Humanitarian crises and forced displacements around the world are consequences of the environmental, technological, social and political problems. Much of them are due to conflicts, violence, persecution, and human rights violations. Five countries, such as Myanmar, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and the Arab Republic of Syria, account for the largest number of victims of humanitarian crises, generating approximately 68% of refugees (UNHCR, 2021b ).

By analyzing the countries that assist the largest number of refugees, it is possible to identify the implementation of several settlement, which have been mapped and catalogued on the Infrashelter platform (VIRTUHAB/UFSC, 2023 ). In Syria, the Abu Khashab, Al-Hawl, Azraq and Zaatari settlements assist thousands of refugees. Yida, Savanna Woodland, Juba, Maban, Ajuong Thok, Nyeel and Rakuba settlements have been set up to cater for refugees from South Sudan. In Bangladesh, the Kutupalong settlement has expanded more than twenty times and has become one of the world’s largest settlements for more than one million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. Moreover, refugees from Afghanistan number 5,532,867 in the countries of Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan and are dispersed in various forms of settlement (UNCHR, 2023b ). But recently, the refugee crisis has hit Latin America hard, with the socio-economic deterioration of Venezuela, whose population has sought refuge in neighboring countries, including Brazil.

Researchers have been studying issues related to temporary settlements for emergency situations, such as Hailey ( 2009 ), which examines the space and idea of settlement as a defining dimension of twenty-first century life, analyzing, for instance, the temporary settlements of relief and assistance, such as refugee settlements. Omidvar, Baradaran-Shoraka and Nojavan ( 2013 ) propose a model for appropriate and systematic site selection for temporary settlements, before a disaster, using a geographical information system and Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) based on an earthquake damage assessment and applied in the capital of Iran. Alnsour and Meaton ( 2014 ) assess the housing conditions in a Palestinian refugee settlement in Jordan. Kikano, Labbé and Lizarralde ( 2017 ) investigate the link between space appropriation and physical factors in places of refuge in two temporary settlements (unplanned and planned) for Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Kikano and Lizarralde ( 2019 ) performed a comparative study examining the living conditions of Syrian refugees in two temporary planned settlements, located in Lebanon and Jordan, analyzing the political and economic contexts, housing, services and infrastructure, and social challenges. Trovato ( 2019 ) analyzes two informal (unplanned) settlements for Syrian refugees in Lebanon through the landscape lens, interpreting the spatial organization of these places as an expression of imported cultures. Oesch ( 2020 ) demonstrates how the urbanization of a refugee settlement occurs based on fieldwork conducted in the Al-Hussein Palestinian refugee settlement in Amman, Jordan. Recent research conducted by Miyamoto ( 2023 ) comparatively assessed two refugee settlements, Dadaab, more traditional and assistentialist, and Kalobeyei, with a more innovative model. The research emphasized the importance of the involvement of planners, urban designers, architects, social workers, psychologists, among other professionals, to confer high physical-spatial quality and minimum infrastructure to the settlements. Other investigations conducted by Carbonari ( 2021 ) and Carbonari and Librelotto ( 2020 ) dedicated to study solutions and best practices for temporary settlements.

One of the effective actions to support refugees has been the humanitarian provision of settlements, respecting the time people need to recover physically, economically and emotionally. This is fundamental to promoting the survival and dignity of refugees in situations of crisis or displacement (UNHCR, 2023b ). However, many refugee settlements are set up hastily, without prior planning, due to the urgency, which can negatively impact residents’ stay (Carbonari, 2021 ). It is therefore essential to plan settlements in advance, which is the aim of the Infrashelter platform (VIRTUHAB/UFSC, 2023 ).

