Sudden population influxes into cities—such as those seen during post-disaster migration—place unexpected demands on the urban housing system. Decisions made during these influxes are often controversial, potentially hindering the ability of the organizations involved to respond. This study’s objective was to explore strategies (e.g., types of information shared and types of accommodation chosen) that can be used during decision-making processes when providing emergency accommodations to increase stakeholder acceptance, and thus lead to sustainable institutional responses. This study specifically sought to shed light on how, during the Refugee Crisis in Germany of 2015 and 2016, stakeholders legitimized decisions made to provide centralized emergency accommodations to displaced persons. Making this study possible were 25 semi-structured interviews with utility, government, nonprofit, and company employees involved in the provision of centralized accommodations for displaced persons. Interviews were conducted in 2016 and underwent a qualitative analysis. Results indicate that stakeholders primarily legitimized the provision of centralized accommodations based on convictions of right and wrong (moral legitimacy), while they legitimized decisions to not provide such accommodations based on their understanding and experience of practical barriers (cultural-cognitive legitimacy). Recommendations arising from this study include the following: provide information to stakeholders about accommodations’ livability (to gain consequential legitimacy) and past successes (to gain comprehensibility legitimacy), adapt regulations to help stakeholders use procedural legitimacy, and prefer fully renovated buildings or modular housing to buildings with no major renovations or container housing (to gain consequential rather than procedural legitimacy).
The applicability of geometrical games in designing modular housing solutions
