1.1. Designing Culturally Responsive Built Environments in Disaster Context

When we talk about the culturally responsive built environments in a disaster context, one has to understand the basics of the cultural issues and how especially, they are related to the built to meet needs and how they change from the pre-disaster context during disaster and the post-disaster context and over a long-run process.

This chunk highlights the importance of understanding cultural issues when designing environments in disaster contexts. It emphasizes that a thorough comprehension of how cultural needs evolve through different phases — pre-disaster, disaster, and post-disaster — is crucial. We must address not just physical rebuilding, but also the cultural significance of the spaces where communities live.

Imagine a community that loses its main market area due to a flood. While rebuilding the structures is essential, the designers must also consider what the market meant to the people: a gathering place, a source of income, and a hub of culture. Simply rebuilding buildings without considering these cultural aspects may lead to a lifeless space rather than a thriving community venue.

This is where, I would like to introduce you to the contribution of Paul Oliver's work on built to meet needs on especially the part IV on cultures, disasters and dwellings and he brings a number of cases along with it and how culture has been overlooked in the recovery process and as a result what kind of spaces are produced and as a response situation what kind of meanings have developed.

In this section, the importance of Paul Oliver's contributions is underscored, particularly regarding how cultural needs have been overlooked in disaster recovery processes. His work showcases various cases demonstrating the kinds of spaces created when culture is neglected, and how these spaces can carry meanings for the affected communities.

Think of a town affected by a hurricane that replaces its community center, a beloved traditional gathering space, with a generic shelter. While the new space technically serves a purpose, it lacks the cultural significance and connection that the original center provided, resulting in a community that feels disjointed from its roots and unable to rebuild its identity.

In fact, there are some of the case studies in Cavusin village in the old Greek town which is about 4 kilometres from the Goreme-Avanos road. So, here it’s a kind of big mountain which is embedded with a lot of dwellings which are intricate dwellings which are embedded like a mountain, what you can see is that all the dwellings, series of dwellings which are very organic nature of it.

This chunk introduces a specific case study from Cavusin village in Turkey, which is notable for its organically integrated dwellings within the mountainous landscape. These homes have been affected by frequent earthquakes and environmental erosion, illustrating the challenges of maintaining cultural heritage amid physical vulnerabilities.

Imagine a village built into the side of a hill, where homes are shaped by the land. When an earthquake shakes the village, it can lead to crumbling homes that hold the community's history and identity. It’s like losing pieces of a puzzle that represent the community's unique story and connections, which can be harder to recover than just repairing the buildings.

Many of the communities they denied going back. They came back and they try to settle in the vicinity of this village, despite of knowing that this place is prone to earthquakes and there is a danger, they are going to live on this edge conditions but still, why do you think that these people have come and stayed here back.

Here, it is discussed why some community members choose to return to a disaster-prone area despite the risks. The decision to return often involves not only safety concerns but also economic factors, such as the opportunities presented by tourism and traditional livelihoods that tie them to the land.

Consider a fisherman who lives in a coastal town that is vulnerable to storms. Despite the risks, he chooses to stay because fishing is his family legacy, and the town attracts tourists who support the local economy. This decision illustrates how deeply intertwined livelihood and culture can influence choices in the face of disaster.

In 1968, there has been a vast earthquake which has destroyed the restaurant Sicily almost leaving 1 lakh people homeless. There is a small city called Gibellina which was completely razed to the ground and its community of shepherds and farm labourers relocated to the temporary tent camps.

This chunk recounts the catastrophic earthquake in Sicily, which led to significant devastation. It highlights how disaster can uproot entire communities, forcing them into temporary shelters, and sets the stage for discussing community rebuilding as an opportunity rather than a setback.

Think of a wildfire that completely burns a town. The immediate aftermath involves chaos, loss, and despair, but it can also present a chance for the community to envision what a rebuilt town may look like — perhaps even more beautiful and resilient than before. This can lead to collaborative efforts and new ideas in urban planning.

--