Several authors make a differentiation between the terms “sheltering” and “housing” for emergencies. While sheltering refers to a place to stay during the immediate aftermath of an emergency, suspending daily activities, housing denotes the return to household responsibilities and daily routines. Based on this distinction, there are four distinct phases that can be employed: emergency sheltering; temporary sheltering; temporary housing; and permanent housing. The differences between these phases are often not well defined and their duration depends on existing overlaps between two or more phases. They do not always develop in a linear way and are configured as a dynamic social process (Félix et al. , 2015 ; Félix; Branco; Feio, 2013 ; Quarantelli, 1995 ). The involvement of local actors in all phases is key to avoid unexpected outcomes (Davidson et al. , 2007 ; Jha, 2010 ).

The focus of this study is on the temporary sheltering phase, where places are provided to be used for an expected short stay, ideally no more than a few weeks to months. In many cases, it goes beyond the emergency period and extends for longer, requiring more planning, infrastructure, and services (Quarantelli, 1995 ). Much of the international literature categorizes the options of temporary settlement into six types (Corsellis; Vitale, 2005 , 2007 , 2010 ; International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2015 ; International Organization for Migration; Norwegian Refugee Council; UNHCR, 2015 ; Jha, 2010 ; Norwegian Refugee Council, 2010 ; Shelter Centre, 2012 ; Sphere Association, 2018 ). In this study, the Sphere Association ( 2018 ) terminology was adopted, as it is the most current reference, grouping these six types into: (a) dispersed solutions: rental arrangement; hosted arrangement; spontaneous arrangement; and (b) communal solutions: collective accommodation, planned settlement; and unplanned settlement.

To standardize and improve the quality of response actions in emergencies, was started in 1997, the Sphere Project, developed by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The output of this project defined a set of universal standards synthesized in the document entitled “The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for Humanitarian Response in Disaster Situations” (Sphere Association, 2018 ). The main objective of this document is to guide initial humanitarian actions after the occurrence of a crisis. Since then, this document has been a reference in the administrative actions of temporary settlements and more than 80 countries adopt their guidelines and indicators (Secretaria de Estado da Defesa Civil do Rio de Janeiro, 2006 ).

Following the development of the Sphere Handbook (now in its fourth edition), several manuals and documents have been produced by international agencies regarding the shelter issue in the humanitarian response, such as UNHCR ( 1999 , 2008 , 2015 ), ANLAP ( 2003 ), Corsellis and Vitale ( 2005 , 2007 , 2010 ), Médecins Sans Frontière ( 2009 ), Jha ( 2010 ), Norwegian Refugee Council ( 2010 ), Shelter Centre ( 2012 ), International Organization for Migration, Norwegian Refugee Council and UNHCR ( 2015 ), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ( 2015 ), Care International ( 2016 ), Global Shelter Cluster ( 2019 ), among others. Some of these documents were compiled by the Shelter Centre ( 2011 ) to establish a reference. In Brazil, some organizations adopt procedures based on the Sphere Handbook, but as this document presents some specifications that do not match the Brazilian reality, the Secretaria de Estado da Defesa Civil do Rio de Janeiro ( 2006 ) developed a handbook to provide a national literature.

In Roraima, Brazil, two options of temporary settlement were set up in urban areas to shelter Venezuelan refugees, being in some cases a combination of them: collective accommodation, a pre-existing facility or structure where multiple households take shelter. Infrastructure and basic services are provided on a communal basis or access to them is made possible. And planned settlement, a purpose-built settlement for displaced people where the site layout is planned and managed by government, United Nations (UN), NGOs or civil society, and where infrastructure, facilities and services are available (Sphere Association, 2018 ).

In August 2018, eight temporary settlements and two transitional settlements were in operation in Roraima, one in the city of Pacaraima and the others in the capital Boa Vista. The objective of transitional settlements is to serve as a passage place, assisting temporarily the Venezuelans, who go through a screening, vaccination and registration. Later, the refuges are transferred to temporary settlements or forwarded to other cities (interiorization process). The temporary settlements were being managed by UNHCR partner NGOs or was administered by residents, with the support of the NGO Fraternity without Borders. The transitional settlements were under the responsibility of the Brazilian Armed Forces.

In all settlements, residents must follow rules and help with the cleaning and maintenance of the place, distribution of meals and other activities. The rules and other important information are written in Spanish and are allocated near the pedestrian access of the settlements. Some of those information are a map of the city with indications of essential public services, guidelines on how to enroll in the public-school network, procedures to report violence against women, how to prevent diseases, etc . Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the settlements (1 to 12) and two squares (A and B), where many refugees were settled while waiting for vacancies.

In Figure 1 , it is possible to see that most of the settlements are in the city of Boa Vista, near the center. Hélio Campos (4) is the farthest, approximately 13 km away. This city concentrates about two thirds of the inhabitants of Roraima, with an approximate population of 436,591 inhabitants and a territorial area of 5,687,037km². The city has a humid tropical climate, with dry winter and rainy summer, and an average annual temperature of 84.38 °F, being at an altitude of 90 m, with 90% flat relief and 10% with little declivity, from 0 to 8% (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2023 ).

Figure 1- Source: authors (august, 2018).

For each settlement, a target public was defined, with five profiles: indigenous Warão and Eñepa (1 and 2); families with children, pregnant women, older adults and disabled people (4, 5, 6, 8 and 10); couples without children, LGBTQI and single people (7); couples without children and single men (3); and single or unaccompanied men (9).

In this section, are initially presented some general information of the case studies (see Table 2 ), referring to August 2018, and the physical-spatial mapping of them (see Figure 3 ). After this, an assessment is made correlating the units of analysis with the results of field research. The settlements are referred to as: Nova Canaã (1); Pintolândia (2); Hélio Campos (3); Tancredo Neves (4); Jardim Floresta (5); and Rondon 1 (6).

Table 2-

Temporary settlement	Type	Date opened	Land area	Owner of property	Male/female	Planned capacity	Nº of people
(1)	PS	25/04/18	±7,030 m²	Boa Vista City Hall	45% M/55% F	390	444
(2)	PS+CA	27/12/16	±12,185 m²	Boa Vista City Hall	53% M/47% F	448	754
(3)	PS	09/12/17	±5,000 m²	Not informed. Maintained by sponsors	Not informed	250	285
(4)	PS+CA	29/10/17	±5,400 m²	Boa Vista City Hall	82% M/18% F	232	342
(5)	PS	21/03/18	±13,750 m²	State Civil Défense of the Fire Department. Rented by UNHCR	47% M/53% F	594	664
(6)	PS	20/07/18	±20,000 m²	Land belonging to the Union	50% M/50% F	600	623

Note: PS: Planned Settlement; CA: Collective Accommodation. Source: authors, based on Reach and UNHCR ( 2018 ).

In Figure 3 , it is possible to verify the layout of the settlements and a legend of the main facilities, infrastructure and accommodations, with some particularities of them.

Figure 3- Source: authors, based on REACH and UNHCR ( 2018 ).

From the analysis of Table 2 and Figure 3 , it is possible to observe that most of the sites were installed in planned settlements, with two mixed cases, in which accommodations were arranged in the external area of the site and inside multi-sport gyms. Settlement 1 was the first to be set up and, like the others, had no date scheduled for closure. By August 2018, all places were overcrowded, which led to some problems related to an increase in the number of people per accommodation and improvisation of additional facilities. This problem was identified especially in settlement 1, which was sheltering almost double the number of people it was planned for. In most cases, the number of men and women is similar, except for settlement 4, which has a larger proportion of men, due to the profile of its target public.

The following is an analysis of field research results, correlating them with the units of analysis presented in the method.

Site selection: temporary settlements should be located on land that is safe, legal and appropriate. This can be achieved through site planning involving the integration of hazard risk reduction, zoning and service integration (Shelter Centre, 2012 ; UNHCR, 2015 ). In the urban area of Boa Vista, interviewee P3 points out that site selection was based on a technical, economic and environmental feasibility study conducted by a Brazilian Army professional to analyze selected alternatives and choose the most viable one. Interviewee P2 highlight that preference was given to the installation of temporary settlements in open and empty areas rather than existing buildings, since the adaptation of them to the new needs was being more laborious, both in assembly and in demobilization. It was observed that the further away from the city center, the more difficult the access to infrastructure, services and subsistence and the worse the conditions of streets, sidewalks and buildings. Settlement 3 is the worst case, located in a region of difficult accessibility.

