduction measures.
  • Pressure should not be taken off the permanent housing reconstruction effort.
  • The integration of other sectors/issues, such as livelihoods, WASH and transport, is important for the success of the transition.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 296 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID Nepal

Suggested citation

Rohwerder, B. (2016). Transitional shelter in post-disaster contexts (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1387). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Supporting and rebuilding agriculture in protracted crises
Helpdesk Report
2017
Seasonal vulnerability and risk calendar in Nepal
Helpdesk Report
2016
National Disaster Management Authorities
Helpdesk Report
2016
Disaster risk financing and insurance in the Pacific
Helpdesk Report
2015
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022