Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project
Implemented by the Organization of American States
Unit of Sustainable Development and Environment
for the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and the Caribbean Regional Program

The Natural Hazards Project component was financed by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO)
OAS-ECHO School Vulnerability Reduction Program

USAID LogoOAS Logo

The Pros & Cons of Shelter Policies in Island Communities

With particular reference to Dominica

Written by
Vivian M. Trotter
Senior Engineer, Public Works Dept.
Ministry of Communications, Works & Housing
ROSEAU, DOMINICA

Presented at the workshop titled: Building and Shelter Issues in Island States.

Caribbean Session
National Hurricane Conference
Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
1st April 1999


Summary

The entire Eastern Caribbean chain of islands, as a result of geography and geology, are exposed to the natural hazards of hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods and landslides. The degree of exposure to each hazard varies from island to island with some islands being more exposed to particular hazards. The island of Dominica, in particular, besides having a well-known degree of exposure to hurricanes and earthquakes, also faces the hazards of multiple volcanoes, landslides and floods. Therefore, the provision of adequate emergency shelters to protect the population during and after disasters becomes of paramount importance.

This paper discusses some aspects of the methodology of shelter identification and designation and highlights some of the deficiencies and the efforts being made to address them.


Dominica is an island, in the Eastern Caribbean chain, measuring 21 miles long and 15 miles wide, situated between Martinique and Guadeloupe, with an area of 289 sq. miles. Its landscape is characterized by steeply rising mountains separated by deep narrow valleys. The island enjoys abundant rainfall which ranges from 80in per annum, on the leeward coast, to over 400in per annum in the interior, giving rise to an abundance of rivers and streams as well as vegetation.

Dominica has a population of 70,000 who mainly live in communities along the coast. Roseau, the capital, situated on the west coast in the more populous southern half of the island, has a population of about 30,000.

The main economic activity has been agriculture, particularly bananas, with some citrus, ground provisions, flowers, avocadoes, mangoes, coffee, and cocoa among others. In recent times, tourism is becoming more important with the country being marketed as an ecotourist destination, given the overpowering natural beauty of the island.

The island achieved political independence in November 1978 and will be enjoying its twenty-first anniversary of independence this November. Its attainment of independence in 1978 was followed by Hurricane David in August 1979 which devastated the southern half of the island and severely damaged infrastructure and agricultural crops in the rest of the island. Also, during the passage of the hurricane more than 40 lives were lost.

Up to August 1979, the level of awareness of disaster preparedness in Dominica was very low. There was little public awareness of the need for emergency shelters as well as other aspects of disaster preparedness and mitigation. This was also true at the level of government. To some extent this was due to absence of any direct hits from hurricanes for the preceeding forty-odd years, which had lulled the populace into a false sense of security.

However, the experiences of a direct hit by Hurricane David in August 1979, the near misses of Frederick in September 1979 and Allen in 1980, together with the assistance of the Pan Caribbean Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Project (PDCPPP), governmental and public awareness of the hurricane hazard has grown tremendously. Although there is still a long way to go to achieve desirable levels of awareness and implementation of the appropriate disaster mitigation measures.

As part of this increased awareness, the need for safe housing has been recognized in order to mitigate the effects of hurricanes and minimize the need for shelters. Although standards for building design and construction have been improved, enforcement of these standards is not universal and, subsequently, there is a large percentage of residential building stock that is deficient in terms of resistance to the forces of hurricane winds and seismic activity. Therefore the need for safe emergency shelters to protect people during times of disasters arising from these hazards, remains very pressing.

In addition, because of the geological origin of the island, the island faces the hazards of earthquakes and volcanoes. In fact other hazards such as landslides and flash flooding are also common because of the very hilly terrain and high rainfall. Awareness of these other natural hazards has been heightened within the last two years with:

As a matter of fact, arising out of the increased volcanic risk, Dominica has just completed a major simulation exercise related to an impending volcanic eruption in the south involving mass evacuations by sea and mass casualty situations. This current situation has also re-emphasized the need for emergency shelters in order to provide safe refuge for the affected population during and after disastrous events.

