Meta-analysis reviews quality criteria in temporary shelters post-disaster, indicating the need for a standardized framework.
Disasters, regardless of their type, create similar socio-economic and physical challenges on a global scale. Among these, the provision of shelter stands out as one of the most critical components in meeting the basic needs of affected populations. Post-disaster temporary shelter solutions vary depending on the type of disaster, the demographic structure of the affected population, specific user needs, available resources, and the priorities of decision-makers. This diversity complicates the development of a standardized framework for assessing the quality of temporary shelter units. The absence of reliable and comparable data sets that stakeholders can refer to during decision-making processes limits the adoption of sustainability-based approaches in shelter planning and creates various challenges during implementation. This study aims to reassess the quality criteria of temporary shelter units from a sustainability perspective. For this purpose, academic publications on post-disaster temporary sheltering published over the last decade were systematically reviewed, and the findings were analyzed using a meta-analysis method. The identified quality criteria were categorized under four dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social, economic, and technical. Based on these categories, a comprehensive pool of criteria was developed, and the interrelations among them were examined to propose a structural framework for quality assessment. The study concludes with recommendations for quantification methods and mathematical models that can guide future evaluations of temporary shelter units. By providing sustainability-oriented insights into the quality analysis of post-disaster shelter solutions, this research serves as a preliminary guide for future studies in the field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melike Kalkan (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: