毕业设计开题报告：“天朝”主题宾馆空间设计 大学生毕业论文开题报告范文

　 

　 毕业设计开题报告 艺术类

　题

　 目:

　 “天朝”主题宾馆空间设计

　 学

　 院：

　 艺术学院

　 专业班级：

　 环境艺术设计122班

　学生姓名：

　 ***

　 学

　号：

　 2012123243

　指导教师：

　***（讲师）

　年

　月

　日 淮海工学院毕业设计开题报告 1.课题研究的意义，国内外研究现状、水平和发展趋势 1、 课题研究的意义：

　 近年来国民经济持续快速增长，市场经济的日益完善、居民可支配收入明显提高、生活方式和消费观念发生了深刻的变化，我国国内旅游的客源主体已经由少数富裕人口向普通大众转变，城镇居民和农村居民出游人数和出游率都有明显提高，并且出现了众多的细分市场，如自驾车、背包游等自助旅游者。这些变化给饭店业带来了广阔的发展空间。而且，市场经济的发展极大地促进了旅游产业的发展，主题饭店在满足人们多样化和个性化需求等方面具有重要的作用，此外，我国多样的自然资源和深厚的历史文化底蕴也为主题饭店的发展提供了必要条件，主题饭店的发展是其必然的趋势。主题酒店是围绕某种主题进行建设、装饰的一种住宿形式．旨在为人住的个人和家庭带来乐趣和高水准的娱乐体验。与一般意义上的酒店相比较。它的最大特点是赋予酒店某种主题．并围绕这种主题建设具有全方位差异性的酒店经营体系和氛围．从而营造出独特的魅力和性格特征．实现提升酒店产品质量和品位的目的。使顾客获得满意的服务和快乐的体验。在享受酒店营造的文化氛围当中达到精神上的升华。提高自己的意境。

　2、 国外的研究现状、水平、发展趋势： 主题饭店是住宿产业中的一种新兴业态。实际上，即便是现代饭店发源地的西方发达国家，这种业态的规模和数量也不大，因而所占市场份额很小。所以，走遍欧美各国，所见的饭店依然是我们所熟悉的标准间唱主角。如美国拉斯维加斯极富个性色彩的金银岛饭店、威尼斯饭店、金字塔饭店等主题饭店仍属凤毛麟角。之所以如此，主题饭店的理论建设相对匾乏应是其原因之一。因为即使在主题饭店己有半个世纪历史的那些发达国家，主题饭店总体上也是有形态无组织，有经验少理论。对主题饭店的研究也远不如整个住宿业的理论那样成熟和丰厚。主题酒店的推出在国外已有近50年的历史。1958年，美国加利福尼亚的MadonnaInn率先推出12间主题房间，后来发展到109间，成为美国最早、最具有代表性的主题酒店。玛利亚旅馆由Madonna夫妇于1958年创建，共有109间房套房，每个房间都有不同的主题。其中最著名的就是山顶洞人套房，这间套房完全利用天然的岩石做成地板、墙壁和天花板，房间内还挂有瀑布，连浴缸、淋浴喷洒也由岩石制成，床单和其他摆设运用了美洲豹皮的图案，更彰显了原始的气息。国外有些主题酒店体积庞大，客房数量巨多，可达千间以上，其中米高梅酒店有5005个客房，威尼斯酒店更是达到了6000间客房。拉斯维加斯的贝拉吉欧酒店、梦幻酒店和金银岛酒店、韦恩拉斯维加斯酒店等都是由韦恩一人投资的。另外，马戏酒店、石中剑酒店、金字塔酒店、曼达利海湾酒店等都是由马戏集团投资建造的。国外主题酒店都将酒店周边环境加以建设改造，使之与酒店的主题相呼应。这样可以为顾客创造良好的主题体验环境，使顾客在其中尽情感受主题文化的独特魅力。在塑造体验环境过程中，酒店对水元素情有独钟，或者在酒店周边设置水面，或者在酒店内部突出水的存在。一方面，这与拉斯维加斯沙漠绿洲的形像相一致;另一方面，也与中国“遇水则止”的风水理念相契合。

　3、 国内的研究现状、水平、发展趋势

　主题酒店在我国还刚刚起步，相应的理论研究必较少，尚未形成完整的理论体系。我国主题饭店一方面由于缺乏理论指导，从建设到运营的各个领域都处于探索阶段，存在许多问题;另一方面，主题饭店在实践中展示了蓬勃的生命力，还需加以归纳和总结。为此，需要以多学科、多层次、多角度地以概括、总结、提炼等方法，对这种新兴业态进行全方位的研究。虽然主题型酒店在国内起步较晚，但是作为未来酒店业发展的一个新趋势，也是国内酒店应对国际酒店集团抢滩国内市场的一种新思路，我们应该积极探索主题酒店的发展历史，为以后的长远发展打下坚实的基础。随着我国市场经济的日益完善，体验经济的到来，世界文化经济浪潮的风起云涌，主题酒店必将成为国际酒店业发展的一大趋势。主题酒店在我国的出现还是新生事物,主题酒店作为一种正在兴起的酒店发展新形态，在我国的发展历史不长，但发展迅速。虽然主题型酒店在我国发展迅速，但中国酒店业面对竞争形势越来越严峻，主题酒店暴露出越来越多的问题。这就需要对我国主题酒店的未来发展作出一个有效的规划，为我国主题酒店可持续发展奠定良好的基础，使其健康有序地发展下去。随着我国经济的快速发展和人们生活水平的日益提高，人们的消费能力和消费水平有了极大的提升，商务、度假、旅游等活动使我国城市酒店业得到了快速的发展。主题酒店作为一个城市的名片和对外窗口，其酒店形象和服务水平都从侧面反映出这个城市的整体形象和文化特质。随着经济的发展,国内酒店业的竞争也愈来愈激烈.主题酒店作为一 种酒店行业全新的发展状态,给人们带来独特的体验和感受.在主题酒店的发展中,主要是要强化主题定位的准确性,营造和谐的主题环境氛围,始终坚持主题酒店 产品的主题化,重视文化管理,以主题文化提升酒店的竞争力,体现文化的深度开发,强调室内环境的整体特色化和鲜明化。 淮海工学院毕业设计开题报告 2.课题的基本内容，可能遇到的困难，提出解决问题的方法和措施 1、 课题的基本内容：

　 在确定主题酒店的主题的时候．要充分考虑到酒店所在地的经济发展水平。设计的主题应与当地经济发展水平相适应。随着城市建设的速度的加快。现阶段，以过度奢华为主题的酒店面临着客源越来越少的困境:贴近自然、贴近原生态的主题酒店成为市场的热点主题。独特性要与众不同，是主题宾馆的战略出发点，最终要成为宾馆的核心竞争力；文化性体现了宾馆对内涵的追求，文化是主题，是宾馆执行的具体战术和手段，宾馆要通过文化来获得竞争优势；体验性是宾馆所追求的本质，宾馆最后要实现给顾客独特的体验来获得的高回报的利润，这是宾馆的最终目标。通过对房间充满特色的设计，使入住者拥有视觉上的享受。房间风格拥有多种，是入住者达到不用出国门即可体验不同风情的房间。

　2、可能遇到的问题：

　 (1)、有的投资人没有认真好做总体设计的前期工作，就直接开始了酒店设计工作。有的投资人仅凭参观了几家酒店的感性认识，就拍板投资建新酒店，设计单位没有介入到酒店筹建的初期阶段。

　 (2)、主题酒店设计中的通道布局，服务通道与客人通道的分开十分重要，特别是包间区域。过多的交叉不仅会降低服务的品质，而且还会给清洁与卫生带来很大的不便，不利于如地毯等硬件设施的保养，高水平的设计会将两通道明显的分开。

　 (3)、空有其外表的酒店外观很漂亮，但内部功能规划、装修与装饰设计等一塌糊涂，设计很不专业，实用性很差，更缺少艺术性。酒店开始运转后就要开始敲敲打打，不断地形成不该花费的改造成本或“二次投入”。有的酒店甚至连弥补原设计缺陷（如配比失调）的机会都没有，终身遗憾。 3、提出解决问题的方法和措施 (1). 酒店设计前，必须先完成市场调研、酒店选址、酒店定位、酒店规模档次确定、项目可行性分析等工作。 (2). 通道的设计，应满足顺畅、安全、便利的需要，不应过分追求餐座数量的最大化。具体来说，要考虑到员工操作的便利性和安全性以及客人活动空间的舒适性和伸展性。 (3). 主题酒店装修设计餐厅的装修应围绕经营而进行，以顾客为中心，因此，需首先对目标市场的容量及餐饮需求的趋势进行分析;同时，还需考虑酒店的整体风格、餐饮的整体规划、星评标准的要求，以及装修的投入和产出等相关问题。 淮海工学院毕业设计开题报告 3.课题拟采用的研究手段（途径）和可行性分析 1、 课题研究手段： （1）文献调查：通过在网上一些网站查找相关资料和到学校图书馆查找关于主题宾馆的图书进行了解参考。 （2）实地考察：去选址的周边进行实地考察，收集周边的情况：交通，地理位置，商业中心。 （3）参考前辈的作品：分析知名设计师的案例，感同身受，体验设计者的思路。 （4）案例分析：南粤设计的近期设计案例呼伦贝尔东方国际大酒店正是运用了草原文化作为整体设计元素，提出了草原酒店设计几大设计理念，探讨了草原文化酒店的设计内容和程序，主要包括草原文化主题的筛选和草原文化酒店设计的具体事项。草原文化主题酒店的设计要求设计者以草原文化为酒店设计的灵魂和核心，通过有形和无形的方式把草原文化渗透到酒店所关联的各个方面，我们可以从以下几个方面进行设计： A.酒店的整体风格和氛围要体现草原文化主题酒店的整体风格和氛围是顾客对酒店的总体印象和评价，是顾客入住酒店后的第一感受，就像一个人的第一印象，非常重要。因此，酒店的整体风格和氛围一定要体现草原文化主题，让顾客一入住酒店，就强烈地感受到草原文化的冲击。 B.以独特的建筑外观体现草原文化主题 建筑师表现地域文化的最好载体之一。一般每个地域都会有体现其地域文化的独特建筑形式。草原文化主题酒店在这方面有着得天独厚的条件因素，蒙古包这一最具有草原民族特色的建筑形式用来突出草原文化这一主题，是再恰当不过了。