An emergency shelter can be described as a place of refuge and safety during and after times of emergencies. These emergencies could arise from hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides, floods, volcanoes, etc. These could be short-lived, but could also be of an extended period such as after volcanic eruptions or the passage of a destructive hurricane.

In order to totally satisfy the requirements of an emergency shelter, the shelter must have certain specific characteristics and possess the necessary facilities in order that lives can be safeguarded and sustained during an appropriate period of time. Evidently, the most important characteristic is the ability to adequately resist the effects of the hazard either by means of location and/or adequate structural strength and integrity. This could be achieved by proper site selection dependent on the nature of the prevalent hazards, appropriate design and timely maintenance of the buildings concerned.

Other important characteristics that shelters should possess are reasonably comfortable accommodation, sanitary facilities, cooking and feeding facilities, medical facilities, communications and stand-by-electric power.

In Dominica, the usual method of identifying and designating a building or group of buildings as an emergency shelter tends to start at community level. There may be a disaster preparedness committee made up of community volunteers in the various communities and which the Ministry of Community Development sets up as part of its hurricane preparedness programs. These committees as part of their functions identify suitable buildings in the community as shelters, primarily on the basis of:

    1. Availability
    2. Perceived structural resistance to hurricane winds
    3. Available space and;
    4. Accessibility.

A list of these identified buildings is submitted to the local Government Department of the Ministry of Community Development who carries out preliminary investigations of the proposed shelters and nominates shelter managers and assistant shelter managers. A list of all these shelters, their locations, shelter managers and assistant shelter managers is then published in the newspapers and broadcast on radio and television.

At present, in Dominica, there are 224 buildings or groups of buildings, which are designated as emergency shelters in approximately 77 communities and an official list is published to that effect. These communities range from small hamlets to parts of spread out villages, towns and the capital Roseau. Also it must be noted that not all communities have officially designated shelters. These shelters consist of school buildings, churches, private residential buildings and other buildings. This list is under constant review and it is expected that the number may quite likely change for this 1999 hurricane season.

Mainly because of their availability in most communities, as well as their ability to accommodate a relatively large number of people, at least for short periods, school buildings have been traditionally used as shelters and, as a group, tend to be the shelters most used by people seeking safe refuge. In fact, out of seventy-seven (77) schools on the island, fifty-eight (58) of them have been designated for use as shelters. While the majority of these schools are single-building schools, there are a number of multi-building institutions. The total number of buildings among those schools/shelters is seventy-eight (78).

For the same reasons as schools, especially in the larger villages or towns, church buildings have also been designated as shelters and eighty-two (82) church buildings have been so designated.

In some communities however, where the population is relatively large, but the population density is low, or when the population is small and there is no suitable large building within reasonable distance, private homes are used and, with the owner’s consent, designated as shelters. These number sixty-seven (67) in total. Generally though, it is usually a small part of the house e.g. a lower floor or basement, that is so used, because the rest of the house or upper floor may be perceived to be unsafe during hurricanes. Since the space available is very limited, the "clientele" are usually close friends and neighbors.

In other communities, community centers and other buildings built for public use are also used and designated as shelters. These number eighteen (18). Again availability and the ability to accommodate large amounts of people and, not necessarily, high level of structural integrity, tend to be the overriding criteria for desgnation.

Obviously, this list should be referred to as an initial listing of shelters pending further investigation and assessment and the public informed as such, as they are being led to understand that there are safe shelters available when, in reality, that may not be quite true.

The list of shelters, after it has been published initially for the current year, is then passed to an engineer of the Public Works Department so that a more detailed investigation can be carried out, mainly in order to assess the structural integrity and resistance to the effects of hurricanes. During the field survey, where it is appropriate, specific safe areas would be identified to the shelter manager and these areas quantified to determine carrying capacity for short periods. Reports for each surveyed shelter are submitted to the local Government Department who, in due course, publishes a revised list for the current year. Up to the present time, a little more than half of the total number of shelters have been surveyed by the engineer. Of these, the vast majority was deemed inadequate, in varying degree, in critical areas such as structural integrity, water ingress, windows and doors, toilet facilities, cooking and feeding facilities, medical facilities and communications. It must be mentioned that these surveys are strongly hurricane-biased and are most concerned with immediate protection of life and, consequently, short-term occupancy.