Access: all settlements have at least two separate accesses, one for pedestrians and one for vehicles. In most cases, these accesses are located on the same road for control and security reasons. In some cases, there is a second vehicle access (settlements 1, 4 e 5) for logistical reasons related to waste removal and product delivery/collection.

Universal accessibility: despite this item is considered as important by both reference literature and interviewees, no accessible facilities and accommodations were provided in the settlements. Only settlement 5 had an accessible health facility located in a pre-existing building, although there were disable people in many other settlements. In addition, the unpaved areas of the settlements were covered with gravel to minimize dirt in the tents and to help drain rainwater. This creates a problem for some residents, as there were wheelchair users and people with reduced mobility in some places.

Layout: according to interviewee P1, in most temporary settlements, the administrative facilities used as NGO and/or army offices, army lodging and healthcare are concentrated near pedestrian access, mainly for logistics and security reasons. This access is usually covered with pyramidal tents, creating a weather-protected space, which is used for reception and screening ( Figure 4 ). Warehouses and dumpsters are often placed near accesses of vehicles to facilitate solid waste removal, which is done five to seven times a week, and product collection/delivery.

Figure 4- Source: authors.

The layout of settlement 6 differs from the others regarding the accommodation area, which is divided into six zones. All zones contain a central space, covered by a tent, which should serve as a common area for coexistence, rest and leisure. However, these places are barely used, as they lack furniture (tables, chairs, etc .) and other attractions ( Figure 5 ).

Figure 5- Source: authors.

According to Corsellis and Vitale ( 2005 , 2007 ), layouts that create common spaces used by only a few families encourage ownership and maintenance of facilities and reduce opportunities for crime. The open and common areas and transition spaces, which go beyond the living space units, are essential due to the reduced internal space of the accommodations. They can also create better privacy conditions, providing spaces for leisure, rest and social interaction. However, Kikano, Labbé and Lizarralde ( 2017 ) highlight the importance of the physical components of these places to instigate a significant space appropriation, which can lead to living environments that are more adapted, and adaptable to lifestyle, socio-cultural aspirations, and frequently protracted situations of refugees.

Main spaces and facilities: the reference literature indicates that it is important to use temporary, versatile and reusable solutions focusing on site preservation. This was observed in most temporary settlements, where semi-permanent facilities were set up, mainly using tents and containers. Besides being easy to handle and transport, they also allow flexibility in use, and can be reused for other purposes and have a low impact on the site. Pre-existing buildings were also used for various purposes, especially for healthcare, educational activities, offices and as warehouse areas. The only exception is settlement 6, which was organized in an open area without any pre-existing constructions. The UNHCR ( 2015 ) highlights that the choice of materials and technical solutions adopted should also consider the operational phase of settlements, as what is adequate during an emergency may not be adequate in a situation of prolonged displacement. It is important to make improvements and adaptations to meet people’s needs over time.

According to interviewee P2, at first, the main facilities are set up, such as healthcare, administrative area, health facilities, laundry, community areas and accommodations. Over time, improvements and adaptations are being made, such as the installation of covers to protect the tents from the weather, the organization of educational and recreational spaces, the arrangement of the tents on wooden boards floor to avoid direct contact with the ground, among other improvements.

According to the reference literature, recreational areas and places for the practice of sport are essential in settlements with the presence of many children, as in the cases of Boa Vista, where the percentage of children varied between 30 and 40% of total residents (REACH; UNHCR, 2018 ). When there is little space available, a smaller recreational area can be organized, as was done in settlement 1 in a room inside a pre-existing building, and in settlement 3, where a sand volleyball court was set up. In settlements 2 and 6, which had a large open area, soccer fields were organized. Care International ( 2016 ) highlights that is important to locate child spaces in a safe central location near the accommodation area, where children can be supervised. This was observed in all settlements that had a child space.