　C.以非物质文化强化草原文化主题非物质文化，如酒店的背景音乐，采用蒙古民族歌曲，蒙古民歌的宛转悠扬，浑厚大气用来做酒店的背景音乐不仅十分合适，也通过用听觉刺激的方式让顾客更深刻地体验到酒店的裁员文化主题。 D.酒店装饰物或景观能有效地展示草原文化主题 （5）请教指导老师：如遇到不懂或没有什么想法的时候，请教指导老师，通过老师的指导拓展了自己的思维和见解，也沿着正确的方向去研究设计。 2、课题可行性分析：

　 “酒店主题文化表现和艺术营造，不是在表面的一画一文，而是与整体营造的有机构成。”主题酒店的主题凸显和主题价值的实现，是要通过酒店的全部服务展示的，而并非建筑设计、装饰设计的外在的、表面的观感。毕竟酒店的本质在于服务，而其特定的主题也只有通过酒店的各项服务，才能展示给广大消费者，从而使顾客体验到这种特殊主题的美好享受。

　淮海工学院毕业设计开题报告 指导教师意见（对课题的深度、广度及工作量的意见和对设计结果的预测）

　指导教师（签名）

　 年

　月

　日 系审查意见：

　 系主任(签名)：

　 年

　月

　日 毕业设计外文资料翻译

　学

　 院：

　艺术学院

　 专业班级：

　环境艺术设计122班

　 学生姓名：

　 **

　 学

　号：

　 2012123290

　指导教师：

　 **(讲师)

　 外文出处： Educational Adaptation of Cargo Container Design Features 附

　 件：

　1.外文资料翻译译文；

　2.外文原文

　指导教师评语：

　签名：

　年

　月

　日

　货物集装箱设计特点的教育适应 摘要: 在过去的30年里，货物集装箱的房子变得越来越流行了。因为货物集装箱是模块化的设计，他们可以用来创建出高效，价低的家。利用货物集装箱来做家庭住房是由于对可持续建设的实践，而绝大多数的结构材料来自回收材料。许多货物的设计参数，集装箱房屋的标准房屋从建设方法（冷成型钢框架/轻型木结构）和结构角度看，货物集装箱是一种有效的建筑材料。本文旨在探讨货物集装箱的设计参数概念的建构与教育应用。基于问题的学习（PBL）方法被应用，以创建一个讨论组。建筑类型被分发，根据定义的设计，按比例模型和海报演示文稿参数。对教育活动进行评估调查和使关键点提高明确性. 关键词: 货物的集装箱，以问题为基础的学习，建筑工程，重用结构材料。 简介： 集装箱化的概念发展从过去300年前到现代货物集装箱发展。货物集装箱是由一个名叫麦克林本的美国人发明的专利。他拥有第五个最大的成功项目是在美国，汽车运输公司，（麦克莱恩运输公司）被他分出了海上运输。1955采购泛大西洋轮船公司后，他开始运用不同的装运方式进行试验。这是他作为公司的所有者的时候的想法，为现代货物集装箱的存在奠定了基础。虽然不一定是新的理念，一个集装箱多式联运可以加载和卸载的概念随着轻松变得非常有吸引力的美国军队。他们影响帮助了货物集装箱被公认为世界各地的航运标准。货物集装箱在1958的一项专利中，为一个“运费的设备。”货物集装箱以许多名字而闻名。用于装运时，主要是指作为一个“集装箱”也可以称为一个“ISO集装箱，“Conex盒”或“货物容器。”当作为一种建筑材料，然而，它被称为联运钢结构单元（该）。货物集装箱由耐候钢构造。风化钢包括影响材料腐蚀过程的合金元素。耐候钢 形成一种非晶态的内层，保护钢的完整性。 此外，耐候钢是一种理想的材料，由于其暴露于货物集装箱自然元素。货物集装箱在户外的大部分货物在货物运输，火车和卡车的保护，从水分。货物集装箱是一个有吸引力的建筑材料的各种原因。首先，它们的强度和耐久性都提供了结构支持和寿命长。他们的耐候钢结构不仅提供腐蚀保护，也是实力。此外，向可持续的建设实践的运动，建筑材料未使用的货物集装箱的回收利用。此外，货物集装箱模块化结构，简化了设计过程。很像砖头或CMU，集装箱设计的具体标准。 货物集装箱是一个有高利用率的建筑，由于其高可用性。航运成本空货物的集装箱回到他们的起始位置是高于购买一个新的成本货物集装箱，所以许多集装箱都是空的，在世界各地的港口。在2012，据德鲁里海事研究中心，全球集装箱船队共有3290万TEU（二十英尺当量单位）4。这一数字将估计3290万标准20英尺集装箱，这意味着在市场上没有任何短缺的货物集装箱今天。总体而言，货物集装箱应被视为有价值的建筑材料。 1、设计准则 货物集装箱的房子需要一个基础系统，正如其他的任何住宅。虽然航运集装箱住宅的设计参数是不断发展的相对年轻的技术，似乎有2个主要的方法，在问候地基系统。大多数货物集装箱房屋使用一个板级基础或一个混凝土桩基础。地下室与这2种类型的地基是可能的，但由于货物的集装箱多式联运集装箱（从而可以轻松移动）一个地下室不实用。移动的容器将留下一个巨大的空白，将浪费。虽然地下室是可能的，本文的范围将覆盖基础系统没有地下室的货物集装箱。适用于货物集装箱建设，一个家庭利用一个板级基础系统打下基础，把货物集装箱放在基础上。这个基系统是一种非常简单的方法，用于货物集装箱的家庭。模块单元被放置在楼板，用螺栓或固定装置固定在混凝土板本身。级板地基系统提供了一个坚实的平台，将很容易地支持货物集装箱回家。一个在板级基础上的选择是一个深基础系统。常见的类型深基础是一桩系统和钻孔墩系统。两者的区别系统在他们的建设中是显而易见的。一般是一个典型的预制混凝土缸，是当一个码头被扔在一个钻孔的井里。由于有更少的死负载与商业大厦相比，一个低层住宅单元，例如，购物中心，中或高的酒店/办公楼等，预制桩有一个更好的解决方案，在钻码头对货物集装箱的考虑。这个基础系统也被称为是一种提高。 货物集装箱的钢结构提供了一个堆栈的力量，向上的7高。这种力量，然而，是依赖于整个钢框架/支撑墙的完整。许多货物集装箱的家居设计要求容器的整个侧壁的去除，对集装箱的强度和安全性有明显的影响。giriunas，Sezen和dupaix进行容器模型分析使用SolidWorks，HyperMesh和ABAQUS / CAE收集资料，从货物集装箱中取出钢型材的影响。他们的计算机分析比较了5种不同的负载情况下，不变和改变容器。他们的研究结果证实了这要求，在容器内的墙壁拆除了国际标准中规定的规定能力。此外，他们决定，屋顶的小结构的意义，和端壁是最强的负载电阻元件时承受竖向荷载。他们的研究将有希望导致标准和规格集装箱货物用于非标准应用程序的使用。 虽然目前很少有文献讨论的统计数据和用于住宅用途的货物集装箱的要求，有许多共同的方法用于加固和安全的货物集装箱的安全和有效的方式。关于加强，一个问题是，拆除的主要墙壁会导致凹陷。图4所示的两个潜在的变形所涉及的墙，和一个问题的潜在解决方案。钢护栏可焊接的结构内部为容器提供额外的支持和稳定性。所需的加固量取决于已删除的材料的数量，如先前所述，目前还没有设置关于这个问题的指南或建筑规范。随着结构加固，模块化单元的连接是一个值得关注的问题。垂直连接相对简单，由于容器的性质。每一个容器的设计，在每个角落，原来打算在装运期内将有组织的货物中的容器固定起来。那些相同的角落连接证明是必不可少的多层货物集装箱的家，可以用来保护模块单元在一起。这种方法是适用的，当容器是面向类似的方向，如图5。因为货物集装箱是由钢结构建造的，焊接也可以用在一个固定的容器中，在一个永久的方式。保护容器的基础往往是成功地通过焊接容器，钢支架在地基上投下坚实的基础。

　 一个集装箱的家的加密系统是最实用又美观建筑系统。加密系统由MEP系统（机械，电气，管道），以及美学成分。家中的绝缘也包括在填充系统。在许多方面，一个集装箱的货物回家的加密系统是类似于一个家庭建立从传统的钢或木结构体系。然而，货物集装箱的家园，有许多更多的空间限制，相比于一个正常的家庭或建筑。设计挑战是在这部分的设计过程中最常见的，因为在同一个家庭组件是必要的，在一个货物集装箱的家里，有很多空间去放置它们。它已成为一个非常普遍的做法，先构造一个非承重框架围绕货物集装箱内。冷弯薄壁型钢和木材都可以使用，而框架系统的相似之处，一个标准的家。这内部框架提供了一个手段挂墙板或石膏板以及一腔定位的绝缘部件MEP系统。图6a描绘的是一个内部的钢框架体系的构建分离货物集装箱的房间。此外，空隙可以被切割成容器和框架中的允许标准的窗户和门。在框架完成后，电气和可以安装管道系统。再次，管道的布线和布线非常相似一个标准的家庭，与空间要求的例外。通风/集中供热和冷却是一个重大的挑战，由于高度限制的容器。标准然而，通风系统是可能的，与浅层管道隐藏在一个使用稍微吊顶。此外，辐射加热和冷却系统需要更少的空间，因为用软管代替金属通风管。绝缘的方法是再次，类似于一个标准的方法构建的家。绝缘泡沫和吹的绝缘是可能的绝缘方法，由于内部框架，空间是可用作任一方法。许多货物集装箱的家庭已经成为非常成功的创造一个现代的，有吸引力的室内设计。图6b特征的货物集装箱内家。石膏板，实木地板的应用，标准的电器和家具，和照明创造了一个非常相似的家庭使用一个标准的现代家庭方法（即不使用货物集装箱）。

