Dynamics of space demand in crisis situations: strategies based on the example of Wrocław

Marcelina Terelak

doi:10.37190/arc250412

Abstract

In the face of migration crises, cities face the challenge of organizing shelter for victims of natural disasters and refugees, which requires dynamic and flexible strategies both in terms of residential space and aid organization. The article’s subject is assistance architecture, covering transitional solutions between immediate shelter and permanent accommodation.

Using Wrocław as an example, strategies for dealing with sudden humanitarian crises and analysis of utilizing various types of urban space for assistance purposes are presented. Both temporary solutions and possibilities for long-term development are discussed.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2025

4(84)

Marcelina Terelak*

The dynamics of demand for temporary accommodation

in crisis situations: strategies and insights

DOI: 10.37190/arc250412

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

Abstract

In the face of migration crises, cities encounter the challenge of providing shelter for victims of natural disasters and refugees, necessitating dynamic

and exible strategies in both housing provision and aid organisation. This article focuses on humanitarian architecture, encompassing transitional housing

solutions situated between emergency shelters and permanent accommodation. Using Wrocław as a case study, the paper examines the transformation of

existing infrastructure in response to the inux of displaced persons following the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022, with a particular emphasis on the

evolution of temporary housing solutions. The study explores successive stages of spatial organisation – from ad hoc interventions to institutionalised col-

lective accommodation facilities, originally intended as short-term solutions but still accommodating residents. The article discusses both local conditions

shaping the provision of shelter and the broader context of global migration crises.

The research is based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews conducted with representatives of non-governmental organisations and

municipal authorities to examine the dynamics of collective accommodation centres. Additionally, an analysis of numerical data illustrates the scale of

refugee arrivals and the shifting demand for housing space. A comparative assessment of dierent shelter organisation models allows for an evaluation

of Wrocław’s approach – dominated by collective accommodation centres – against solutions implemented in other countries. The review of various

strategies has prompted a reection on the potential for long-term use of such spaces and the necessity of designing them in alignment with the actual and

evolving needs of refugees.

The study underscores the importance for more precise identication of these needs, which would facilitate not only more eective planning of resi-

dential spaces but also better management and adaptation of these spaces in future crises.

Key words: refugees, migration crisis, temporary accommodation, humanitarian architecture, aid organisation

Introduction

In the face of migration crises, cities are challenged with

providing shelter for refugees, internally displaced persons

(IDPs), and economic and climate migrants. This situation

requires dynamic and exible strategies in both housing and

urban planning. Although migration is not the sole factor

shaping urban development, it plays a signicant role in this

process (Grab 2023). Contemporary migration generates

political debates and security concerns, inuences social

and economic processes, and serves as a point of interaction

between diverse cultures and identities (Czaja 2023).

Migration, both internal and external, aects various so-

cial and age groups, with a fundamental distinction between

voluntary and forced migration. According to the World Mi-

gration Report 2020, there were globally 281 million interna-

tional migrants, of whom 117 million were forcibly displaced

people. Those were: 35.4 million refugees, 5.4 million asy-

lum seekers, 5.2 million people in need of international pro-

tection and 71.4 million IDPs, including 62.5 million caused

by conicts and violence, and 8.7 million by natural disasters

(McAulie, Oucho 2024). On top of that, the World Bank re-

search foresees that by 2050 there might be additional 216

million internal migrants due to the climate change and envi-

ronmental impacts (Clement et al. 2021).

Earthquakes are among the most destructive natural disas-

ters. Japan experiences the highest number of earthquakes in

the world due to its location at the intersection of four tectonic

plates. Over the past ten years, a total of 10,111 earthquakes

* ORCID:

0000-0001-6752-1263. Faculty of Architecture, Wrocław

University of Science and Technology, Poland, e-mail: marcelina.terelak@

pwr.edu.pl

130

Marcelina Terelak

with a magnitude of four or higher have struck the Japanese

islands within a 300-kilometre radius, resulting in signicant

damage (Earthquakelist 2025). The largest earthquake in the

last 25 years occurred in 2011 in the Tohoku region, claiming

18,500 lives and destroying hundreds of thousands of build-

ings and infrastructure (NPA 2021).

A notable example is Italy, which has experienced three

major earthquakes in the past 25 years – in Abruzzo in 2009,

Emilia in 2012, and central Italy in 2016 and 2017. Each

of these events caused signicant material losses and forced

thousands of people to leave their homes. The 2009 earth-

quake in Abruzzo displaced over 67,000 people requiring

temporary accommodation, while in Emilia, around 16,000.

The 2016–2017 earthquake in central Italy left up to 31,000

people homeless (Di Bucci et al. 2023).

A signicant example of forced migration is that caused

by military operations, such as the conict in Syria that be-

gan in 2011, which led to large migration ows primarily to

Germany, Sweden, Italy, France, and Hungary. Currently,

the Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered the largest

migration crisis in Europe since World War II, with nearly

one-third of Ukraine’s population seeking refuge in Euro-

pean Union (EU) member states. Between 24 February and

6 September 2022, 12.3 million people left Ukraine (Su -

bocz, Sternicka-Kowalska and Głuszak 2024). This migra-

tion is classied as forced, spontaneous, and temporary, driv-

by political and military circumstances (Demianchuk et

al. 2023).

The occurrence of disasters, whether natural or anthro-

pogenic in origin, results in immediate consequences for the

aected population. Primarily, these include casualties and

injuries, as well as individuals who have lost their homes

and require accommodation in temporary shelters (Di Bucci

et al. 2023). These incidents highlight the vast scale of dis-

placement caused by forced migration and underscore the

critical challenge of providing adequate temporary housing

as part of disaster management and recovery eorts.

The aim of this article is to examine the crisis triggered

by the inux of people and the associated humanitarian aid

systems from an architectural perspective. The assistance

provided will be analysed in a local context using the exam-

ple of Wrocław and compared with other temporary housing

strategies that have already been implemented worldwide.

Research questions

This study aims to explore the processes involved in pro-

viding temporary accommodation for individuals displaced

by crises. The following research questions have been posed

to guide this exploration:

1. What are the processes driving the evolution of the

number, structure and coordination of temporary accommo-

dation in Wrocław since 2022, according to municipality

and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved?

2. What are challenges and limitations in providing eec-

tive temporary accommodation?

3. What insights can be drawn from the experiences of

refugees in various contexts to improve the planning of fu-

ture temporary accommodation systems, ensuring exibili-

ty and resilience during crises?

The article highlights the crucial role of temporary re

si-

dential buildings or collective accommodation, oering spaces

for aected individuals to live and gradually return to daily

life (Cygańczuk, Roguski, and Tępiński 2022).

Methods

This study is descriptive and exploratory, based on a lite-

rature review and empirical data. The quantitative data was

collected by the municipality and shared for the purpose of

this research, including information from the crisis man-

agement department and other municipal research centres.

Additionally, as part of the empirical research, the author

conducted 12 in-depth interviews in person with representa-

tives of NGOs and city authorities

The qualitative study was based on the perspectives of

the interviewees. Data were collected through semi-struc-

tured interviews, which were recorded and subsequently

transcribed. The data were examined using content analy-

sis. The analysis employed meaning condensation, a meth-

od that involves reducing the meanings expressed in the in-

terviews into more concise formulations (Flick 2010). This

approach was complemented by narrative analysis, which

focuses on the stories told during the interviews, examining

their structure and plot. The analysis involved integrating

multiple stories shared by dierent participants into a sin-

gle, more condensed and coherent narrative (Kvale 2010).

Temporary accommodation

as a process

There is no universal approach to housing families after

a disaster, as each situation is unique. The way in which

fa milies and individuals build or acquire shelter depends on

the resources available and the actors involved in the emer-

ency response, recovery, and reconstruction processes.

Tem porary houses or transitional shelters serve as ac-

com modation following a disaster when other options are

unavailable, and aected families, facing housing crises, are

either unable or unwilling to return to their previous homes

and dwellings (Wagemann 2017).

It is suggested that shelter refers to a place of stay during

the immediate period following a disaster, which suspends

daily activities, while temporary housing is associated with

the return to household responsibilities and daily routines.

To avoid ambiguity regarding these terms, Quarantelli

(1995) proposed a division of the post-disaster housing pro-

cess into four fundamental stages: emergency shelter (for

a short period immediately after the disaster, for example,

up to 72 hours in a friend’s house or a public shelter), tem-

porary shelter (used for no more than a few weeks after the

disaster), temporary housing (a place where individuals

can stay, typically for 6 months to 3 years), and permanent

housing (Félix et al. 2015).

The interviews were conducted in Wrocław with individuals

managing relocation centres, coordinators of collective accommodation

facilities, leaders of humanitarian aid points, and representatives of the

municipal administration. They were coded in the order in which they

were conducted (e.g., I1, I2, etc.).

The dynamics of demand for temporary accommodation in crisis situations: strategies and insights

131

The article also references the term “temporary accom-

modation” (Fig. 1) which, according to Johnson (2002),

encompasses all forms of housing following the forced dis-

placement from a place of residence until the transition to

permanent housing.

Evolving strategies

in temporary accommodation

In response to growing forced migrations, various solu-

tions for temporary accommodation have been developed,

playing a key role in restoring stability. On 11 March 2011,

Japan experienced the largest recorded earthquake, the

Great East Japan Earthquake, with a magnitude of 9. This

Fig. 1. Temporary accommodation phases after disaster (elaborated by M. Terelak)

Il. 1. Etapy tymczasowego zakwaterowania po katastrofie (oprac. M. Terelak)

Fig. 2. Temporary container housing estate in the city of Onagawa,

located on a sports field

(elaborated by M. Terelak)

Il. 2. Tymczasowe osiedle kontenerowe w Onagawie

zlokalizowane na boisku (oprac. M. Terelak)

Fig. 3. The interior of a living space in a container housing module

used in Onagawa, built for an exhibition at Art Tower Mito in 2013

(photo by J. Łątka)

Il. 3. Wnętrze części dziennej w kontenerze mieszkalnym w Onagawie.

Eksponat na wystawie w Art Tower Mito, 2013 (fot. J. Łątka)

event caused a tsunami that devastated the eastern coast,

de stroying nearly 400,000 buildings and damaging anoth-

er 750,000. In the mountainous coastal city of Onagawa,

4,500 buildings were destroyed. Due to the uneven terrain,

the city lacked at land to build temporary housing. Archi-

tect Shigeru Ban proposed the construction of nine two- and

three-storey buildings made of shipping containers on the

baseball eld. The buildings were arranged in linear align-

ment to provide sucient access to light and air (Fig. 2).

The containers were stacked in a checkerboard pattern, cre-

ating a living area between them and a sleeping area with

a bathroom inside the prefabricated units (Ban et al. 2014).

The interior layout followed three module types – 19.8,

29.7 and 39.6 m

– designated for households of dierent

sizes and functionally divided into bedroom, bathroom and

living areas (Fig. 3). The units were equipped with basic

furnishings and designed to evoke a sense of home, with the

interior arrangement and furnishing supported by Voluntary

Architects’ Network (Yılmaz 2021). In addition to housing

for 189 families, a social centre and a learning space for

children were created between the buildings. The quality of

the ats meant that although the buildings were envisaged

132

Marcelina Terelak

as temporary, after the planned period of use, the residents

did not want to move out, remaining in the buildings for

eight instead of four years. The project set new standards for

the quality of living spaces for disaster victims.