School buildings generally fare out better than most, although they were deficient in some areas. These deficiencies were also evident in the vulnerability assessment carried out in mid 1998 as part of a project sponsored jointly by OAS (Organization of American States), CDMP (Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project), ECHO (European Community Humanitarian Office), CDB (Caribbean Development Bank) and the Governments of some of the islands of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, including Dominica.

This vulnerability assessment, carried out by Consulting Engineer Partnership Ltd., Dominica and Barbados, had among its objectives the assessment of twenty (20) schools/shelters (38 no. Buildings) with the view of determining their vulnerabilities to hurricane forces and seismic events and their suitability for inclusion in a CDB retrofitting project.

A local committee, on the basis of age, chose the schools/shelters, i.e. schools established prior to 1979. This was done because, after 1979, the Government, in its school building and reconstruction program, decided that all new schools would have, among other features, concrete roofs so as to better resist the effects of high winds. This was done, primarily, to ensure functionality as an education institution in the long term and, secondarily, to provide reasonably safe shelters for the communities concerned in times of emergencies.

However, because some of these institutions had buildings built after 1980 and according to the new policy, it was possible to compare the relative vulnerability of the buildings built prior to 1979 and those built after. These comparisons indicate clearly that for those buildings built after 1979 had roofs, in particular, which were more resistant to hurricane than those built before 1979, but, as a group, two-floor buildings had a relatively lower resistance to seismic forces. This illustrates the problems inherent in designing against both hurricanes and earthquakes since some favorable features of wind-resistant design are unfavorable for earthquake-resistant design and vice-versa.

Another problem or deficiency which was observed in all the buildings was their high vulnerability to water ingress during storm conditions through the wall envelope due to the type of walls, windows and doors used in the construction of the buildings. The use of aluminum and timber louvers is obviously quite convenient for the every-day use of the facility, but such windows have difficulty in keeping out wind-driven rain. Also, the use of decorative (or breeze) blocks is both practical and durable for every-day use, but clearly vulnerable to the ingress of wind-driven rain. Shutters that could minimize water ingress and breakage by flying debris are sadly lacking, thereby compromising the use of the buildings as proper emergency shelters.

In general, all of the 38 buildings, except one which was built in the 1920’s, were considered inadequate in at least one of the following, overall structural vulnerability, roof vulnerability, wall vulnerability (wind force, rain and wind ingress and seismic forces) and vulnerable openings. It is hoped that these schools/shelters, as well as others not included in the study, will have these issues of vulnerability addressed under the CDB retrofitting project mentioned earlier so as to improve their suitability as shelters as well as their long-term functionality as educational institutions.

It must be noted that this study was solely concerned with wind and seismic vulnerabilities and not the issues of sanitary facilities, medical facilities, cooking and feeding facilities, communications and stand-by electric power.

Sanitary facilities in schools for example, have been provided purely on the basis of the facility’s primary function as a daytime educational institution and not on the basis of shelter use and are, therefore, invariably inadequate when the facility is used as a shelter. This deficiency could be alleviated by the use of temporary facilities, but the necessary preparatory arrangements need to be put in place by the appropriate authorities. Perhaps, the reluctance to invest in such facilities stems from the perception that the emergency would not last more than a few hours and therefore the hardships suffered by the shelter clientele would be short-lived and therefore tolerable.

While some schools have kitchens as part of their home economics classrooms, these have not been designed to prepare food for a large number of people on a regular basis. Eating areas are also generally non-existent. It is being suggested that this could be addressed by the provision of temporary buildings to house such facilities.