The spaces used for washing and drying clothes require a large area, with good ventilation and insolation, especially in warm cities as Boa Vista. Except for settlement 5, all the others concentrate the laundry area and health facilities in the same place for functional and logistic reasons.

According to the reference literature, it is important to have a place for educational activities in temporary settlements, preferably with good ventilation and allowing multiple uses (Corsellis; Vitale, 2005 , 2007 ). In Boa Vista, most of the settlements had a facility for this purpose, and the place is barely used because it is too small and hot, lacking natural lighting and ventilation. Except for settlement 3, where a multipurpose, spacious and airy facility was set up, also used for healthcare, distribution of non-food items, etc.

The places used for the distribution of food and non-food items, refectory and social space are usually located close by and in an intermediate zone between the administrative area and the accommodations. It is very important to provide in these spaces’ seats and tables, drinking fountains, places to wash hands and, if possible, television and sockets for charging cell phones and other electronic devices.

The need for some spaces that were not foreseen in the literature research was identified, such as a parking lot for the staff, a delimited area for bicycle parking near the main access ( Figure 4 ) and a smoking area far from the accommodations.

Accommodation: settlements 1 and 5 used tents provided by UNHCR of approximately 26 square meters for about ten people. In settlement 3, were used donated tents of approximately nine square meters for about five people. In settlement 6, were used accommodations named “Better Shelters” with approximately 19 square meters for about eight people. In settlements 2 and 4, some particularities stand out. In settlement 2, due to cultural issues of the indigenous people, a hammock area was installed inside a gymnasium. Over time, to expand the number of residents, tents provided by the Civil Defense of approximately 29 square meters, for about ten people, were added in the external area. These tents were organized in two distant locations, with the objective of avoiding conflicts between the two different indigenous groups. In settlement 4, due to the profile of the target public, smaller tents, ceded by the Brazilian Army, were set up inside a gymnasium for childless couples. In the external area of the site, were installed tents from the Civil Defense of approximately 29 square meters for about ten single men each.

Expansion area: the Sphere Association ( 2018 ) indicates the need to foresee an area for settlement expansion, but none of the places had a planned area for this purpose, although they were constantly overcrowded. Settlement 6 had an area of approximately 10,000 m² that was being used only for recreation, leisure and rest (see Figure 5 ). This space could be better utilized, in a planned way, to increase the number of vacancies and infrastructure.

Safety, security and privacy: all settlements are surrounded by walls or fences and, for security reasons, have a single pedestrian entrance. According to interviewee P2, in most cases, residents receive an identification card made by the UNHCR, which is used by the military to access and exit control. Around the settlements, security is done by Federal Police patrols, and in the internal area, by the military. In settlement 3, was highlighted, during an interview with a resident (P4), discomfort due to lack of privacy, because the fence is very permeable and allows outside people to have visibility of the internal space.

According to Care International ( 2016 ), the design of the settlements should avoid isolated dark spaces where safety may be compromised and security provisions should be discussed with the community, especially with vulnerable people. In Boa Vista, the temporary settlements were well lit internally and had a relatively small area, which reduces security problems. However, it was observed that the location of some of them in the city constituted a risk to people. For instance, settlement 4 is in an area of great social vulnerability, with problems of prostitution and trafficking.

Social vulnerability in the face of disasters has received increasing academic attention, but little is known about how that knowledge is reflected in practice by institutions involved in disaster management (Orru et al. , 2022 ; Williams; Webb, 2021 ). The analysis performed by Williams and Webb ( 2021 ) identified four primary perspectives on social vulnerability: (i) culture and poverty; (ii) a moral imperative; (iii) a lack of security; and (iv) a lack of knowledge and awareness. These themes are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and local emergency management should perform a needs assessment to determine which demographics are more vulnerable in their respective jurisdictions. Mazurana, Benelli and Walker ( 2013 ) argues that humanitarian actors can best determine and respond to vulnerabilities and needs if they use sex- and age-disaggregated data (SADD) and gender and generational analyses to help shape their assessments of crises-affected populations.