　2.教育适应

　 “材料和方法建设”建筑工程项目涵盖了多种教育方法如传统的讲座，分配的补充阅读，纪录片，示范（材料试验，现场参观，砖砌体墙模拟装配），讨论小组和动手学习经验。在这些方法中，讨论/工作组是由三个或四个学生一起工作完成的任务。这个讨论/实验部分分为四个模块。这些模块之一将重点放在作为办公空间设计的结构单元的货物容器的实施。这项研究的持续时间是三个星期，十一个队。货物集装箱是特别感兴趣的设计平台，因为他们的出现风行全球。它们的耐久性和相对低廉的成本是非常灵活的，从而使一个有趣的主题，展示了模块化设计的可能性。基于问题的学习（PBL）的方法应用在这部分货物集装箱实施和在后一模块，重点是住宅建筑利用具有可变底板布局的常规结构系统。引入“PBL之前“块”，一系列的“预备学习块”。这让学生们变得更加熟悉这个主题。筹备区块应为学生提供知识可以应用于PBL的块，块和PBL教学法激发学生探索进一步深入study11。“讨论组”的研究也分为二个模块课程也可分为预科学习块。在介绍这个主题学生，简短的介绍，给出了这一设计概念的概述以及详细说明货物集装箱的设计规范。得到一点特别，这简短的介绍包括关于建筑材料的信息，标准尺寸，承载能力，局限性，建筑行业使用的原因，最后组合样品。这个问题被引入到课堂上，制定和解决建筑工程实践中的实际问题。其中一个挑战赋值是确定工作的边界或范围。这项研究，这是相当开放的结束了，让学生能够更进一步地用自己的研究或想象来进一步探索这个想法。

　 由于三周时间的限制，典型的建筑布局是向学生们发放的开始。因此，这不是一个设计工作室的活动，而是一个活动，每个小组讨论主题，使在专栏提到的需求评估。活动结果提交作业。从模型的构建中，小组学习了设计货物集装箱的特点、要点、施工方法及建筑围护结构。

　 每个小组提交的讨论结果；20×30的泡沫板为“海报演示文稿”。（70%分级）按比例模型与纸板（1 / 50的规模）（30%）（分级）。从讨论小组的期望和海报介绍的内容被提及量规。在未来，集团可以将他们的工作作为一个权威的主题的货物容器设计，这将有助于鼓励小组合作，并进一步讨论。缩放模型进行了评估，因为足够或不足。成功的最低要求完成货物集装箱的设计是一个完整的考虑所有的设计在他们的海报提出的挑战。海报被评为每把量规。这些将要解决的项目，如该组是实施一个特定的解决方案，这为解决问题，完成危旧房和市场办公室的挑战空间。

　 该组的成绩是由2个不同的任务，海报的成功完成反映其中有详细的解决方案的成功设计完成和规模化的模型从规定的材料，在这种情况下，建筑/网站是泡沫板和波纹纸。样品的海报介绍和缩放模型在1 / 50。这些模型进行分级的精度，工艺和设计构想，是一个伟大的了解各建筑布局的三维空间的方法。 多个教育方法的结果进行了评估，通过调查在学期。这项调查是由学生完成了2倍，作为前和之后的期限项目。但是，两者都是在货物集装箱设计活动，因此，平均的两个这一调查正在调查中反映。有36名参加调查的第一名参与者和25名参与者第二次调查。73参与者的学术地位是大二和54参与者的百分比没有建设经验。这一比率的意义讨论组作为货物集装箱的设计活动是6.12，10，这个速度是其他类似活动的最低利率。这些活动是比较找出关键点和提高货物集装箱设计活动的教育价值。部分砌体在一二周的研究中，每个团队都聚集了一个墙上的模拟模型。演示图墙和装配指令被分发给学生之前的活动。这是一个任务最初的每个步骤都被清晰地定义。因此，学生的反馈是相当积极的8.27出10。类似规模的模型组件作为长期项目是一个任务项目有清楚定义的手奏（设计指南）之前的活动。然而，学生必须在外面思考集装箱设计活动箱。在表1中，2和3的活动可以被命名为任务项目，但数量2 -货物集装箱设计活动-是一个学科项目。这可以成为教育意义最低的可能原因。用类推的方法足球比赛，这意味着比赛场地被指定，一些最重要的指导方针游戏，但球没有被踢过，因此该组必须进入该领域，并设置玩游戏。增加设计或研究主体的自由和限制对PBL减少纪律项目比任务项目12。

　 为了提高这一教育活动的意义，关键点是确定并提出一些改进建议。海报介绍和缩放模型之间的联系；分离研究是在运行的双方的任务都由两个小组进行，但更强大的连接必须保持两者之间的关系作业。建筑类型设计的灵活性；设计的灵活性可以导致更多的处理对学生的责任感和归属感，而不是把预先定义的建筑类型。活动的持续时间；活动持续3周作为实验室的一部分，这不是一个 长期项目。建议在较长的时间和/或作为一个长期项目中进行这项活动。 3、结论

　 货物集装箱是设计一个有价值的模块化建筑材料的家。他们有结构能力和设计参数，以产生一个标准，生活家里有各种各样的方式。货物集装箱住宅是可持续的和成本效益的这种容器本身。容器的家可以设计得很相似标准的家，并应在今天的市场中被大量考虑。设计标准像本文应该标准化创建一个效的设计流程生产集装箱房屋的规模较大。为了提高这一可重用的模块化施工单位，未来的建筑工程师，他们将被推广必须胜任基本的设计特点。通过使用现有的设计参数的货物容器，一个讨论组项目已经被创建为一个真实的生活问题。纪律项目以问题为基础的学习部分，引导学生在进行思维这一教育适应的主要目标。学生调查显示，正反馈收到来自学生，但改善是必要的，以提高效率活动。集装箱原本只是简单的运输工具，但人们发现它还适合人居，集装箱房屋这种居住方式似乎同时兼具全球性和地方性、临时性和永久性、有限和无限的品质。废旧二手集装箱的循环再利用使原来的高碳钢板材料得以充分使用，减少大量因回炉炼钢而发生的重复污染，降低二氧化碳排放。在成本上，即使与活动板房相比，集装箱房屋也依然有自己的优势。建筑中的百变皇后.集装箱又称货柜，伴随世界经济一体化的迅速发展，它作为现代化的物流载体在全球海上、陆路和航空运输中得到广泛运用。国际航运业每年全球集装箱吞吐总量的数字是天文的，因此TEU是它的国际计量单位，而不是常用的计量单位“吨”。TEU是英文 Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit的缩写，是以长度为20英尺的集装箱为国际计量单位，也称国际标准箱单位。通常用来表示船舶装载集装箱的能力，也是集装箱和港口吞吐量的重要统计、换算单位。

　 集装箱原本只是简单的运输工具，但是人们发现它还可以用来居住，集装箱房屋这种居住方式似乎同时兼具全球性和地方性、临时性和永久性、有限和无限这些品质，集装箱拥有的张力让它成为建筑中的百变皇后。第一个住在集装箱里的人已不可考，但提到集装箱房屋，恐怕很多人会很自然地联想到美国上个世纪60年代的嬉皮士，嬉皮士运动和垮掉的一代的经典作品《在路上》里始终有“箱式拖车”的影子。嬉皮士们用公社式的流浪生活方式来表达他们对民族主义和越南战争的反对，提倡非传统的宗教文化，来批评西方中产阶级的价值观。而箱式拖车正是这种生活方式的最好载体。

　 集装箱房屋与活动拖车屋是如此的相似，两者作为建筑用途的种种方法之比较可以作为一个专门的课题来研究。比如说，除了把活动拖车屋装扮成居所模样这类缺乏想象力的企图之外，活动拖车屋实在是没有提供多少创作的空间。而集装箱则完全不同，在将它们作为建筑用途时其模块化本质提供了极其自由和充满创意的想象余地。集装箱介于产品设计、建筑设计和艺术创作之间，从这个意义上来说，它们标志着一个领域的最高成就，同时又是另一个领域的最基本元素。就产品设计而言，它们对货运业以及一切与运输技术相关方面的发展具有关键性的影响。就建筑设计而言，集装箱的神奇魅力体现在许多方面，尤其是作为基本组件的独立完整特性。它们既是高度精确和复杂协调技术的产物，又是彻底灵活和自由想象的源泉。

　 2001年，“集装箱城”的开发者 Urban Space Management 公司被委任给正在扩建的伦敦 Tower Hamlets 学院提供一座集装箱附属教字楼。 一般来讲，集装箱建筑会集中出现在海岸港口城市，并与集装箱码头和城市景观形成一种互动关系，这种情况下集装箱多用于与集装箱运输业相关的配套作业需要的建筑用途。而在更大的范围内，集装箱被用于与工程建设有关的各种建设用途以及紧急医疗救助站的建设中，究其原因，主要是集装箱房屋提供了解决临时建筑问题的最便捷手段，不但建造简单，而且造价便宜，可建在各种条件的地基上。此外，集装箱房屋还广泛地被用于一些其他地点和用途，如临时性居所、临时餐馆、街边店铺等等，大多属于偶发性的建筑行为并散布在城市的任何角落，这类集装箱建筑虽缺乏规模和气势，但是场地和功能类型的变数很大，往往产生各具匠心的建筑空间和形式。本质上讲，时髦与环保存在一定的悖论，很难说那些排着长队购买价格上千的环保袋的人是环保的。大多时候，所谓的绿色设计仅仅意味着最新的科技和大把的金钱。