Another example of a comprehensive temporary hous-

ing strategy was the response to the 2009 earthquake in

the Abruzzo region of Italy. The disaster left approximate-

ly 34,000 private homes damaged and uninhabitable, af-

fecting around 67,000 people (Di Bucci et al. 2023). The

initial phase of response to crisis involved setting up tent

camps to provide temporary shelter for those aected. By

autumn 2009, these camps were dismantled, and in the lat-

er stages of the crisis, the C.A.S.E. (Complessi Antisismici

Sostenibili ed Ecocompatibili) and M.A.P. (Moduli Abita-

tivi Provvisori) projects were implemented, oering long-

term and secure housing solutions (Di Bucci et al. 2023).

As part of the long-term reconstruction, permanent hous-

ing was planned under the C.A.S.E. project, while M.A.P.

provided transitional accommodation for approximately

6,000 people in units of varying sizes. The units were ar-

ranged in settlement layouts that were similarly repeated

across 57 earthquake-aected municipalities near the epi-

centre (Fig. 4). The modules ranged from 40 m

for one

person to 70 m

for up to six residents, catering to dierent

family needs (Bologna 2010). The process of providing

accommodation in the described region was implemented

rapidly yet lacked integration of new developments with

the existing urban fabric. The newly constructed buildings

were characterised by a disconnection from existing infra-

structure and services, limiting their functionality and ac-

cessibility for residents (Bologna 2010). Additionally, this

process created a sense of exclusion among individuals

who were unable to actively participate in the reconstruc-

tion planning in a way that addressed their specic needs

and expectations.

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Feder-

ation in February 2022 led to a rapid increase in the num-

ber of Ukrainian refugees and IDPs. The peak of internal

migration in May 2022 reached 8.7 million, with 600,000

registered IDPs in Lvivska Oblast between May and June

(Lozynskyy et al. 2023). Although this number has since

declined, many of the remaining IDPs are unable to return

to their homes. To accommodate these, several abandoned

hostels were modernised, new multi-family houses were

constructed, and modular towns were established. The use

of shipping containers as housing involved adapting prefab-

ricated units for living purposes (Pekarchuk 2023). One ex-

ample of such solution was for IDPs in the Sykhiv District

of southern Lviv (Fig. 5). The complex features a courtyard

layout, which creates semi-private areas for daily activities,

and playgrounds, enhancing supervision and care for chil-

dren within the complex (Fig. 6). The buildings consist of

two stories made up of 48 containers, equipped with wa-

ter and electricity. The residential units are the same and

consist of one double bed, built-in wardrobes and one bunk

bed. This makes the rooms tight and unsuitable for dierent

family sizes. This temporary housing complex can accom-

modate 1,408 IDPs and was constructed in a green area ad-

jacent to multifamily buildings that oer services such as

shops and cafes.

Fig. 4. Layout of a modular temporary housing settlement,

similarly repeated across municipalities in the Abruzzo region

around the earthquake’s epicentre (elaborated by M. Terelak)

Il. 4. Układ modułowego osiedla tymczasowego, powtarzany

w podobnej formie w gminach regionu Abruzji w pobliżu

epicentrum trzęsienia ziemi (oprac. M. Terelak)

Fig. 6. Temporary container housing estate in Lviv. The complex

is situated in the southern part of the city (elaborated by M. Terelak)

Il. 6. Tymczasowe osiedle kontenerowe we Lwowie.

Kompleks położony na południu miasta (oprac. M. Terelak)

Fig. 5. A view of the shared space between container buildings in Lviv

(photo by J. Łątka)

Il. 5. Widok na przestrzeń wspólną między zabudową kontenerową

we Lwowie (fot. J. Łątka)

The dynamics of demand for temporary accommodation in crisis situations: strategies and insights

133

Dynamic responses to refugee accommodation:

findings from Wrocław’s experience

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNHCR)

data indicate that within just a few weeks, Poland became one

of the main receiving countries for refugees (Subocz, Sternic-

ka-Kowalska and Głuszak 2024). Between 24 February and

30 April 2022, over 3.3 million individuals crossed Poland’s

national border (SIP 2023). Over time, successive reports have

provided insights into the location of refugees, their needs,

challenges, and living conditions. By 31 March 2023, data

indicated that Poland was home to 997,737 Ukrainians, 81%

of whom resided in cities (GUS 2023). The highest concen-

tration of Ukrainians, exceeding 10% of Ukraine’s population

in Poland, was recorded in Warsaw. Signicant proportions

of those granted temporary protection were also reported in

Wrocław (4.5%) and Kraków (3.8%) (GUS 2023).

The rapid inux of refugees into Wrocław, with a pop-

ulation increase by 187,281

people by April 2022, placed

signicant pressure on the city’s housing infrastructure.

By that time, the Wrocław Metropolitan Area was home to

02,467 Ukrainians, driving a growing demand for both tem -

porary and permanent housing solutions to accommodate

the displaced population (UMP 2022). To understand how

or ganisations and municipal structures involved in refugee

assistance perceived the event, responded to it, adapted to

its consequences, and even reorganised various ongoing pro-

cesses, the study adopted a biographical perspective, drawing

on the interviews conducted for this purpose (Kvale 2010).