Cultural adequacy: the reference literature emphasizes the importance of considering issues related to flexibility and adaptability to different cultures and contexts. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council ( 2010 ), cultural adequacy entails that construction, materials and policies should enable the expression of cultural identity. In Boa Vista, cultural suitability aspects were perceived especially in settlement 2, which has some particularities related to daily activities, concerning the way of cooking, sleeping and dressing of the indigenous population. According to interviewee P5, they did not accept the meals provided by the army to the other settlements. Because of this, an area covered with tents was set up for them to cook their food according to their customs . Another particularity is the hammock area installed inside the gymnasium, where different groups organize themselves with their community. Regarding the “dressing”, interviewee P5 said that mainly children do not wear shoes, which is a problem due to the gravel placed on the ground, which hurts their feet.

Environmental comfort: according to interviewee P2, there is not much concern about shelter comfort, which are usually tents, so that people stay as little as possible in these spaces. Priority is given to basic infrastructure, security and the quality of community and recreational areas. Vegetation and trees are essential for this because they soften the heat and improve the quality of the spaces. This could be seen especially in settlement 3, which has a large and pleasant shaded area, with seats and chairs. According to interviewees P4 e P6, this is the place where residents most enjoy being at this settlement.

It was observed that it is very important to protect the accommodations with additional covers, avoiding direct sunlight on the tents and protecting them from rain. This also helps to protect electrical installations, avoiding accidents such as in settlement 4, where a tent caught fire due to a short circuit. In most places, the tents were covered by semi-permanent structures or arranged under existing buildings, except for settlement 6, where more resistant shelters were used, named Better Shelters. Even so, tests were being done to enlarge their windows, to obtain greater natural ventilation and reduce the heat inside.

Reception and screening: the reception and screening of refugees is done at their first access to the settlements. To this end, a space covered by pyramidal tents was delimited in the pedestrian access, near the administrative area ( Figure 4 ). According to Care International ( 2016 ), during reception, the different groups that will occupy the settlement should be considered; for instance, extended family groups or existing communities may prefer to be grouped together to maintain existing social support networks. This was observed mainly in settlement 2, where indigenous people from two different ethnic groups were sheltered. In layout planning, two external tent spaces were defined, located in distant areas to avoid conflicts and maintain social ties.

Administrative area: in this area, are located the army and NGO(s) offices and the army accommodation. For logistical and security reasons, in many cases, there are also a mixed-use toilet and warehouses. Most of these facilities are arranged in 20-foot containers. In settlement 6, a tent was installed to serve as kitchen and refectory. According to interviewee P2, this place is used by the staff during the meals and for socialization and rest.

Healthcare: in all temporary settlements, refugees are immunized and receive weekly medical visits. According to interviewee P2, healthcare is provided by general practitioners of the army who, in more serious situations, refer patients to a hospital. In the cases where healthcare is provided inside 20-foot containers, problems related mainly to lack of space and natural ventilation were observed and reported by most interviewees. In settlement 3, there is no specific facility for this purpose. According to interviewees P4 e P6, they use the army office and other improvised spaces for doctor visits and medical procedures, hindering the development of other activities. Another problem with this settlement is the difficulty for ambulances to access the site, caused mainly by the roads’ poor condition.

Psychosocial attention: during the interviews, it was reported that no psychosocial care of refugees was carried out in any settlement. Médecins Sans Frontière ( 2009 ) points out that it is essential to consider the affected population’s psychological distress and to take care of psychological traumatisms, which add to the precariousness of the situation. The staff’s mental healthcare is also important, since there are many emotional difficulties encountered during the work. This was confirmed by the interviewees P2, P5, P6 and P7. “Often, we feel powerless, it is very bad to see these people on the street and not be able to do anything but knowing that it depends on us to install the next settlement, this affects our mind, takes away sleep” (P2, our translation).