　 之所以说集装箱建筑是环保与时髦的结合，是因为首先，对集装箱建筑用途可能性的探索是令人兴奋的，从救灾庇护所、急救所到奢侈的公寓、度假别墅、路边商店、探险宿营地，集装箱几乎可以被改造成任何用途的房屋。它就像一个预制好的空间，根据用途而采取不同的改造办法，并且一系列生活设施可以轻易地改造完成。这种采用预制件的建筑方法，可大大节省施工工期，节省人力，降低生产成本，从而获得一个只需要花很少的成本和劳动力、并且更多地使用常规材料的高效空间。即使是与活动房屋市场的板房相比，用旧二手集装箱改造成的集装箱房屋依然有自己的成本优势。表面上看，板房300-500元／平方米，装修后的集装箱房屋却卖到1000元／平方米，但板房与集装箱房屋的舒适度是有巨大差别的。而且板房拆卸过两次之后，基本上就没法用了，集装箱房屋则可以多次搬迁，使用寿命达10年以上。把成本分摊到8-10年上，此后钢铁还能以废铁形式卖掉。其次，使用10年以上的集装箱，因油漆脱落、箱体变形等维修成本较高，逐渐退出物流领域，而这些废旧二手集装箱由于在废弃后仍具有原生的完整形象，经过简单的切割、组合后，仍具有再生价值，集装箱房屋将使集装箱使用年限延长10年以上。这种废旧二手集装箱的循环再利用，使原来高碳钢板材料得以充分使用，减少大量因回炉炼钢而发生的重复污染，降低二氧化碳排放量，从而减缓对资源的消耗和对环境的不利影响。循环利用一个废旧二手集装箱，可节约1.7吨钢材和0.4立方米木材，减少二氧化碳3.49吨。假若一年利用10万个废旧二手集装箱，就可减排34.9万吨二氧化碳，节约3.4亿度电。基于以上两点，集装箱住宅的环保和低碳毋庸置疑。如果说还有什么使集装箱住宅显得环保，那无疑就是它的机动性，当你想要换个城市居住，那么你可以用吊车加卡车把房子整体搬迁，如果你像《飞屋环游记》中的主人公一样具有想象力，完全可以用热气球把你的家安在空中！ 4、技术要求——节能环保

　 外墙节能技术：墙体的复合技术有内附保温层、外附保温层和夹心保温层三种。采用夹心保温作法的较多；在欧洲各国，大多采用外附发泡聚苯板的作法，在德国，外保温建筑占建筑总量的80%，而其中70%均采用泡沫聚苯板。

　 门窗节能技术：中空玻璃，镀膜玻璃(包括反射玻璃、吸热玻璃)高强度LOW2E防火玻璃(高强度低辐射镀膜防火玻璃)、采用磁控真空溅射方法镀制含金属银层的玻璃以及最特别的智能玻璃。

　 屋顶节能技术：利用智能技术、生态技术来实现建筑节能的愿望，如太阳能集热屋顶和可控制的通风屋顶等。采暖、制冷和照明是建筑能耗的主要部分，如使用地（水）源热泵系统、置换式新风系统、地面辐射采暖。

　 隔热节能技术：进入夏季，集装箱空间封闭，金属外壳受阳光直接照射产生室内高温，需在集装箱顶层增设一个空气隔热间层。利用加建石棉瓦屋顶、使用遮阳布整体覆盖或加建屋顶蓄水池（也可作清洗集装箱所用）。

　 新能源的开发利用：太阳能热水器、光电屋面板、光电外墙板、光电遮阳板、光电窗间墙、光电天窗以及光电玻璃幕墙等。 5、建筑外观设计——新颖独特

　 外观采用鲜艳的红色，强调保持原材料本色，给整个设计带来了一种自然美。色彩搭配奔放大气，既能与周围的环境相呼应，又可以作为一道亮丽的风景，别具一格。

　 采用抬高与下沉的方式来增加空间层次变化，流线处理活泼多变又不失沉稳，材料多为实木与板材的结合，环保自然，摒弃了传统设计的豪华奢靡，丰富的体现了现代简约的设计理念。

　 一层除了用柱子提高集装箱离地面的高度，还采用了混凝土筑台来提高。其目的是远离地面的潮气，又能提高人们看外景的视线。

　 由于整个建筑所处的环境四周依山环海，所以采用了连续的玻璃门窗来增加视觉上的延伸，使空间更为通透。开阔的视野扩大了人们感知的空间范围，内外浑然一体，使整个建筑处在自然的怀抱中。 6、建筑内环境设计——简约自然

　 室内功能布置合理，家具简洁实用。强调自然材质肌理的应用， 多采用天然木质材料来塑造整个空间，用植物花卉等自然元素进行装饰，使生活在城市中的人们回归自然的情绪得到补偿。营造一种朴实无华、清新自然、实用舒适的环境氛围。

　 室内墙多采用竖向木材，一是能起到隔热保温的效果，二是使整个空间在视觉上延伸了高度，使空间显得不那么拥堵。

　 房间内三面通透，阳光充足，采用光影变化来增强整个空间的气氛，用意境和情趣来满足人的审美要求。

　 二层阳台采用了屋顶花园的设计手法，来增加一些细节，也为整个建筑增加了气色。使室内外通透一体化，创造出开敞的流动空间。在暖暖的午后，品着一杯浓茶，跳向远处的大海，是多么的诗情画意。 我们的生活是现代的、轻松的、环保的。对于生活空间的感悟，我们不断滋生着一份年轻的渴望。它可能只是一个小小的空间，却是最舒展最自由的天堂；它一定亲近自然，随时感受着大自然的脉动；它的窗外一定要有绿有水，靓丽精彩、格调高雅；它的价格一定平易近人，不想让住房变成生活的负担…… 花样年华，我们拒绝平庸，我们高呼享受生活、享受精彩。

　 集装箱这些质朴建筑体块的简洁之美以及犹如搭建组合积木般的无尽可能，使得集装箱建筑具有一种与生俱来的吸引力。游戏是人类生存与活动的基本方式，游戏给人欢乐、自由、满足、平静和安宁。一直以来，世界时尚界的 kidult （ kid 与 adult 的组合词，特指有着小孩心态、心境、个性、趣味特质的成年人）风此起彼伏，总有人会挖空心思设计出充满童趣的商品满足我们那一点残存的，却依然会发光的童心。不仅是一种表象，更是一种生活方式，而为自己来上一座集装箱房屋则是对这种生活方式的最好致意。

　 集装箱建筑虽然采了现代工业化产品作为基本的建筑单元，但是它的产生和发展却具有很强的民间性和自发性。在一般人的眼中集装箱建筑为不入流的建筑物，只有使用的价值。所谓的自发性是就集装箱建筑的“设计”而言。由于集装箱建筑的建造大多数时候没有建筑师的干预，一个集装箱建筑的空间形式是参与建造的业主、承建商和建筑工人在建造过程中自发地产生的，体现了普通老百姓对使用要求、场地环境、技术条件等的本能的反应。所以，集装箱建筑的设计者很大一部分就是使用者本身。 但随着建筑观念的发展，近年来集装箱建筑也逐渐进入了建筑师的视野而成为正规的业务之一。英国的都市空间规划组织将集装箱作为房屋的组件加以灵活应用，在2001年建成了一座伦敦码头区的新“ 城 ”-“集装箱城”(Container City)。因为该地区对环保材料建成的房屋的需求非常迫切，故在2002年又紧邻“集装箱城”修建了另一座新“城”。建筑师尼古拉斯•雷希没有拘泥于将单个集装箱建成单个房屋的故有理念，在与同事的共同创新之下将集装箱灵活组建成了更具有实用价值的生活和工作的新场所。在荷兰，多年来的学生住房紧缺问题一直没有得到缓解，特别在各大专院校汇集的城市，如阿姆斯特丹、乌特列支、莱顿等问题尤为突出。每年新生入学的9月，校园里到处都可以看到学生们张贴的找房广告，那些没有住房的学生或在临时搭建的帐篷里栖身或每天花数小时搭火车从父母家赶来上学。各地政府和各房产公司近年来都投入了大量人力物力来解决这一问题，几年前有关方达成了一项在2010年之前增建15000间学生房间的协议。崇尚实用主义的荷兰人通过将海运集装箱改装成学生住宅的这种简便、快捷、廉价的方式，在短时间内非常有效地增加了住房单位，到如今上述协议提到的增建计划已经基本完成，仅在阿姆斯特丹就建有三处大型的集装箱学生住宅区。这些集装箱被摞成几幢五层的住宅，每幢住宅中间还围有一个宽敞的天井，用于公共空间和停放自行车。住宅区还配有超市、自行车修理店、餐厅、洗衣房和一个篮球场，所有这些设施也都是由集装箱改建而成。 住在本是用来运货的集装箱房屋里冬天会不会很冷并且很不舒适？尽管我们还从未住过集装箱改造的集装箱房屋，但就目前所见并非如此，这些集装箱房屋与那些仅可挡雨的黑冷小屋不可同日而语，住在里面不会感觉自己像个流浪汉，而一旦进行一些改造，你会发现这些集装箱房屋变得如此有魅力，大量的采光会让空间变得无比温暖。一些人把一面“墙”都切开或者打开“屋顶”，然后把两三个或者四个集装箱组合成一个有创意的居住空间。还可以买那些已经做好保温层的半成品箱子。总而言之，废旧集装箱的改造，就是把它作为房屋基本建设单元，通过不同形式的结构组合，采取相应的加固措施，配备标准化的门窗、地板、厨卫以及给排水、电气、照明、消防、防雷电等设施设备，并进行相应的装修，从而成为安全舒适、人性化居住办公场所。前文提到的荷兰集装箱学生公寓，一间长12.2米，宽2.3米的集装箱房屋内有厨房、卫生间、卧室，还有阳台。小小的卫生间隔在中间位置，将长长的集装箱分成了厨房起居和卧室两大空间，所有学生日常生活所需要的基本设施（包括互联网）都一应惧全。荷兰的Keetwonen临时住宅机构负责了这些集装箱住宅的设计，而集装箱的改装以及安装卫生间、厨房和互联网设施的工作都是在中国完成的。随后这些改装好的集装箱被海运到荷兰，再被摞成五层高的楼房，并在前部加装了楼梯和走廊，后部安装了阳台，真可谓是“麻雀虽小，五脏惧全”。随着全球出现日益增多的绿色建筑，越来越多的人开始注意用船运集装箱改造集装箱建筑可以作为一个很好的绿色的替代品。各地无数未用的空集装箱在各个港口占据着空间，其中一个原因是由于昂贵的将空集装箱运回到出发地的费用，大多数情况下取而代之的是从亚洲购买新的集装箱会更加便宜。因此所带来的严重后果是过多剩余的空集装箱，它们可作为集装箱住宅、集装箱办公室、集装箱公寓、集装箱学校、集装箱宿舍、集装箱工作室、集装箱应急避难所，或者其他等等。集装箱建筑有许多优势，其中包括：强度、耐久性、实用性和低廉的价格。由于十年间北美工业产品的稀缺，来自亚洲和欧洲的工业产品运送到北美后，带来的问题是高额的将集装箱运回的花费，使得廉价的集装箱剩余过多。然而，人们希望找到一个新的应用方式使得集装箱得到新的完全的利用。 1987年11月23日，Phillip C • Clark 从法律上提出了一个专利——一种将一个或多个钢制船运集装箱改造为集装箱建筑的方式。这个专利于1989年8月8日通过（专利号4854094）。2006年，南加州建筑师 Peter De Maria 设计出美国首个两层的船运集装箱住宅，并且该集装箱住宅结构通过了严格的国家认证建筑规范。更令人印象深刻的是 Lot-Tek 的 Puma City，该集装箱建筑运用了丰富且价格低廉的材料，且拥有高质量的设计。同样地，世界上有许多不错的改装船运集装箱建筑的例子。 传记资料 克里斯托弗·M·穆尔，本科学生，土木建筑，建筑和建筑密苏里理工大学环境工程系，电子邮件：cmmnpb@mst.edu由G. Yildirim博士（通讯作者），访问学者，土木系， 密苏里理工大学建筑与环境工程，电子邮件：yildirims@mst.edu斯图尔特•鲍尔，博士，副教授，土木系，建筑和密苏里理工大学环境工程系，电子邮件：baur@mst.edu

　Educational Adaptation of Cargo Container Design Features Abstract：

　 Cargo container homes have become increasingly popular around the world in the last 30 years. Because cargo containers are modular in design, they can be used to create efficient, cheap homes. Repurposing cargo containers into homes is a sustainable construction practice due to the majority of the structure coming from recycled materials. Many design parameters of cargo container homes parallel those of standard home construction methodologies (cold formed steel framing/light wood framing) and from a structural standpoint, cargo containers are an effective building material. This paper aims to discuss the design parameters of cargo container home construction and an educational application of the concept. Problem-based learning (PBL) methodology was applied in order to create a discussion group. Building types were handed-out, scaled model and poster presentation were prepared by teams according to defined design parameters. Educational activity is evaluated by survey and critical points are determined to improve. Keywords：

　 Cargo container, problem-based learning, architectural engineering, reuse of structural material Introduction: The concept of containerization has developed at great lengths over the past 300 years leading up to the modern cargo container. An American by the name of Malcom McLean is credited with the invention and patenting of the cargo shipping container. His success in owning the 5th largest n trucking company in the United Sates (McLean Trucking Co.) allowed him to branch out to marine transportation. After purchasing the Pan-Atlantic Steamship Company in 1955, he began experimenting with different shipping methods. It was during his time as owner of the company that his idea for the modern cargo container came to existence. While it was not necessarily a new idea, the concept of an inter modal shipping container that could be loaded and unloaded with ease became very appealing to the U.S. military. Their influence helped to have the cargo container accepted as the standard for shipping lines all around the world. The cargo container was issued a patent in 1958 for an “Apparatus for shipping freight.” placement of the layer as well as its composition. The continuity of the layer also adds to the protection of the steel1. Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the corrosion product layers identified on steels exposed to rural and marine atmospheres for the periods of up to five years1. Furthermore, weathering steel is an ideal material for cargo containers due to their exposure to natural elements. Cargo containers spend the majority of their life outdoors on cargo ships, trains and trucks with little protection from moisture. The cargo container is an appealing construction material for a variety of reasons. First, their strength and durability provide both structural support and a long life span. Their weathering steel construction provides not only corrosion protection, but also strength. Also, with a movement toward sustainable construction practices, the recycling of unused cargo containers for construction material puts an unused product to use. Also, the cargo containers modular construction simplifies the design process. Much like bricks or CMU, cargo containers are designed to specific standards. Table 1 lists the dimensions of the standard sized containers.

　 Cargo containers also feature corner assemblies that interlock the containers to one another, as seen in Figure 2. The locking mechanism provides stability when multiple containers are being.used in the construction of a building. Cargo containers are designed to be supported from the four corners they sit on, which provides structural foundation advantages.

　 Cargo containers are a useful construction due to their high availability. The cost of shipping empty cargo containers back to their starting location is higher than the cost of buying a new cargo container, so many containers are left sitting empty in ports all around the world. In 2012, according to Drewry Maritime Research, the global container fleet consisted of approximately 32.9 million TEU (Twenty-foot equivalent unit) 4. That figure would estimate 32.9 million standard 20 foot containers, meaning that there is no shortage of cargo containers in the market today. Overall, the cargo container should be viewed as a valuable construction material. 1. Design criteria

　 Cargo container homes require a foundation system just as any other residential dwelling would. While the design parameters for shipping container homes are constantly evolving due to the relatively young age of the technology, there seem to be two major methodologies in regards to a foundation system. Most cargo container homes utilize either a slab-on-grade foundation or a concrete pile foundation. A basement is possible with either of those two types of foundations, but because the cargo containers are intermodal containers (and thus can be moved easily) a basement would not be practical. Moving the containers would leave a large void that would be wasted. While a basement is possible, the scope of this paper will cover foundation systems for cargo container homes that do not have a basement.

　 As applied to cargo container construction, a home utilizing a slab-on-grade foundation system would lay a foundation and set the cargo containers on top of the foundation. This foundation system is a very simple methodology for cargo container homes. The modular units are placed on the floor slab and secured with bolts or fixtures set in the concrete slab itself. The slab-on-grade foundation system offers a solid platform that will easily support a cargo container home. An alternative to the slab-on-grade foundation is a deep foundation system. Two common types of deep foundations are a pile system and drilled pier system. The difference between the two systems is evident in their construction. A pile is typically a precast concrete cylinder that is driven into the ground, while a pier is cast on site in a drilled well. Due to having less dead load of a low-rise housing unit compared to a commercial building such as; shopping mall, mid or high rise hotel/office building etc., precast pile have a better solution over drilled piers in consideration of cargo container homes. This foundation system is also referred to as a raised,foundation that is created by using precast piles. The home pictured in Figure 3 is clearly supported only by precast piles.

　The cargo container’s steel construction provides the strength to stack containers upwards of 7 high. That strength, however, is dependent on the entire steel frame/supporting walls intact. Many cargo container home designs require the removal of entire sidewalls of the container, which has an obvious effect on the strength and safety of the containers. Giriunas, Sezen and Dupaix performed a container model analysis using SolidWorks, Hypermesh and Abaqus/CAE to collect information on the effects of removing steel sections from cargo containers. Their computer analysis compared 5 different loading scenarios on both unaltered and altered containers. Their results validated the claim that containers with walls removed yielded before the required capacity specified in ISO standards. Also, they determined that the roof had little structural significance, and that the end walls were the strongest load resistive components when subjected to vertical loads. Their research will hopefully lead to standards and specifications for the use of cargo containers being used in non-standard applications, following full scale testing6.

　 While there is very little literature currently available that discusses the statistical data and requirements for reinforcing cargo containers for residential use, there are many common methods that are used to both reinforce and secure the cargo containers in a safe and effective way. In regards to reinforcing, one concern is that the removal of major walls will cause sag. Figure 4 depicts both the potential deformation involved with the removal of walls, and a potential solution to the problem. Steel guardrails can be welded to the interior of the structure to provide additional support and stability for the container. The amount of reinforcement needed. depends on the amount of material removed, and as previously stated, there are currently no set guidelines or building codes in regards to this issue. Along with the structural reinforcement, the connection of the modular units is a concern. Vertical connection is relatively simple, due to the nature of the container. Every container is designed with a fitting on each corner, originally intended to secure the containers in organized stacks during shipment. Those same corner connections prove essential in multi-story cargo container homes and can be used to secure the modular units together. This methodology is applicable when the containers are oriented in similar directions, as in Figure 5. Because the cargo containers are constructed from steel, welding can also be used to secure containers together in a permanent fashion. Securing the containers to the foundation is often successfully done by welding the containers to steel brackets cast in the foundation to provide a solid base for the home.

　 A cargo container home’s infill system is one of the most functional and aesthetically pleasing aspects of the building. The infill system consists of the MEP system (Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing), as well as aesthetical components. The home’s insulation is also included in the infill system. In many ways, a cargo container home’s infill system is similar to that of a home build from a traditional steel or timber framing system. Cargo container homes, however, have many more spatial limitations, as compared to a normal home or building. The design challenges are most prevalent in this portion of the design process because while the same families of components are necessary in a cargo container home, there is much less space to place them.

　 It has become a very common practice to first construct a non-loadbearing frame around the inside of the cargo containers. Both cold-formed steel and light timber can be used, and the framing system parallels that of a standard home. This internal framing offers both a means to hang drywall or gypsum board as well as a cavity to locate insulation and components of the MEP systems. Figure 6a depicts the construction of an internal steel framing system to separate rooms of the cargo container home. Also, voids can be cut into the container and framed in to allow for standard windows and doors. After the framing is complete, the electrical and plumbing systems can be installed. Again, the wiring and routing of plumbing is very similar to that of a standard home, with the exception of spatial requirements. Ventilation/central heating and cooling is a major challenge due to the height restrictions of the containers. A standard ventilation system is possible, however, with the usage of shallow ductwork concealed within a slightly suspended ceiling. Also, radiant heating and cooling systems require less space because of their use of hoses instead of metal ventilation ducts. The insulation methodology is again,similar to that of a home constructed by a standard methodology. Both insulating foam and blown insulation are possible insulation methods, and due to the internal framing, space is available to do either method. Many cargo container homes have become very successful in creating a modern, appealing interior design. Figure 6b features the interior of a cargo container home. The application of drywall, hardwood flooring, standard appliances and furniture, and lighting creates a home that is very similar to a modern home constructed using a standard methodology (i.e. without using cargo containers). 2. Educational adaptation “Materials and Methods of Building Construction” (Curriculum code; ArchE2103) course in Missouri S&T Architectural Engineering Program covers a variety of educational methodologies such as; traditional lectures, assigned supplementary reading, documentary movies, demonstrations (material test, site visit, and brick masonry wall mock-up assembly), discussion group and hands-on learning experiences. Among these methodologies, a discussion/work group was created consisting of three or four students working together completing hands-on tasks. The discussion/lab section of the course was divided into four modules. One of these modules focused on the implementation of cargo containers as a structural unit for an office space design. The duration of this study was three weeks with eleven teams. Cargo containers are of particularly interest as a design platform because of their emerging popularity worldwide. They are very versatile because of their durability and relatively low cost, thus make for an interesting subject in showcasing the possibility of modular design. Problem-based learning (PBL) methodology was applied in this section on cargo container implementation and in the latter module, which focused on residential home building utilizing conventional structural systems with variable floor layouts. Prior to introducing the “PBL blocks”, a series of “preparatory learning blocks” were offered. This allows the students to become more acquainted with the subject. Preparatory blocks should provide students with knowledge they can apply in PBL blocks, and the PBL blocks motivate students to explore further in-depth study11. The “discussion group” study is also grouped in second module of the course and it can also be classified as preparatory learning block. In introducing this topic to students, a short presentation was given providing an overview of this design concept as well as details into the specification of the cargo containers’ design. Getting a little more specific, this short presentation included the information regarding materials of construction, standard dimensions, load capacity, limitations, reason of usage in construction industry and lastly some built-up samples. This problem is being introduced to the class to be identified, formulated and solved as a real life problem with architectural engineering practice. One of the challenges of this assignment is determining the boundary or scope of work. This study, which is rather open ended, allows for students to purse the idea further with their own research or imagination.