The analysis compares experiences and aims to develop

a framework for understanding how the refugee crisis has

been experienced in Wrocław. The following account pro-

vides a chronological perspective on the situation from the

onset of the crisis to the present. It focuses on housing condi-

tions and architectural aspects, as well as the stages of assis-

tance provided in response to the temporary housing crisis.

Before a structured system was developed to direct ref-

ugees to appropriate housing facilities, the initial response

relied on spontaneous and largely unregulated eorts by

Wrocław residents to host them in private homes. This sit-

uation posed signicant risks due to the lack of a system to

monitor the number, locations, and living conditions of indi-

viduals, as well as to register oers of assistance or maintain

contact with hosts, complicating emergency responses (I2).

In response to the crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, the

Polish government introduced the Act of 12 March 2022 on

assistance to Ukrainian citizens due to the armed conict in

their country. This document, alongside provisions for the

legalisation of the stay of Ukrainian citizens, also included

a nancial allowance for individuals providing accommo-

dation and meals to refugees. Under the regulations, these

individuals could apply for a daily payment of 40 PLN per

The data presented in the UMP report originate from various

sources, including advertisement displays viewed by unique mobile de-

vice users, which allow for the identication of parameters such as phone

language. Other data are drawn from external sources, including mobile

device usage indicators, operating system statistics, and information from

the PESEL registry on the number of identication numbers issued to

refugees from Ukraine who entered Poland after 24 February 2022.

person they were hosting. The allowance was granted for

a maximum of 120 days from the arrival of the Ukrainian

citizen in Poland. However, it was abolished after 30 June

2024, following an update to the Act. The amendment,

signed in June 2024, extended the legal stay of Ukrainian

citizens in Poland until 30 September 2025 (UDSC 2024).

After the Polish government responded, the city’s author-

ities were able to make alternative decisions regarding the

organisation of accommodation for refugees. The rst area

of intervention was the organisation of the main railway sta-

tion. As a result, the station was initially designated as the

central hub for providing information and coordinating the

relocation of refugees to various forms of collective accom-

modation (I5). Additionally, one of the key actions taken was

the repurposing of existing spaces at the station. However,

making changes there proved dicult, as existing regulations

created several obstacles that slowed the response, one of

which was ensuring free access to toilets. Converted support

facilities included the library, oering shelter for mothers

with children, and the Bureau of Artistic Exhibitions (BWA),

where artistic activities were redirected to create emergency

shelter (I5). To enhance privacy and comfort for those stay-

ing there, the Paper Partition System (PPS) was introduced.

This system, created from paper tubes, divides large spaces

into smaller units, each approximately 2 × 2 m, separated by

fabric (Ban et al. 2022). The project was initiated by Shigeru

Ban, in collaboration with architects, students and volunteers.

Approximately 2–3 weeks after the outbreak of the war

in Ukraine, the railway station fully operated as an infor-

mation and relocation point. The process for residents reg-

istering their willingness to accommodate refugees in their

homes became more organised, requiring the provision of

personal details. Refugees were also directed to other col-

lective accommodation spaces, which combined elements

of emergency shelter and temporary shelter. Available funds

allowed for renting hotel spaces and repurposing municipal

facilities like sports halls, schools, dormitories, and oces.

One example was a long-closed school, quickly renovated

and furnished with beds in classrooms. Relocation points,

oering shared sleeping spaces, were intended for short

stays of 24–72 hours or up to a week, giving refugees time

to rest, eat, and plan their next steps. However, no xed du-

ration of stay was established.

In the initial days and weeks following the outbreak of

the war, the primary challenge was the lack of coordinated

management of aid eorts. Respondents stated that commu-

nication between support centres mainly relied on personal

contacts, past humanitarian experience, and volunteer net-

works. To improve coordination and enable a more eective

response, ocials were assigned to maintain a continuous

presence at the railway station. However, insucient de-

cision-making at higher administrative levels hindered an

eective response to the rapidly changing situation.

And the key aspect was to establish contact with the ac-

commodation base in location X, in the town of XYZ, and to

have an understanding of its conditions (I5)

All respondent statements in the text are drawn from the qualita-

tive part of the study.

134

Marcelina Terelak

It was crucial to identify who had arrived in Wrocław and

their basic needs, such as family size and the presence of

individuals with disabilities, to ensure proper relocation to

suitable centres or other cities. However, due to time and lo-

gistical constraints, there was often no opportunity to prop-

erly assess these needs, leading to situations where people

with limited mobility were placed in facilities lacking es-

sential adaptations, such as accessible beds or lifts.

Respondents estimated that Wrocław had around 6–7 col-

lective accommodation sites with varying standards and fa-

cilities, none originally intended for living. A key challenge

for authorities was adjusting activity schedules, requiring

the cancellation or rescheduling of events like concerts, ex-

hibitions, and sports matches – leading to nancial losses

and contractual penalties. Interviewees noted that refugees

were initially directed to large facilities, like sports halls or

the airport, before being relocated within Wrocław or to oth-

er cities, often changing temporary residence at least twice.

The collective accommodation centres were equipped

with basic sleeping arrangements, such as folding camp

beds or mattresses, while coordinators were tasked with as-

sessing the overall conditions within these spaces. In some

build ings, due to poor technical condition, the oor couldn’t

support beds or furniture, so new residents were provided

only with mattresses. Over time, a decision was made to add

a chair to each sleeping space, allowing residents to store

their personal belongings. No other modications were

made to the living spaces throughout the centres’ use, wheth-

er they remained open for six months or three years. Only

in a few locations, where space allowed, shelves or lockable

cabinets were provided for additional storage. This arrange-

ment became the standard in most centres. There were no

clearly dened guidelines specifying the criteria a facility

had to meet to be converted into a collective accommoda-

tion centre. These eorts were carried out urgently, often

spontaneously and with the support of volunteers, enabling

the rapid adaptation or renovation of various buildings into

temporary shelters.