Water supply: water supply and consumption was reported by interviewees as one of the greatest problems. According to interviewee P3, the approximate consumption per person was 100 liters per day, not counting the water used for preparing meals and drinking. This quantity is almost double that recommended by Secretaria de Estado da Defesa Civil do Rio de Janeiro ( 2006 ). This high-water consumption is due to the heat in the city, which in August 2018 was around 104 ºF, and other problems, mainly related to lack of care by residents. “They often use the showers and sinks and don’t turn off the taps, actions are needed to raise awareness of water consumption” (P3, our translation). In most settlements, water supply comes from the public network, but due to the high consumption, in many cases, artesian wells were made to expand supply.

Food supply: daily meals are prepared by the Brazilian Army and distributed three times a day for almost all settlements, being in accordance with the Secretaria de Estado da Defesa Civil do Rio de Janeiro ( 2006 ) recommendations, which highlights that this minimum does not consider people with special dietary needs. Settlements 2 and 3 are exceptions to this procedure, as they receive the food and prepare the meals on community kitchens. According to interviewees P4 and P6, the participation of the residents in the preparation of meals and cleaning tasks promotes social interaction, provides daily activities and delegates responsibilities.

Even with the meals being delivered ready, a cooking and lactation space is needed, mainly due to cultural issues, special food needs and the presence of many babies and children in the settlements (REACH; UNHCR, 2018 ). In settlement 1, a small kitchen was set up to prepare food for children from six months to two years, because, according to interviewee P7, they did not eat the ready meals. Together with the residents, were defined the opening hours and the mothers in charge of food preparation and cleaning tasks.

Health facilities : these facilities must be separate for men and women and should be in a well-lit and visible place. The use of 20-foot containers for this purpose, employed in some settlements, is a solution that allows agility in assembly/disassembly and flexibility in the layout. In some cases, pre-existing health facilities were also used. However, interviewees P2 and P3 highlight the problems of using these installations, as they are borrowed or rented spaces, and must be returned under the same initial conditions.

Sanitation: this is a very important issue in temporary settlements, as it is strictly related to the proliferation of vectors and diseases. Preferably, the local excreta collection network should be used. It is very important to establish collection, transport, treatment and disposal systems that align with local systems, by working with the authorities in charge of excreta management. According to interviewee P2, sanitation is one of the first things to do when setting up a temporary settlement and each case must be analyzed individually. Regardless of the solution adopted, the impact on the environment must be minimized. Whenever possible, should be analyzed the feasibility of reusing grey water, collecting rainwater or other sources for the general cleaning of settlements, washing clothes and dishes, among other uses.

Economic aspects : in Boa Vista, refugees found it very difficult to find a job in the local market, mainly due to the difficulty of integration into the context and social acceptance. This can be related to differences in language and culture, prejudice due to the status of refugees and the crisis that devastated the city with the arrival of so many Venezuelans. However, some particularities can be highlighted: during the set up of settlement 6, several Venezuelans were hired to install the “Better Shelters”, which helped their livelihoods. In settlement 2, most of men were agricultural workers and women were artisans. For this reason, a tent was installed for the production and sale of handicrafts and a place for community gardening was organized inside the settlement. In settlement 3, due to the experience of some people with carpentry, a place was set-up for this purpose, where some residents teach others. They produce artefacts and sell in the city. According to interviewee P4, after the installation of this space, the residents felt more motivated and useful, and the exchange of experiences led to closer social relations.

To verify the adequacy of temporary settlements to the minimum indicators, some quantitative data were collected from them (see Table 3 ). The last column of this table contains reference values based on information from the reference literature. Data that are not in accordance with the minimum indicators are highlighted in grey.

