Natural Hazards

, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 537–551 | Cite as

Designing happiness? A close-up to the housing reconstruction process after the Chile earthquake and tsunami, on 27 February 2010

  • A. LaraEmail author
  • L. F. Reyes
  • J. Moreno
  • P. Quilodrán
  • K. Sánchez
Original Paper


This research examines the level of citizen satisfaction for the housing solution provided during the reconstruction process, after the Chile earthquake and tsunami, on 27 February 2010, in Dichato Bay, through a multidisciplinary approach. This implied, on the one hand, the application of a survey aimed at determining the level of agreement or disagreement with the reconstruction programme; and, on the other hand, an architectural and urban study, based on an analysis of the planimetric design and the location of the housing received by the beneficiaries, to outline the relation between the fulfilment of technical aspects and the social perception of satisfaction. The main results reflect a positive regard for the reconstruction plan, as well as a limited relation between the level of user satisfaction and the final housing solution provided.


Social assessment Reconstruction plan Disaster risk reduction Public policy, social housing 


  1. Araos O (2011) Casa Domo—Vivienda Antisísmica y Antitsunámica. Recuperado 23 octubre 2016, de.
  2. Aravena A (2015). Elemental: architecture as strategy. Area: rivista di architettura e arti del progetto 143:2–17Google Scholar
  3. Ashley R, Blanskby J, Newman R et al (2012) Learning and action alliances to build capacity for flood resilience. J Flood Risk Manag 5(1):14–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audefroy J (2003) La problemática de los desastres en el hábitat urbano en américa Latina. INVI 47(18):52–71Google Scholar
  5. Begg C, Luther J, Kuhlicke C, Steinführer A (2011) Participation in Central European flood. Risk management: social capacity building in practice. CapHaz-Net WP9 report, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchUFZ, Leipzig, Germany. Retrieved 25 August 2011, from
  6. Candia J, Perrotti D, Aldunate E (2015) Evaluación social de proyectos. Retrieved on July 10, 2015, from
  7. Carcellar N (2011) Addressing vulnerabilities through support mechanisms: HPFPI’s ground experience in enabling the poor to implement community-rooted interventions on disaster response and risk reduction. Documento informativo elaborado para el Informe de evaluación global sobre la reducción del riesgo de desastres 2011. Ginebra, Suiza: EIRD/ONUGoogle Scholar
  8. CEPAL (2005) Elementos conceptuales para la prevención y reducción de daños originados por amenazas socionaturales, 1st edn. Naciones Unidas. CEPAL, Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamlee‐wright E, Storr VH (2009). There’s no place like New Orleans: sense of place and community recovery in the Ninth ward after Hurricane Katrina. J Urban Aff 31:615–634. Available at SSRN:
  10. Grönroos C (1994) From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Manag Decis 32(12):4–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hajji C, Chemitte J, Rizzoli J, Gache F (2011) A public private partnership between Grands lacs de Seine and Mission risques naturels. Assessment of households, businesses and public services in flood prone areas in the upstream Seine basin. La Houille Blanche 2:76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hernández P (2011) La importancia de la satisfacción del usuario. Documentación de las Ciencias de la Información 34:349–368. Google Scholar
  13. Hernández R, Fernandez C, Baptista M (2010) Metodología de investigación, 5th edn. Mc Graw HillGoogle Scholar
  14. Imilán W (2015) ¿Aprendemos algo de las catástrofes? Retrieved 22 October 2016, from
  15. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2015) Annual repor. UNISDR, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Karunasena G (2011) Chapter 14: sustainable post disaster reconstruction of the built environment: rebuilding and resilience. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karunasena G, Amaratunga D (2016) Capacity building for post disaster construction and demolition waste management. A case of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management 25(2):137–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lagos M (2012) Zonificación del riesgo de tsunami en el centro-sur de Chile. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 53:7–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lane MD (2010) The triple bottom line: performance measures in social entrepreneurship research. Western Kentucky University, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  20. Lara A, Saurí D, Ribas A, Pavón D (2010) Social perceptions of floods and flood management in a Mediterranean area (Costa Brava, Spain). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2081–2091. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lara A, Garcia X, Bucci F, Ribas A (2017) What do people think about the flood risk? An experience with the residents of Talcahuano city, Chile. Nat Hazards 85(3):1557–1575. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Livengood A, Kunte K (2011) Participatory settlement mapping by Mahila Milan. Environ Urban Int Inst Environ Dev 24(1):77–97. Retrieved 01 August 2012, from
  23. Marrero M (2012) Diseños y Riesgos. Hacia una arquitectura pertinente. La Experiencia de la facultad de arquitectura de la universidad central de VenezuelaGoogle Scholar
  24. MDS—Ministerio de Desarrollo Social DS (2013) Metodología general de preparación y evaluación de proyectos. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from
  25. Minvu (2010) Reconstruction plan. Ministry of Housing and Urban Dvelopment, ChileGoogle Scholar
  26. Moe TL (2010) Cleanup after Katrina: an analysis on policy, process, priorities, problems, and politics. Disaster Prev Manag 19(3):345–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pastorelli G (2010) Conjunto de vivienda mínima definitiva, Concurso VISUMAD/Claudio Vásquez, Juan Ignacio López. Plataforma Arqutectura. Retrieved 20 October 2016, from
  28. Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prasad K (2005), Community approaches to flood management in India, APFM. Retrieved 14 February 2008, from
  30. Qasim S, Qasim M, Prasad Shrestha R, Nawaz Khan A (2016) Community resilience to flood hazards in Khyber Pukhthunkhwa province of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 18:100–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruiz-Olalla C (2001) Gestión de la calidad del servicio. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from
  32. SEGPRES (2011) Balance de Reconstrucción. A un año del 27-F. Chile Ministerio Secretaría General de la PresidenciaGoogle Scholar
  33. Tamayo M (1997) El análisis de las políticas públicas. In: Bañon R, Carrillo E (eds) La nueva Administración pública. Alianza universidad, MadridGoogle Scholar
  34. Van den Honert RC (2016) Improving decision making about natural disaster mitigation funding in Australia—a framework. Resources 2016(5):28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2009) Flood management in a Changing climate. Technical Document. Flood Management Policy Series. Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. Zilbert L (2010) Evolución de las Políticas de Reducción de Riesgo de Desastres. At United Nations Development Program UNDP (Ed.), Diplomado de Especialización en Desarrollo Local y Gestión Integral del Riesgo (hoja de ruta) UNDP: virtual schoolGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUniversity of Concepcion, ChileConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Alliance Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.Postgraduate Program in Politics and GovernmentUniversity of Concepcion, ChileConcepciónChile

Personalised recommendations