By and large, a similar situation exists in regards to medical facilities, telecommunications and stand-by electric power. In some instances, first aid kits may be handed over to the shelter managers during an emergency, but these kits are very basic and can hardly be considered as adequate. The local amateur radio club as part of their program of emergency assistance may provide telecommunications, but, given the number of shelters, I do not believe that such a policy is widespread.

In the case of church buildings used as shelters, the situation is worse than that described for schools. Usually the criteria for initial selection are availability and the ability to house a large number of people at least for short periods and not necessarily structural integrity. This is understandable, as these buildings are generally large halls, easily accessed and familiar to at least some members of the community. However, facilities for a stay for periods over twenty four hours for any significant number of people are generally non-existent. More importantly, these buildings have been built at minimum cost with highly vulnerable roofs. Perhaps it is felt that since the church building is intended to provide spiritual refuge, physical refuge during natural disastrous events is guaranteed. Fortunately however, experience shows that their actual use as shelters is not as heavy as the number of churches listed as shelters would suggest.

The private residential buildings, which are used as shelters, are very limited in size and can only accommodate small groups of persons. They are generally chosen as shelters because of the absence of any school or church building within a reasonable distance. Usually, these buildings are listed after the fact in that during times of approaching hurricanes, people in rural communities, in particular, would congregate in a place where they felt they would be safer than where they were previously. After the event, the local disaster committee may recognize the use of a specific building as a place of refuge and, with the consent of the owner, the building gets placed on the list. Generally, the space within the private dwelling that is used as a shelter is the lower floor level of two floor houses that have suspended concrete floors. Upper floors are also utilized if the roof is of reinforced concrete. Invariably, facilities to accommodate even these small groups within an individual family setting for an extended period of time are very limited.

Public buildings, such as community centers, are also used as shelters, particularly the lower floor level when it is a two-floor building with a suspended concrete floor. As is also expected, the absence of satisfactory facilities allows only stays of short duration.

In spite of all this shortcomings, people will still have need for and make use of a significant number of these listed shelters. In order to go some way to satisfy the need for safe shelter, particularly in buildings with deficiencies in wind resistance, a compromise solution has been to identify specific areas of the building which provide satisfactory structural performance for use as short term hurricane shelters. This is necessitated by the general lack of suitable shelters and the need to make best use of the available resources.

While these shelters may function in the very short-term, when the need for longer term residency occurs, as has happened in the past, great stress is placed on the facility as well as the shelter residents. The increasing frequency of hurricanes, and the likelihood of mass destruction arising out of their impact, makes it increasingly important that policy initiatives be made to address the issue of long term residence in shelters. The present prevailing circumstances, where the risk of volcanic eruption appears to have increased, makes the issue even more critical and calls for immediate attention to be given to the issue of emergency shelters in Dominica.

Another important aspect of the provision of safe emergency shelters is shelter management. For every listed shelter, the names of persons who have been designated shelter manager and assistant shelter manager are also listed. Their function is to manage the services being provided to shelter residents and generally supervise the functioning of the facility as a shelter. Though, at times, the shelter manager may be the owner of the facility in its normal function, there are many instances where the shelter management personnel have little or no association with the institution in everyday life. This has sometimes led to conflicts between the owner/manager and the shelter management. Another weakness is the general lack of training of shelter management personnel for their intended function. This aspect will become more important as the possibilities of long-term residency at shelters increase.

The problems of emergency shelters is challenging for any government, much more so for the developing economies of the Eastern Caribbean. Current initiatives, such as the CDB retrofitting project for schools shelters , have the capacity to have a major impact on the physical security of shelters and their occupants. Corollary initiatives as OAS/CDMP/ECHO project referred to earlier provide essential support. The sponsors of this project must be commended for their efforts in providing support to disaster preparedness and mitigation programs in the Caribbean. In the final analysis, however, it is the people and government of the region who must have the capacity and will to make effective use of the resources available in order to make the Caribbean a safer place for its residents.


References

CDMP home page: http://www.oas.org/en/cdmp/ Project Contacts

Page Last Updated: 20 April 2001