Table 3-

Indicators	Temporary settlements						Reference values
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Surface area/person	16/p	16/p	17/p	15/p	20/p	32/p	30-45 sqm/person
Living area/person	3.3/p	3.1/p	2.4/p	2.4/p	3.5/p	3.9/p	3.5 sqm/person
Screening area	50	200	100	100	100	200	20 sqm
Recreational area	0.67/c	0.83/c	no info	-	-	2.89/c	1.5 sqm/child
Common eating area	0.45/p	-	0.70/p	0.29/p	0.30/p	0.96/p	1.5 sqm/person
N° of tanks	1/37p	1/54	1/48	1/57	1/95p	1/89p	1 tank/40-100 people
N° of toilets	1/40p 1F:1.8M	1/63pa 1F:1M	1/28a 1F/1M	1/11pa 1F:1.7M	1/28p,a 1F:5M	1/10p,a 1F:1M	1/20 peoplea 3 female:1 male
N° of functional toilets	1/89p 1F:4M	1/69p 1.2F:1M	1/28 1F/1M	1/12p 1F:1.8M	1/39p, 1F:16M	1/30p, 1F:2.5M
N° of showers	1/44p	1/63p	1/28	1/26p	1/21p	1/16p	1/20 people
N° of functional showers	1/44p	1/251p	1/28	1/29p	1/28p	1/18p
Distance between SF and accommodations	< 70m	< 80m	< 65m	< 75m	< 120m	< 114m	< 50 m
Fire safety	> 2.5m	> 1.0m	> 1.0m	> 2.5m	> 2.5m	> 2.5m	> 2m between shelters
Terrain slope	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	1 to 5%

Source: authors, based on REACH and UNHCR ( 2018 ), Secretaria de Estado da Defesa Civil do Rio de Janeiro ( 2006 ), Sphere Association ( 2018 ), UNHCR ( 2015 ), Médecins Sans Frontière ( 2009 ), International Organization for Migration, Norwegian Refugee Council and UNHCR ( 2015 ).

From the data in Table 3 , it is possible to verify that, except for settlement 6, all the other settlements have a surface area per person lower than indicated by literature. This may be related to the installation of these places in an urban area, where the availability of large plots of land is lower, associated with the great demand for shelter in the city. Another factor is the overcrowding of all settlements in August 2018 ( Table 2 ), which also led to a reduction in the living space area per person, due to limited space for the addition of several accommodations on sites. Due to overcrowding, many tents were installed on an impromptu basis, interfering negatively with the layout and overloading the facilities and infrastructure, especially the health ones. This highlights the importance of foreseeing an area for settlement expansion during layout planning, considering the need to expand the site infrastructure according to the increase in the number of residents.

Another relevant aspect is the large number of non-functional and deactivated toilets and showers due to misuse and lack of maintenance, mainly in the female ones. In addition to this, the proportion of toilets indicated by the literature, of three females to one male, is not followed. Interviewee P7 noted that, due to these factors, many women and children use male facilities. This can lead to problems related to privacy and safety (Care International, 2016 ; Sphere Association, 2018 ). To minimize it, it is necessary to promote awareness actions with residents and the organization of cleaning and maintenance groups.

Recreational and common eating areas are below the minimum reference values in almost all settlements and, in some cases, there was no area for recreational use. Both are very important places in temporary settlements because they promote leisure and socialization and can reduce psychosocial problems, so they must be properly sized.

It was observed that some distances between accommodation and health facilities are larger than fifty meters. This minimum value was established to avoid long routes to these facilities, which can be dangerous, especially at night. Although this factor was not identified as a problem during the interviews, it is recommended to assess this aspect in layout planning to facilitate access to these facilities and minimize safety-related problems.

Except for the tents located inside gymnasiums, there is a concern about spacing, in accordance with the minimum distance indicated by the literature to promote fire safety. However, other precautions should be taken, especially regarding the protection of electrical installations, which are often used irregularly, especially in accommodation areas.