　 Due to time limitation of three weeks, typical building layouts are handed-out to the students at the beginning. Therefore, it was not a design studio activity, but an activity for each team to discuss the subject and make an assessment of requirements mentioned in the rubric. Results of the activity were submitted as assignments. From the construction of the models, the groups learned the design features, critical points, construction methods and building envelope of the cargo container.

　Each team submitted the results of discussion on; a. 20’’ x 30’’ foam board as “Poster Presentation” (including text and images). (70% of grading) b. Scaled model with cardboard (1/50 scale) (30% of grading). Expectation from the discussion groups and the content of the poster presentation is mentioned in rubric. In the future, the groups could present their work as an authority on the subject of cargo container design, which would help encourage group collaboration and further discussion. Scaled models were assessed as sufficient or insufficient. The minimum requirements for successful completion of the cargo container design are a complete consideration of all of the design challenges presented in their poster. The posters were graded as per handed-out rubric. These items were to be addressed as if the group were to implement a particular solution to this problem and for addressing the challenges of completing an inhabitable and marketable office Space. The grade of the group is reflected by the successful completion of two different tasks, the poster which has details of the solution for successful design completion and the scaled model of the building/site made from prescribed materials, which in this case was foam board and corrugated paper. Samples of poster presentation and scaled models in 1/50 are shown in Figure 8 and 9. These models were graded on their accuracy, workmanship, and design vision and are a great method for understanding the 3-dimensional space of each building layout.

　 each steps were clearly defined initially. Therefore, students’ feedback was fairly positive as 8.27 out of 10. Similarly scaled model assembly as term project was a task project having clearly defined hand-outs (design guide) prior the activity. Whereas, students have to think outside the box in cargo container design activity. In Table 2 number 1 and 3 activities can be named as the task projects, but number 2 – cargo container design activity - was a discipline project. This can be the possible reason of having lowest rate of educational significance. In terms of analogy of a football game, this means that playing field is specified, some overriding guidelines are given for the game, but the ball has not been kicked off and thus the group must enter the field and set the game into play. The freedom on design or studied subject is increased and limitation on PBL is decreased in discipline project than the task project12. each steps were clearly defined initially. Therefore, students’ feedback was fairly positive as 8.27 out of 10. Similarly scaled model assembly as term project was a task project having clearly defined hand-outs (design guide) prior the activity. Whereas, students have to think outside the box in cargo container design activity. In Table 2 number 1 and 3 activities can be named as the task projects, but number 2 – cargo container design activity - was a discipline project. This can be the possible reason of having lowest rate of educational significance. In terms of analogy of a football game, this means that playing field is specified, some overriding guidelines are given for the game, but the ball has not been kicked off and thus the group must enter the field and set the game into play. The freedom on design or studied subject is increased and limitation on PBL is decreased in discipline project than the task project12. Table 2. Average rate of significance of educational activities. In order to increase the rate of significance of this educational activity, critical points are determined and some improvements are proposed herein. 3. Conclusion Cargo containers are a valuable modular construction material to be considered when designing a home. They have the structural capability and design parameters to produce a standard, living home in a variety of ways. Cargo container homes are both sustainable and cost effective due to the repurposing of the container itself. Container homes can be designed very similarly to a standard home, and should be heavily considered in today’s market. Design standards like those presented in this paper should be standardized in order to create an efficient design process to produce cargo container homes on a larger magnitude. In order to increase the popularity of this reusable modular construction units, future architectural engineers shall be promoted and they have to be competent over basic design features. By using existing design parameters of cargo containers, a discussion group project has been created as a real life problem. The discipline project as part of problem-based learning lead the students to think outside the box which was the main goal of this educational adaptation. Student survey shows that positive feed backs received from the students but improvement is necessary to increase the effectiveness of this activity. Container originally just simple means of transport, but it has been found it can also be used for the living, container housing such a way of living at the same time it seems that both global and local, temporary and permanent, the finite and the infinite these qualities, container holds tension let it become the queen of amazing buildings. First in the container has not been possible to test, but referred to the container houses, I am afraid that many people will naturally associate to the last century 60s hippie, hippie movement and beat generation of classics "in the road" began to eventually "box type trailer" shadow. Hippies commune wandering life style to express their opposition to nationalism and the Vietnam War, to promote non - traditional religious culture, to criticize the western middle class values. The box type trailer is the best carrier of this way of life. Container house and trailer house is so similar to a variety of ways compared both as building use can be used as a special topic to study. For example, in addition to the activities of a trailer home dressed as this kind of lack of imagination to look outside, trailer homes are indeed not much creative space. The container is completely different, as they will be in use when building its modular nature provides a free and creative imagination. Between the container between product design, architectural design and artistic creation, in this sense, they mark the highest achievement in a field, is also the most basic elements of another field. As for the product design, is crucial to their development and all related freight transportation and technical aspects of the. As for architectural design, the magic of the container is reflected in many aspects, especially as the independent characteristics of the basic components of the. They are both highly accurate and complex coordination technology products, and is completely flexible and free source of imagination. In 2001, the "container city" developer Urban Space Management was appointed to the company is the expansion of the London Tower Hamlets College offers a container floor affiliated teaching. Generally speaking, the container construction will be concentrated in the coastal port cities, and container terminal and urban landscape formed a kind of interactive relationship, the container used for container shipping industry related work and need for construction purposes. But in a larger range, containers are used to project construction and related construction purposes and construction of emergency medical aid station in, the reason, mainly container housing provides the most convenient means to solve the problem of temporary buildings, not only the construction is simple, and the cost is inexpensive and can be built on the foundations of a variety of conditions. In addition, container house also widely is used to some other place and use, such as temporary shelter, temporary restaurants, street shops and so on, mostly belonging to the construction on sporadic and scattered in every corner of the city, this kind of container architecture, although the lack of size and momentum, but the site and function of type variables, tend to produce the ingenuity of architectural space and form. A combination of environmental protection and fashion Essentially, fashionable and environmental protection exists a paradox, it is difficult to say who stood in long lines to buy price thousands of bags are environmentally friendly. Most of the time, the so-called green design simply means the latest technology and a lot of money. The reason is that the container architecture is a combination of environmental and fashionable, because first of all, the exploration on the possibility of container architecture uses is exciting, from disaster relief shelters, first aid to luxury apartments, villas, roadside shops, adventure camp container almost to be transformed into any use of housing. It is like a prefabricated space, take a different approach to reconstruction according to the usage, and a series of living facilities can easily complete the transformation. The construction method of preform, greatly save construction period, save manpower, reduce production cost, so as to obtain a only takes few cost and labor, and greater use of conventional materials, space. Even compared with the activities of the housing market, board room, old second-hand container transformed into the container houses still have their cost advantage. On the surface, board room 300-500 yuan / square meters, after the renovation of the container house was sold to 1000 yuan / square meters, but board and container housing comfort is significant differences. And board room demolition twice after, basically can not use, container house can relocate several times, and the service life of more than 10 years. The cost to 8-10, then to sell scrap steel can form. Secondly, the use of more than 10 years of container, due to peeling paint, a box body deformation and higher maintenance costs, and gradually withdraw from the logistics field, and the old second-hand container due to the full image that was abandoned after still having original, after a simple cutting, combination, still has the value of renewable, container house will make container extend the useful life of more than 10 years. This cycle of waste used containers of reuse, the original high carbon steel plate materials can be fully used, by steelmaking melted down and the repeated pollution is reduced, and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, is to reduce the consumption of resources and adverse effects on the environment. A waste recycling second-hand container, can save 1.7 tons of steel and 0.4 cubic meters of timber, reduce 3.49 tons of carbon dioxide. If 100 thousand old second-hand container using a year, 349 thousand tons of carbon dioxide emissions can be 340 million, saving electricity. Based on the above two points, container.Six) - simple natural building environment design 1 indoor furniture layout reasonable, simple and practical. Emphasize the natural texture, the use of natural wood materials to create the space for decorative plants and other natural elements, the life of people in the city to return to natural emotional compensation. Create a chastity, fresh and natural, practical and comfortable environment. 2 indoor wall with vertical wood, one can play the effect of thermal insulation, the two is to make the whole space visually extending the height of the space is not so crowded. 3 room three transparent, sunny, the light changes to enhance the atmosphere of the space, with artistic conception and appeal to meet the aesthetic requirements of the people. 4 two floor balcony is designed by the methods of Roof garden, to add some details, also increase the color for the whole building. The indoor and outdoor transparent integration, to create an open space of flow. In the warm afternoon, sipping a cup of tea, jump to the distant sea, how a quality suggestive of poetry or painting. Our life is modern, light and environmental protection. For the living space of perception, we continue to breed with a young desire. It may be just a little space, it is the stretch the freedom of heaven; it must be close to nature, always feel the pulsating nature; the window must green water, beautiful wonderful, elegant style; its price must be amiable, do not want to let housing becomes life burden...... The mood for love, we refuse mediocrity, we shouted to enjoy life, enjoy the wonderful. Biographical information: Christopher M. Moore, Undergraduate Student, Department of Civil,Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology email: cmmnpb@mst.edu Semih G. Yildirim, Ph.D., (Corresponding Author), Visiting Scholar, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, email: yildirims@mst.edu Stuart W. Baur, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, email: baur@mst.edu

　 Using shipping containers to provide temporary housing in post-disaster recovery: Social case studies Abstract:

　Housing that makes use of the ubiquitous general purpose shipping container is becoming more commonly seen as a useful way of reusing the empty vessels as valuable accommodation. In particular, the application of shipping container temporary housing is suited to post-disaster situations, design examples of which can be found in the literature. However, ensuring the success of implementing such projects in a post-disaster setting requires investigation into the social considerations of temporary housing. This research takes a qualitative approach, focusing particularly on case studies of temporary housing experiences following the Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Christchurch Earthquake in 2011 and a field study of 2009 Black Saturday bushfire-affected

　communities in Victoria, Australia. Key social factors found to be significant to the success of shipping container temporary planning byauthorities, taking into account the varying characteristics of different types of disasters. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and/or peer-reviewed under responsibility of the Centre for Disaster Resilience, School of the Built Environment,

　University of Salford. Keywords: Shipping containers; disaster; post-disaster recovery; temporary housing; social issues.

　Often, in the event of natural disasters such as bushfires, flooding and earthquakes, large numbers of people are displaced from their homes and require temporary housing. Current practice for post-disaster emergency shelter usually involves the use of large communal areas like stadiums or showgrounds, where relief centres and temporary accommodations (usually tents) are provided, as seen in the case of Hurricane Katrina (Nigg et al., 2006). Whilst these are quick to set up, disaster survivors also need accommodation and facilities set up for longer term recovery. Shelter and housing provided for victims of disasters falls along a continuum usually including four categories from pre-disaster emergency shelters, temporary shelters, temporary housing to permanent rehousing (Quarantelli, 1995; and Nigg et al., 2006). This research assesses the utilization of used shipping containers in post-disaster housing applications, particularly temporary shelters and temporary housing. However, discrete categories for post disaster shelter are becoming decreasingly relevant. It has become apparent that long term and long distance displacement, like that seen after Hurricane Katrina, can create a grey area between immediate shelter and permanent housing (Levine et al., 2007). Following natural disasters, reconstruction projects are sandwiched between the immediate necessity to act promptly and the long-term need for sustainable community development, resulting in policy-affecting realities of conflicting paradigms (Johnson et al., 2006). These trends reflect the increasing demand for innovation and flexibility in the traditional post disaster housing response. Many temporary housing projects (Davidson et al., 2007; Christensen and Worzala, 2010) are geared towards community engagement to enable better social outcomes for disaster victims, but the implementation of projects。

　 such as these is fraught with issues relating to proper skill utilization and effective management. Although it is widely accepted that success of temporary housing projects lies in community participation, in reality this does not translate into practice despite the fact that “... the participation of users in up-front decision-making ... leads to positive results in terms of building process and outcomes” (Davidson et al., 2007). In addition, Lindell and Prater (2003) highlight the need for community cohesion in disaster situations, as being the key to lessening the impacts of disasters. This has relevance here in the mobilization of social capital in the community self-determination of temporary housing needs post-disaster. Yet it is often seen that disaster reconstruction is driven by technology, restricting wider engagement with cultural and social issues (Hayles, 2010). Further to this, true sustainability comesfrom utilization of local knowledge and labour which can create micro-economies that aid in the recovery process(Johnson, 2007a). This is pertinent to every temporary housing project with goals of sustainability. The use of modified shipping containers is not yet widespread in post-disaster temporary housing applications. Much knowledge exists about using shipping containers in housing applications; yet, for the most part approaches inadequately address the multifaceted economic, social, and logistical issues inherent in using shipping containers as dwellings, and few focus on the additional complexities associated with post-disaster temporary housing (Christensen and Worzala, 2010). In addition, many are prohibitively expensive for application in disaster relief applications. One example is the Future Shack, developed by an Australian architect Sean Godsell, which was one of the first attempts to utilize shipping containers in temporary housing, being assembled in 24 hours and having minimum cuts necessary in the container. However, the cost of one Future Shack exceeds $30,000 (Sean Godsell Architects, 2001), which is hardly suitable for true post disaster applications. In addition, Global Portable Buildings offers disaster recovery temporary housing solutions fashioned from shipping containers (Global Portable Buildings, 2011), however these are also prohibitively expensive in many post-disaster applications and are made from new shipping containers, eroding the benefits of reusing those empty containers stockpiled in ports all over the world. In a post disaster context, the higher the level of resources being invested in temporary housing measures, the less are available for permanent reconstruction. This highlights the merit in strategies that both reduce the cost and improve the prospects of reuse or of evolution of shipping container temporary housing into permanent housing.

　There are several other design examples in the literature of post-disaster temporary housing incorporating the use of shipping containers, including designs for whole villages made up of modular units designed with families in mind.Pena et al. (2012) show temporary housing design solutions that aim to exploit shipping containers inherent benefitsrelating to strength, reusability and portability. Although these designs are technically sound in terms of structural integrity, services and logistics, little available literature seems to look into the broader issues surrounding social suitability of implementing a shipping container temporary housing project. Research into practical social aspects of the implementation of such plans, with which the current paper is concerned, will enable a greater understanding of some of the key social issues which are inherent in top-down reconstruction approaches. A useful insight relevant here is from Davis (1978), whose work on post disaster sheltering is central to today’s understanding of the issue – “Survivors priorities in order of importance are: to remain as close as possible to the site of their ruined homes and means of livelihood, to move temporarily into homes of families or friends, to improvise temporary shelters as close as possible to the site of their ruined homes (these shelters frequently evolve into rebuilt houses) and to occupy emergency shelters provided by external agencies.”Increasing the knowledge base in terms of implementing appropriate shipping container temporary housing and examining how communities function post-disaster will allow a higher level of successful, holistic and sustainable design solutions that balance technical feasibility, affordability and social appropriateness. This paper looks into the practical aspects of implementing post-disaster temporary accommodation using modified shipping containers by examining social considerations and lessons learned from key case studies. It does not propose new designs for shelters or delve into in-depth logistical study, but rather looks at how designs may be successfully implemented to ensure culturally appropriate solutions to the issue of temporary housing post-disaster and could lead to higher levels of comfort, sanitation and social cohesion post-disaster, as well as contribute to quicker, more organized provision of shelter in overall disaster response. Methods used include a qualitative field study into temporary housing experiences of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfire affected communities in Victoria, in addition to case studies looking into housing experiences following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in the US, and the Christchurch Earthquakes of 2011. The context of this research sits within broader areas of knowledge relating to post-disaster housing and community cohesion, as well as shipping container architecture.

　 The study consists of two main qualitative research components: a field study of housing experiences of Black Saturday bushfire affected people involving focus group discussions and a multiple site case study. The study aims to answer the following research questions: · What factors affect suitability of using shipping containers for post-disaster temporary housing? · What lessons have been learned in terms of key social outcomes from temporary housing for Hurricane Katrina and the Christchurch Earthquakes of 2011? · Would shipping container temporary housing be suitable for disasters similar to Victoria's Black Saturday bush fires in February 2009? · What social issues are paramount in the implementation of a shipping container temporary housing project? · How could these issues be addressed to ensure the best possible social outcomes?

　For this topic, a significant volume of information is needed in order to make learned conclusions about social aspects of post-disaster temporary housing. The combination of case study and focus group discussions as a field study enables a significant amount of data to be analy sed, beyond that practical to achieve by primary data collection methods alone. The case study uncovered key issues in provision of post-disaster temporary housing which would prove difficult to investigate on a first-person, primary data basis as the disasters occurred in different countries. These issues are contrasted with insights from focus group discussions to enable conclusions to be drawn about social suitability of shipping container emergency housing for post-disaster applications. A summary of research methods can be found in Table 1. The two sites chosen for this study are the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and Hurricane Katrina in the U.S.(2005). These were chosen as good counterpoints to the Black Saturday investigation being examples of natural disasters in developed countries, and thus temporary housing and support experiences could be comparable. This multi-site study enables cross case comparisons of the constructed picture of the sites and also informs the Black Saturday field study in terms of lessons learned.From research into available literature on temporary post-disaster housing, and categorizing shipping container housing into the modular housing group suitable for longer time frames than emergency shelters, the following points affecting suitability have been identified. It is important to note that these factors are not an exhaustive list of those affecting temporary housing suitability but provide a broad picture of variables relevant to the use of modular.

　 temporary housing such as shipping container units. They are drawn from studies by Gionvinazzi and Stevenson (2011) in Christchurch and Johnson (2007b) and Nigg et al. (2006) after Hurricane Katrina. Level of damage to homes: Use of modular temporary housing such as shipping container units will be determined by the need for temporary housing options post-disaster- whether the damage to homes is sufficient to require displacement. Numbers of displaced people and scale of disaster area:Modular housing options such as shipping container units are useful for a range of impact areas, for a large-scale disaster involving high numbers of displaced such as Hurricane Katrina, or smaller numbers of displaced. This is due to the inherent modularity of shipping container housing options and the flexibility of arrangement. It is estimated that around 1.2 million people were displaced by Hurricane Katrina within hours or days of the disaster (Nigg et al., 2006). Thus, the speed of displacement is also an important factor affecting demand for temporary housing.Availability of rental properties or vacant accommodation in surrounding areas:As was seen during the recovery after the Christchurch earthquakes, a service was set up to match victims seeking temporary accommodation with available rental properties, the majority being holiday homes and the like (Gionvinazzi et al., 2011, p. 3). However, many disasters are of such scale that the displaced people cannot be accommodated with existing vacant dwellings. In such cases, modular designs like those involving the use of shipping containers may be a useful option.Projected timeline for damage repair/housing replacement: Modular and shipping container emergency housing is inherently suited to the medium term, as provision is not as fast or cheap as using tents. Therefore it may be better suited to disasters with a long timeframe for rebuilding of permanent dwellings, or even scope for incorporation intopermanent dwellings.