It was all meant to be temporary, just for a short while

[…], so from the very beginning, it was always a matter of

“just another three months, just another six months” (I12).

Despite initial assumptions framing the assistance as

“short-term” and “temporary”, data provided by the Crisis

Management Department indicate that between 1 March

2022 and 31 December 2024, a total of 709,515 person-days

of accommodation were provided in collective housing fa-

cilities in Wrocław. In the rst year following the outbreak

of the war, the number of person-days in collective accom-

modation centres reached 343,831, decreasing to 261,390

in 2023 and 104,294 in 2024. At present, two collective

housing facilities remain operational in Wrocław, providing

shelter for over 100 individuals. The timeline in Figure 7

il lustrates the main phases of collective accommodation in

Wrocław, highlighting the transition from emergency res-

ponse to the current phase of reduced shelter provision be-

tween 2022 and 2025.

Insights from the analysis

of Wrocław’s response

The perspectives of individuals directly involved in sup-

porting Ukrainian refugees have facilitated the reconstruc-

tion of a coherent picture of the assistance system. Inter-

views highlighted the early-stage spontaneity and lack of

eective coordination, which, combined with the absence of

a housing monitoring system, resulted in limited knowledge

about the living conditions of those accommodated in pri-

vate households. Similar challenges were identied in the

relocation process, where matching housing to the individ-

ual needs of refugees proved to be a signicant challenge.

As reported by a respondent involved in managing refugee

assistance eorts:

Fig. 7. The framework of refugee support in Wrocław (elaborated by M. Terelak)

Il. 7. Ścieżka wsparcia uchodźców we Wrocławiu (oprac. M. Terelak)

The dynamics of demand for temporary accommodation in crisis situations: strategies and insights

135

[…] there were no procedures, and I am not sure whether

any migration procedures for receiving migrants were ever

established across Poland. Everything was done based on

what we thought was right and what we felt needed to be

done (I1).

The city had established operational procedures; however, it

was not prepared for the scale of the refugee inux. As a result,

the support system was implemented gradually and continuous-

ly adjusted. In Wrocław some facilities were provided free of

charge by businesses, while others became available following

rapid renovations. However, no new forms of acco mmo dation,

such as temporary settlements, were developed (see Table 1).

Most of the repurposed spaces were in central areas of the city

or were well connected to the city centre, ensuring

convenient

Category Onagawa, Japan Abruzzo, Italy Lviv, Ukraine Wrocław, Poland

Reception organisation

Actions of central

government

expansion of the public

procurement system;

enabled local authorities

to implement alternative

housing projects

central management by

the Civil Defence Department;

special legislation;

full government control

over housing project

implementation

settlement organisation

led by local authorities

in cooperation

with foreign partners

(e.g., Poland)

40 PLN/day housing

allowance (Ustawa 2022);

in force until 30.06.2024;

supported local response

efforts

Actions

of local authorities

project approved by

Onagawa and prefectural

authorities after

negotiations;

site allocated within

a sports facility

limited influence of local

authorities on settlement

location and design; exclud-

ed from

the planning process

land allocation,

coordination of

construction and site

development; attention to

spatial quality

by local authorities

initial bottom-up response

– refugees hosted by residents;

then municipal coordination

of aid, use of train station,

halls and dormitories;

development of temporary

accommodation with NGOs

Role of volunteers

/ Community

involvement

project supported by

VAN (Voluntary

Architects’ Network);

interior design

and furnishing

no resident involvement in

planning; later grassroots

adaptations to meet

personal needs

grassroots resident

initiatives in organising

and improving shared

spaces

crucial in the initial phase;

support based on informal

networks, grassroots actions

by residents and local

volunteers

Proposed accommodation

Type and location

ISO containers arranged

in multi-storey layout on

a municipal sports field,

on elevated ground

outside the tsunami zone;

close to a hospital,

schools and green areas

MAP – prefabricated units

built in earthquake-affected

towns, near damaged

homes

container settlements

located on municipal

land, with access

to schools, shops

and public transport

accommodation in private

homes, sports halls,

dormitories, hostels

and municipal buildings;

locations dispersed

throughout the city

Standard

and furnishings

three module types

(19.8–39.6 m

); divided

into bedroom, bathroom

and living area; furnished

to create a homelike

atmosphere; shared spaces

and services provided

modules of 40–70 m

built to

“performance specifications”;

focus on transportability,

safety, material recoverability

and sustainability;

simplified combined

living–sleeping layout

regular layout; 13 m

modules for 4 people,

with 2 bunk beds, table,

chairs and cupboards;

shared kitchens and

sanitation facilities

varying standards

– from halls to flats and hostels;

basic furnishings

(bed + chair);

no control over allocation;

rooms often shared

Actual implementation

Degree

of adaptation

to user needs

private entrances;

furnished interiors with

a homelike feel; bright,

spacious modules; shared

spaces encouraging social

interaction

no shared spaces

or services;

spatial limitations;

grassroots adaptations

by residents (canopies,

fences, façades)

no accessibility features

for people with

disabilities;

shared sanitation

facilities located up to

60 m from housing units

unsuitable for long-term stay;

lack of privacy and

accessibility for people

with disabilities; limited

adaptability; furnishings

supplemented by residents

Duration of use

planned for 4 years;

actually used for around

8 years due to high quality

intended as temporary;

used for at least 7 years

after the disaster

still in use;

planned for 4 years;

some settlements closed

during winter due to lack

of weather adaptation

temporary accommodation;

some sites closed after

a few months;

two centres still operating

over 3 years after

the war began

Table 1. Comparison of refugee reception, housing solutions, and spatial arrangements in four case studies (Wrocław, Lviv, Abruzzo, Onagawa)

(elaborated by M. Terelak)

Tabela 1. Porównanie systemów przyjmowania uchodźców, rozwiązań mieszkaniowych i organizacji przestrzennej w czterech studiach przypadków

(Wrocław, Lwów, Abruzja, Onagawa) (oprac. M. Terelak)

136

Marcelina Terelak

access to services, work and other essential urban functions.

