Emergency housing is needed at many sitter around the world each year. The art and science of providing shelter for disaster survivors is relatively new and is developing rapidly probably no donations of emergency shelter by outside countries occurred before World War II, yet within 10 days of a large 1976 quake in Turkey over 6.500 tents had been delivered (Davis, 1978).
Many technologically advanced solutions to postdisaster housing have been devised , including parachutes that turn into free standing tents ready for immediate occupancy on landing, polyurethane igloos, and instant floating marinalike shelters for flood victims. The UN and other agencies have sponsored competition for emergency housing designs that are very low in cost, very lightweight, collapsible, easy to erect, and sturdy.
Yet, surprisingly, this may not be at all what is required. Ian Davis (1978), who has extensive experience with international agencies that provide disaster shelter, has listed seven unsupported beliefs about emergency housing. First, “after disasters there is a need for many new shelters.” Actually, most families only go to official shelters when all else has failed. Second, “survivors show no clear pattern of housing preference after a disasters.” Actually, a clear order of preference usually emerges : go to 1. The homes of friends and family, 2. Locally improvised shelters, 3. Converted buildings such as school gymnasiums, and finally 4. Officially provided shelter.
Third,”compulsory evacuation is an effective policy.”in fact, attachment to community is so strong that no such evacuation in the last 40 years has been successful. Fourth,”tents make an effective shelter.” Actually, despite stockpiles of up to 10.000 tents in various places around the world, tents tend to be late in arriving and un derused once they arrive. Fifth, “emergency shelter is a matter of life and death.” Actually, it usually is not, local coping mechanisms take care of most serious threaths. Sixth, “in disastrous circumstances people will be prepared to live in unusual housing,” in fact, novel housing is often rejected as culturally alien (remember, the need for any official housing is lower than we often think). Seventh, “in a disaster, people are willing to live communally.” In fact, people usually become more conservative, clutching to their family unit where possible.
Four more myths pertain to the reconstruction phase. First, “temporary housing is needed prior to reconstruction. “ actually reconstruction of housing. Second, “an important priority is clearing rubble.” In fact, except for clearing acces roads, the rubble is often best left in place, to be recycled into new homes. Third, “crash programs by agencies and goverments are an effective way of solving postdisaster housing needs.” In fact, local people respond faster and better in rebuilding. Fourth, “community relocation is ideal.” So far, most attempts to relocate entire communities have been unsatisfactory.
Given all this negativty, what does Davis suggest? One prime goal of those who would like to help in some way should be to train local people how to rebuild their own houses with safer materials and, if possible, in a safe site in the same area. (See Fig. 9-14.) The safer design should, of course, respect local cultural traditions (Raport, 1969).
These efforts should be at the grassroots level, efforts to persuade goverments to institute new building ccodes often have no pratical influence on house construction. Meetings in villages and comic book depictions of safe construction techniques are more likely to change the house construction techniques that are passed down the generations.
Second, some technological advances in housing technology may be useful. However, they should be compatible with the cultural form of existing housing, amenable to local means of construction (should not require heavy equipment)band ready to go before the disaster, to minimize delays. Victims, will be reconstructing their houses out of local rubble a day or two after the disaster.
SUMMARY
Residence and community are physical settings that are crucial to human well being. Besides meeting minimal standards of space and maintenance, residential satisfaction is largely a matter of fit between stage in the life cycle and residence characteristics. Moving is a stressful experience that is increasing in frequencey. Residential crowding is still a problem in many households. Other households problems may axist but have not yet been researched. Neighborhood satisfaction is related to the absence of noise, air pollution, and ugliness, although some people seem able to adapt to some of these stressors. Except for certain groups, it is less related to neighboring than it used to be.
Climate influences pro and antisocial behavior mildly. High temperatures and bad air increase aggression, “nice” days increase helping, and noise dpresess helping. Out in the community, people try to maximize order and minimize social interaction altough repeated exposure to strangers often leads to a certain degree of attraction.
The environmental psychology of the retail world is just beginning, but physical variables clearly influence shopping behavior.
Most communities are subject to natural and technological hazard. Many individuals behave rationally and admirably during calamitous events, but planning for the event by individuals and by governments is often inadequate. Risks are misperceived and residents exhibit attachment to high risk homes. Environmental design of homes spans the range from room design to regional planning, examples of the design of apartements, outdoor space in row housing, urban plazas, and emergency housing are offered.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar