HADR–CPXKNOWLEDGE COMMONS
ไทยContact
Menu
Home/Knowledge/community-shelter
HADR foundationsApplied foundation · communities and coordinatorsPublic review edition

Community preparedness and inclusive shelters

Compare shelter options, coordinate services and listen to residents through ADPC-informed reading, DDPM guidance and an original fictional exercise.

45 estimated minutescommunity-shelter · v0.1.0Updated 15 October 2026
AI-generated illustration of HADR learning and exercise, not an actual event
AI-generated learning illustration, not a record of an actual event.
A learning synthesis based on the listed sources, not yet endorsed by an expert reviewer. Activities and rubrics are proposed by this project.
Knowledge domains connected to this lesson (7)
D09 · Temporary shelters and housingD11 · Volunteers and civil societyD12 · Community organization and resilienceD13 · Protection and inclusionD05 · Disaster medicine and public healthD07 · Water, sanitation and hygieneD08 · Food, nutrition and agriculture
Explore related ISO standards

What will you be able to do?

From outcomes to observable evidence

community-shelter · v0.1.0

Intended outcomes

Knowledge

Explain why hazards, access and services must be considered together.

Skills

Compare two sites and assign verification tasks before recommending one.

Ethics

Propose ways to reduce access barriers with input from affected people.

Character

Own an assigned role and revise a proposal when information changes.

Practise through an activity

Original project activity: use three roles—resident representative, information collector and coordinator. Using sites A/B, create a comparison and one-page proposal. Add language and mobility concerns. The facilitator then reports that route B is unavailable. Revise the proposal and identify remaining checks. Submit both versions and peer feedback. Use the KSEC rubric below; the five-question quiz supports understanding and does not establish practical competence or accreditation.

Collect evidence for assessment

Knowledge

A rationale with page references and explained quiz responses.

SHELTER-K
Skills

A comparison table and follow-up ownership record.

SHELTER-S
Ethics

A proposal responding to resident concerns with an equity rationale.

SHELTER-E
Character

Before-and-after decision notes with peer observations.

SHELTER-C

Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.

Module references:[adpc-shelter-2017][ddpm-shelter][ddpm-shelter-catalog][ddpm-plan]

Suggested preparation: HADR foundations and people-centred assistance Thailand floods 2011: interconnected impacts and recovery

Read the guides in context

The 2017 ADPC manual addresses site selection, management and protection. DDPM’s 2022 manual covers planning, operation and closure. This project synthesis is not ADPC accreditation or an instruction to open a shelter. Learning task: compare the guides’ scope, then mark questions requiring confirmation from the site owner, local authority or relevant specialist before practical use.

Original sources: [adpc-shelter-2017][ddpm-shelter]

Compare sites and routes

ADPC printed pp. 7 and 14 consider hazards, access, utilities and community assessment; DDPM 2022 PDF p. 9 covers similar concerns. Our exercise compares two sites using confirmed facts, assumptions and gaps. A high building with an unchecked access route has an unresolved gap; its elevation alone does not establish safety. Do not treat historical capacity figures or ratios as site approval.

Original sources: [adpc-shelter-2017][ddpm-shelter]

Connect needs to responsible roles

ADPC printed pp. 30 and 32 discuss management roles, participation and coordination. DDPM 2022 PDF pp. 10–11 describe management arrangements and appointments. For this exercise, separate proposal, verification and local approval roles. Assign follow-up for water, sanitation, food and links to health services. Use fictional role names and identify specialist referrals instead of designing treatment or engineering systems.

Original sources: [adpc-shelter-2017][ddpm-shelter][ddpm-plan]

Examine barriers with residents

ADPC printed p. 40 addresses communication and registration assistance; p. 55 addresses wheelchair access. Original exercise: a peer plays a resident who cannot read Thai signs or use stairs. Ask the team to propose communication and access arrangements, first listening to that resident’s stated needs. Use entirely fictional data and exclude real names or health histories from shared work.

Original sources: [adpc-shelter-2017][ddpm-shelter]

Review information and plan handover

ADPC printed p. 43 and DDPM’s lifecycle include shelter closure. DDPM’s shelter catalogue is preparedness data, not confirmation that a shelter is currently open. Exercise: after a route update, revise the proposal with source, time, follow-up owner and review trigger. Add a handover question for households unable to return home. This task does not authorise learners to close an actual shelter.

Original sources: [adpc-shelter-2017][ddpm-shelter][ddpm-shelter-catalog]

See the process at a glance

A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.

  1. Read the scope

    Identify editions, cited pages and limits of both guides.

  2. Compare options

    Compare sites A and B, recording evidence and unanswered questions.

  3. Listen and assign

    Hear fictional residents’ concerns and assign service follow-up roles.

  4. Revise and reflect

    Change one route fact, then explain what was revised and why.

Fictional learning scenario

Explore a decision

Original fictional scenario: a community prepares for flooding. Building A is elevated, but its route is unchecked and entry uses stairs. Building B has a checked route, but its water supply is unconfirmed. What should the team propose before asking the authority to select a site?

From knowledge to evidence

Original project activity: use three roles—resident representative, information collector and coordinator. Using sites A/B, create a comparison and one-page proposal. Add language and mobility concerns. The facilitator then reports that route B is unavailable. Revise the proposal and identify remaining checks. Submit both versions and peer feedback. Use the KSEC rubric below; the five-question quiz supports understanding and does not establish practical competence or accreditation.

CriterionProficientDeveloping
K · Rationale and sourcesExplains multiple factors with relevant page references.Names a guide without connecting it to the rationale.
S · ComparisonSeparates evidence from gaps and assigns checks for both sites.Chooses a site before checking material constraints.
E · AccessResponds to fictional resident concerns with an equity rationale.Assumes resident needs without listening.
C · RevisionOwns the role and explains revisions after the update.Leaves follow-up unowned or ignores new information.

A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.

Check your understanding

Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.

1Why is building elevation alone insufficient?
2What belongs in a useful comparison table?
3A fictional resident cannot read Thai signs. What should the team do?
4How should the team show accountability when a route becomes unavailable?
5What does finding a site in the shelter catalogue establish?

References & further verification

Cite this module

PK-Research. (2026). Community preparedness and inclusive shelters (community-shelter, v0.1.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/community-shelter/

Found a correction? Contact the developerNext module