The favourable location of collective accommodation sites

made relocation to smaller towns or neighbouring municipal-

ities unattractive for many refugees. It was noted that indi-

viduals assigned for relocation refused to move after arriving

at their designated destination. As one interviewee noted:

[…] we only knew where they were going, but no one knew

what the conditions there were like (I12).

Accounts indicate that accommodation quality was basic,

resembling emergency shelter rather than temporary housing.

Furnishings were minimal, and no signicant improvements

were introduced over time to enhance privacy or living con-

ditions that would provide a greater sense of stability and

dignity. Without private space, residents stored belongings in

bags, impacting hygiene and contributing to sanitary issues.

In contrast, more attention was given to communal areas, es-

pecially for children, with many centres creating play areas,

small libraries, and TV rooms for social interaction.

[…] if we already have such a centre, it should not be

treated as one with the lowest standard, designed simply to

encourage people to move out as quickly as possible, be-

cause they will not do so. They do not want to move out,

despite the standard being what it is (I12).

Interviewees highlighted that the initial assumption of

“short-term accommodation” proved to be unrealistic in

practice, as some individuals remained in the centres for

years, becoming dependent on the assistance system. The

decision to close collective accommodation centres owned

by private entities, such as oces, was often driven by nan-

cial considerations. Another signicant factor was the inad-

equate technical condition of the buildings, which included

faulty installations, heating issues, leaking ceilings, and de-

teriorating walls. Some centres were also closed due to the

decreasing number of individuals requiring assistance. This

mainly applied to initial relocation points, like sports halls

or airports, used during the early stages of the crisis. These

Category Area Recommendations

Management and level

of responsibility

central government

continuous financial and legal support for host municipalities and households,

fast-track decision-making, simplified procedures,

predefined maximum duration of use,

integration of temporary housing into housing and urban planning policy

local authorities

pre-identified emergency locations in local development plans,

resource map (e.g., halls, hotels, schools),

ongoing cooperation with NGOs; joint activation procedures

volunteers / community

support with adaptation,

integration activities (language, education, community initiatives),

filling gaps in basic supplies during the initial phase

Spatial organisation

basic furnishings

minimum: bed, storage space, table, chairs,

access to private or semi-private bathroom,

shared spaces (e.g., kitchens, common rooms), access to Wi-Fi

division of space

possibility to ensure privacy,

zoning: private, semi-private and shared areas,

additional elements

simple options for personalisation

(curtains, shelves, decorations, space for personal belongings)

Table 2. Proposed recommendations for management and spatial organisation in future crisis situations (elaborated by M. Terelak)

Tabela 2. Proponowane rekomendacje dotyczące zarządzania i organizacji przestrzeni w sytuacjach kryzysowych (oprac. M. Terelak)

ndings situate the Wrocław case within a broader compar-

ative perspective, alongside previously discussed examples

from Lviv, Abruzzo and Onagawa. Table 1 oers an over-

view of refugee reception models, housing typologies, and

spatial arrangements in response to displacement.

Discussion

In both Italy and Wrocław, shelter provision for dis-

placed people is marked by a chaotic approach and lack of

long-term planning. Meanwhile, Onagawa’s container set-

tlement set a new standard for temporary housing, reden-

ing accommodation for IDPs. In contrast, the conditions in

Wrocław’s collective accommodation centres raised ques-

tions about their adequacy for people who had ed war. The

location of temporary accommodation played a signicant

role. In Italy, the absence of communal spaces, markets, and

services contrasted with the more thoughtful integration of

amenities in Onagawa and Lviv. In Wrocław, many respon-

dents noted that refugees were reluctant to relocate from

the city centre, where services were easily accessible. Giv-

en these challenges, the bottom-up approach that emerged

due to the lack of organised support raises the question of

whether a more structured framework could have ensured

a more coordinated response. In some cases, participatory

design approaches involving refugees have led to more con-

text-sensitive and socially sustainable housing solutions.

Existing research highlights that involving future residents

in planning and decision-making can result in more appro-

priate and widely accepted spatial arrangements (Albadra et

al. 2021). In the light of these observations, Table 2 outlines

key recommendations aimed at strengthening the planning

and coordination of temporary accommodation eorts. The

suggestions are grouped according to levels of responsibili-

ty and spatial aspects concerning the organisation, usability

and quality of the living environment.

The dynamics of demand for temporary accommodation in crisis situations: strategies and insights

137

Conclusions

The analysis identied solutions and methodologies for

temporary accommodation, highlighting areas for improve-

ment based on interviews and examples from Ukraine,

Ja pan, and Italy. A key issue was the lack of centralised

co or dination, which led to inconsistent relocation and accom-

modation strategies. Establishing clear guidelines would im-

prove eciency, ensure a more predictable response and

help people transition to more permanent housing. Another

pressing issue was the inadequate standard of living, particu-

larly the lack of privacy and essential furnishings, which can

be addressed by analysing the spatial needs of those aected.

Conducting qualitative research with refugees would pro-

vide valuable insights, helping ensure that housing solutions

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the project Minigrants for doctoral students of

the Wrocław University of Science and Technology.

References

Albadra, Dima, Zainab Elamin, Kehinde Adeyeye, Eleni Polychronaki,

David A. Coley, Jennifer Holley, and Andrew Copping.. “Participato-

ry Design in Refugee Camps: Comparison of Dierent Methods and

Visualization Tools.” Building Research and Information 49, no. 2

(2021): 248–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2020.1740578.

Ban, Shigeru, Jerzy F. Łątka, Hubert Trammer, Yasunori Harano, Artur

Jörgen, Daria Pawłosik, and Weronika Abramczyk. “Aid Architec-

ture. Implementation of the Paper Partition System and Styrofoam

Housing System in the Context of the War in Ukraine.” Środowisko

Mieszkaniowe 41, no. 1 (2022): 27–38. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543

8700sm.22.028.17151.

Ban, Shigeru, Naomi Pollock, Michael Kimmelman, and Claude Bruder-

lein. Shigeru Ban: Humanitarian Architecture, edited by Mary Chris-

tian. Aspen Art Press 2014.

Bologna, Roberto. “Planning and Designing Post Disaster Transitional

Housing: The Case of the Abruzzo (Italy) Earthquake.” In CIB World

Building Congress 2010, Salford, UK, May 11–13, 2010. CIB Publi-

cation, 2010.

Clement, Viviane, Kanta Kumari Rigaud, Alex de Sherbinin, et al.

“Grounds well Part 2: Acting on Internal Climate Migration.” World

Bank, 2021. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/36248.

Cygańczuk, Krzysztof, Jacek Roguski, and Jarosław Tępiński. “Temporary

Accommodation Facilities for People Aected by an Emergency or

Humanitarian Disaster.” Safety and Fire Technology 59, no. 1 (2022):

42–57. https://doi.org/10.12845/sft.59.1.2022.2.

Czaja, Jan. “Migracje jako problem globalny. Aspekty polityczno-prawne,

społeczne i kulturowe.” In Migracje i uchodźstwo ludności: trendy,

problemy, wyzwania, edited by Paulina Szymczyk and Iwona Domina.

Wydawnictwo Naukowe Tygiel, 2023.

Demianchuk, Maryna, Alina Burliai, Oleksandr Burliai, and Natalia Maslii.

“Fale migrantów wojennych w krajach Unii Europejskiej w związku

z wybuchem wojny w Ukrainie.” In Migracje i uchodźstwo ludności:

trendy, problemy, wyzwania, edited by Paulina Szymczyk and Iwona

Domina, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Tygiel, 2023.

Di Bucci, Daniela, Fabio Del Missier, Mauro Dolce, et al. “Life Satis-

faction during Temporary Housing after an Earthquake: Comparing

Three Cases in Italy.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduc-

tion 91 (2023): 103697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103697.

Earthquakelist. “Japan Earthquake Report.” Accessed March 31, 2025, at

https://earthquakelist.org/japan/#latest-earthquakes-mag-6-distance-

smart/.

Félix, Daniel, Daniel Monteiro, Jorge M. Branco, Roberto Bologna, and

Artur Feio. “The Role of Temporary Accommodation Buildings for

Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction.” Journal of Housing and the

Built Environment 30, no. 4 (2015): 683–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10901-014-9431-4.

Flick, Uwe. Projektowanie badania jakościowego. Translated by Paweł

Tomanek. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2010.

Grab, Jadwiga. “The Impact of Migration and Refugee Movements on the

Architecture and Urban Planning of Cities.” In Migracje i uchodźstwo

ludności: trendy, problemy, wyzwania, edited by Paulina Szymczyk

and Iwona Domina, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Tygiel, 2023.

GUS [Główny Urząd Statystyczny]. “Mieszkańcy Ukrainy objęci ochroną

czasową.” Published December 20, 2023. Accessed March 31, 2025, at

https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/migracje-zagra niczne-

ludnosci/mieszkancy-ukrainy-objeci-ochrona-czasowa,19,1.html.

Johnson, Cassidy. “What’s the Big Deal about Temporary Housing? Plan-

ning Considerations for Temporary Accommodation after Disasters:

Example of the 1999 Turkish Earthquakes.” In Proceedings of the

TIEMS Disaster Management Conference, Waterloo, Canada, 2002.

Kvale, Steinar. Prowadzenie wywiadów. Translated by Agata Dziuban.

Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2010.

Lozynskyy, Roman, Viktoriya Pantyley, Andriy Zubyk, and Hanna Sma-

liychuk. “The Eects of Internal Displacement on the Host Border

Regions (Case Study of the Lviv Region of Ukraine).” Europa XXI 45,

(2023): 39–57. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2023.45.4.

McAulie, Marie, and Linda A. Oucho, eds. World Migration Report 2024.

International Organization for Migration (IOM). International Orga-

nization for Migration, 2024.

NPA [National Police Agency of Japan]. “Police Countermeasures and

Damage Situation Associated with 2011 Tohoku District – o the Pa-

cic Ocean Earthquake.” Accessed March 31, 2025, at https://www.

npa.go.jp/news/other/earthquake2011/pdf/higaijokyo_e.pdf.

Pekarchuk, Oksana. “Container Settlements Built in Ukraine and Western

Europe in 2022. Analysis and Design Recommendations.” Architectus

74, no. 2 (2023): 105–14. https://doi.org/10.37190/arc230211.

Quarantelli, Enrico L. “Patterns of Sheltering and Housing in US Disas-

ters.” Disaster Prevention and Management 4, no. 3 (1995): 43–53.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09653569510088069.

SIP [Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej]. “Opcje dla obywateli państw

trze

cich (innych niż Ukraina) przebywających w Polsce na 15-dnio -

wym zezwoleniu.” Accessed March 31, 2025, at https://ukraina.

meet both practical and emotional needs. Additionally, clear

criteria should be established for identifying locations that

can be converted into temporary accommodation centres.

The location of these centres emerged as a signicant factor,

as demonstrated by the contrast between Italy and Onagawa

or Lviv. Temporary accommodation can be implemented in

underused spaces such as parks or sports elds, temporarily

integrating them into the urban fabric. In Wrocław, refugees’

reluctance to relocate from the city centre highlights the

need for a clearer system that outlines potential destinations

and services. These insights underscore the importance of

a strategic approach to temporary accommodation, integrat-

ing crisis planning with long-term housing policies to ensure

adaptability and resilience in future crises.

138

Marcelina Terelak

Streszczenie

Dynamika zapotrzebowania na przestrzeń w sytuacjach kryzysowych: strategie na przykładzie Wrocławia

W obliczu kryzysów migracyjnych miasta stają przed wyzwaniem organizacji schronienia dla oar katastrof naturalnych i uchodźców, co wyma-

ga dynamicznych i elastycznych strategii zarówno w zakresie przestrzeni mieszkaniowej, jak i organizacji pomocy. Tematem artykułu jest architek-

tura pomocowa, obejmująca rozwiązania przejściowe pomiędzy schronieniem natychmiastowym a stałym zakwaterowaniem. Na przykładzie Wro-

cławia przeanalizowano proces przekształcania miejskiej infrastruktury w odpowiedzi na napływ ludności po wybuchu wojny w Ukrainie w 2022 r.,

koncentrując się na ewolucji rozwiązań tymczasowego zakwaterowania. Omówiono kolejne etapy organizacji przestrzeni – od spontanicznych

działań po instytucjonalne miejsca zbiorowego zakwaterowania, pierwotnie planowane jako krótkoterminowe, lecz nadal funkcjonujące. W artykule

przedstawiono zarówno lokalne uwarunkowania organizacji schronienia, jak i szerszy kontekst globalnych kryzysów migracyjnych.

Przeprowadzone badania opierają się na przeglądzie literatury przedmiotu oraz częściowo ustrukturyzowanych wywiadach z przedstawicielami

organizacji pozarządowych i władz miejskich. Wywiady te miały na celu zrozumienie dynamiki funkcjonowania ośrodków zbiorowego zakwatero-

wania. Dodatkowo, analiza danych liczbowych z Wrocławia ukazała skalę napływu uchodźców i wynikające z tego zmiany w zapotrzebowaniu na

przestrzeń mieszkalną. Zestawienie różnych modeli organizacji schronienia pozwala na porównanie podejścia zastosowanego we Wrocławiu, gdzie

dominowały ośrodki zbiorowego zakwaterowania, z rozwiązaniami stosowanymi w innych krajach.

Przegląd różnych strategii skłonił do reeksji nad potencjałem długoterminowego wykorzystania takich przestrzeni oraz koniecznością ich pro-

jektowania w zgodzie z rzeczywistymi, zmieniającymi się potrzebami uchodźców. Podkreślono potrzebę lepszej identykacji tych potrzeb, która

umożliwiłoby nie tylko bardziej efektywne projektowanie przestrzeni, ale także skuteczniejsze zarządzanie i dostosowywanie do przyszłych kryzysów.

Słowa kluczowe: uchodźcy, kryzys migracyjny, tymczasowe zakwaterowanie, architektura pomocowa, organizacja pomocy

in terwencja

prawna.pl/mozliwe-sciezki-dzialania-dla-obywateli- panstw-

trzecich- innych

-niz- ukraina-przebywajacych-w-polsce-na-15-

dniowym-zezwoleniu/.

Subocz, Elżbieta, Magdalena Sternicka-Kowalska, and Bartłomiej Głuszak.

“Life Situation of War Refugees from Ukraine. Research in Warm-

ian-Mazurian Voivodeship.” Polityka Społeczna 601, no. 5–6 (2024):

30–8. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.6496.

UDSC [Urząd do Spraw Cudzoziemców]. “Nowelizacja Ustawy o pomocy

obywatelom ukrainy w związku z koniktem zbrojnym na terytorium

tego państwa.” Published June 25, 2024. Accessed March 31,

2025,

at https:// www.gov.pl/web/udsc/nowelizacja-ustawy-o-po mo cy- oby-

wa telom-ukrainy-w- zwiazku-z-koniktem-zbrojnym-na-tery to rium-

tego-panstwa2/.

UMP [Unia Metropolii Polskich]. “Miejska gościnność: wielki wzrost,

wyz wania i szanse.” Published April 26, 2022. Accessed March 31,

2025, at https://metropolie.pl/artykul/miejska-goscinnosc-wielki-

wzrost- wyzwania-i-szanse-raport-o-uchodzcach-z-ukrainy-w-naj-

wiekszych-polskich-miastach/.

“Ustawa z dnia 12 marca 2022 r. o pomocy obywatelom Ukrainy

w związku z koniktem zbrojnym na terytorium tego państwa.”

Dz.U. 2022, poz. 583. Published March 12, 2022. Accessed March

31, 2025, at https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id =-

WDU 20220000583.

Wagemann, Elizabeth. “Need for Adaptation Transformation of Temporary

Houses.” Disasters 41, no. 4 (2017): 828–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/

disa.12228/full.

Yılmaz, Zelal. “Emergency Architecture: Van and Onagawa Example.”

Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Aairs

in Architecture and Urbanism 4, no. 1 (2021): 648–58. https://doi.

org/10.38027/ICCAUA2021311N7.