　 A review of key characteristics of typical disasters against the above factors gives the suitability for using shipping container temporary housing, as shown in Table 2. It can be argued from Table 2 that shipping container temporary housing is less suited to disasters that render large areas inaccessible for long periods of time like inundation. More suitable are disasters like bushfires that have up to several days warning lead time, and the affected area can be accessed relatively quickly after the disaster. 1.2. 3.2 Lessons learned in terms of key social outcomes from temporary housing

　 Published material on temporary housing experiences post-disaster in the two cases were analysed and synthesized. The lessons have been grouped into temporary housing implementation lessons and planning lessons,which are central to the success of shipping container temporary housing projects. Planning · Reliable estimates of temporary housing/sheltering requirements are needed. For Katrina, government planning failed to anticipate the need for shelter and temporary housing adequately (Nigg et al., 2006). · Planning needs to accommodate the possibility of far and wide displacement and extended dislocation as in the case of Katrina - "... evacuees were registered in every state and almost half of the ZIP codes in the United States ... tens of thousands were more than one thousand miles away from New Orleans" (Nigg et al., 2006, p.117). · Mechanisms set up to coordinate housing relief had not been tested prior to Hurricane Katrina, and also to a lesser extent in Christchurch. Decision-makers responsible for housing relief need to develop working relationships with counterparts during non-disaster times to ensure cooperation (Gionvinazzi et al., 2011).Temporary housing implementation · Temporary housing often ends up lasting longer than intended, sometimes decades, with negative social consequences for the displaced persons. Gionvinazzi et al. (2011) put forward the growing trend of skipping medium-term housing, which is a major drain on the resources available for permanent housing, and proceeding from temporary sheltering straight to reconstructing housing to a similar standard of permanent housing but with a cost on par with provisional housing. · Temporary housing efforts must take into account the fluid and dynamic nature of sheltering needs, as described by Quarantelli (1995). Shipping container temporary housing needs to be adaptable to these changing requirements. For example, shipping container units can be used as both centralized temporary shelter and longer term temporary housing on victim’s properties. · Aldrich and Crook (2008) brought up the issue of siting the temporary housing post Katrina, which was supplied by FEMA in the form of mobile home trailers (caravans) - "...most citizens recognized the need for facilities like trailer parks and modular homes, but many sought that these facilities be placed elsewhere". The lesson here is reflective of the complexities of post-disaster social structures and any shipping container temporary housing project must be flexible in its siting options in order to avoid unwanted social effects of creating social hierarchies or enclaves. 2. 4. Field study – Black Saturday

　 Three focus group discussions were undertaken with volunteer participants drawn from communities affected by the Black Saturday bushfires of February 2009, in the Glendonald Road Fire (Victorian Government, 2010) area communities of Callignee, Traralgon South and Koornalla. These focus groups were held at the Callignee Hall and covered community dynamics post-disaster, experiences of temporary housing support and how housing situations affected recovery. The participants of focus group were recruited from a range of community groups, including frompositions of authority within the community. Gender balance was also sought in recruiting participants. 2.1. 4.1 Suitability of shipping container temporary housing for Black Saturday bushfires

　 Drawing on factors affecting suitability uncovered the previous case study, and exploring this in the focus groups, the results indicate mixed suitability of shipping container temporary housing to the example of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, for the area researched (Callignee, Traralgon South and Koornalla). The level of damageto homes resulted in displacement of a large proportion of the community, with data suggesting around three- quarters of the homes in the fire affected area being destroyed (Victorian Government, 2010). However, the population density of the area is quite low, being mixed semi-rural and farming. Thus, the number of displaced people from the 139 homes was low enough that they could largely be absorbed into rental properties and friend/family homes in the neighbouring towns of Traralgon and Morwell, as no communal temporary housing facilities were set up in the aftermath. It would seem that there were enough available rental properties to absorb those displaced. Renting seemed to be the first option explored by many focus group participants who lost their homes: "On the Sunday afternoon we got a phone call from an acquaintance who said he had a house that was vacant that we could rent if we'd like... [we thought] there's going to be a lot of people that are going to try and get a place to rent ..."In addition, focus groups indicated that the fire affected area was inaccessible for up to several weeks after the fire due to the coroner's lockdown of the area where fatalities occurred, which would prohibit access for any temporary housing work to be carried out. 2.2. 4.2 Social issues in the implementation of a shipping container temporary housing project

　 A key recurring theme arising in the focus groups was that of the wish to stay in the community after the fire -either on their own blocks or as near as they could get."I would have preferred to stay in the community... we felt like we were away from all that was happening [in the community]". - Focus group participant who experienced displacement.Further to this, there was some resistance to the idea of a centralized temporary housing camp - with objections relating to the social issues arising from having a high density of victims living in close proximity for several months to years, as well as a yearning to get back on their own blocks of land -"We were out there for the lifestyle... the peace and quiet. Post-disaster we wanted to get back to that lifestyle as quickly as possible."- Focus group participant Flexibility in temporary housing arrangements was also a key theme. Avoidance of a "one size fits all" approach was underlined, and also it was identified that assistance with temporary housing be fair as well as flexible - some people won't want to live in a shipping container, and grants towards alternative solutions like renting in a nearby area was brought up as a solution. The provision by authorities of advice and facilitation of time for victims to think about how to choose their preferred temporary housing assistance was also brought up, and emphasis was put on facilitating self-determination of temporary housing choices by victims. Temporary housing initiatives having the characteristic of being community driven was also identified as an important positive factor to aid in the recovery process. That being said, it was brought up that temporary housing solutions, although they should be flexible in some aspects, should have a specific time frame for use to encourage reconstruction in a timely way. Reports arose of some victims living in provisional housing (converted sheds, etc.) at the time of the study, over 4 years after the bushfire. Further to this, economical use of shipping container temporary housing units was raised as an important factor to get right- with ideas to have units on victim’s blocks with the possibility of incorporation into permanent housing, or a system of government buyback for reuse in another disaster application. This ties in with earlier themes of flexibility in ownership. Another important recurring issue with temporary housing experiences in the groups was the duplication of information and resources for victims by the authorities. Victims reported being asked to detail their needs or experiences multiple times to different agencies that meant well but failed to have sufficient inter-agency coordination to avoid duplication. 2.3. 4.3 Strategies to address the issues to ensure the best possible social outcomes

　 Drawing from focus group data and the social considerations raised in the discussions, one of the key issues relates to the wish of victims to stay in the community after the disaster and to return to their properties. This could be addressed by designing a temporary housing system that allows for deployment of shipping container units onto individual properties, provided that a suitable space exists and services are available. This would mean a lag time after the disaster when destroyed houses have to be cleared to make way for the shipping container unit, and also for the unit to be connected to the existing services to the block. While this was happening, those displaced would have to be accommodated in short-term temporary shelters or other means. That being said, securing suitable locations for 1temporary housing camps has been identified as often taking the longest time in the temporary housing provision schedule (Barakat, 2003) and so skirting this issue by avoiding central camps in favour of units on victim’s properties could have a positive effect on scheduling as well as being socially appropriate. Flexibility in ownership, another important consideration raised in the focus groups, could be achieved through creative post-disaster relief policy design. Provision could be made in temporary housing assistance for victims to receive a shipping container unit, or instead use the assistance towards rent or other housing measures should a unit be unsuitable for their circumstances: "Not everyone wants to live in a shipping container - they should get alternative assistance to keep things fair".- Focus group participant

　 Construction of an opt-in government buyback policy of the shipping container units after permanent rebuilding has been achieved could offer increased flexibility and the purchased units could be stored ready for use in another post-disaster application. This is one way to minimize the diversion of resources away from permanent reconstruction efforts, another key issue raised in focus groups, as money generated from the buyback could be used by victims to continue their house rebuilding or repair. Yet another method of ensuring relevance and usefulness of shipping container temporary housing to affected communities is provision in the design for future incorporation into permanent rebuilding. This would aid in addressing not only the flexibility in ownership issue, but also economic use of resources and reducing the incidences of resources being diverted away from permanent rebuilding to provide temporary housing. Incorporation of units into permanent buildings is also inherently flexible due to the inbuilt modularity of shipping containers. 3. 5. Discussion of results

　 The purpose of this study was to systematically examine post-disaster temporary housing experiences to reveal the social suitability of utilizing shipping containers in post-disaster temporary housing applications. From the results, it can be seen that there is scope for suitability in certain situations, providing the design of such a project addresses key societal issues surrounding ownership, flexibility, policy planning and economic use of resources. These findings enhance the picture of existing knowledge of community issues surrounding post disaster temporary housing in the wider disaster literature, as well as furthering knowledge about shipping container architecture and its application in real-world contexts. This research contributes valuable insights to the implementation of shipping container temporary housing, which could improve practical social outcomes of post disaster housing and aid in the overall recovery process. The transferability of these research outcomes is somewhat dependent on the context of the disaster, and further work would need to be done in terms of the best post-disaster situations for using shipping container temporary housing. However the main findings of the field study are relevant to a wide range of settings because concepts such as ownership arrangements and sustainable use of housing resources tie in with basic human tendencies in community organization. The limitations of this study lie in the restricted scope and sample size of the field study with the focus group data representing the community experiences of only one area affected on Black Saturday. To minimize the possibility of bias, larger studies of increased scope are required, although effort was made to include a wide cross-section of community members in the focus groups. Nevertheless, the study has been structured to include case studies to distill other key lessons and data themes in addition to the field study in order to broaden the context of the results. For the case studies, there was a reliance on previous work looking at temporary housing experiences of Christchurch and Katrina and so any limitations of those studies will carry through in this study. Points of interest in the data include the international trend of, in post-disaster housing provision, skipping medium term housing in favour of rapidly built permanent housing constructed to a similar budget of provisional housing, as was the case after the L'Aquila earthquake in Italy in 2009 (Gionvinazzi et al., 2011, p.5). This ties in with the idea of constructing temporary housing in such a way so that it is possible for it to evolve into permanent housing to a suitable construction standard, as identified in the focus groups. Both approaches minimize a pitfall ofmany post-disaster temporary housing projects: diversion of precious resources away from permanent reconstruction. Further research that will improve knowledge in this area has uses in tying together the social considerations uncovered in this study with designs for shipping container temporary housing systems that can facilitate successful community outcomes. 4. 6. Conclusions and recommendations

　 The research outcomes presented in this paper provide insights into the suitability and social issues surrounding shipping container temporary housing projects in post-disaster situations, relating to the need for flexible.coordinated planning for temporary housing that that utilizes community social capital and is innovative in siting, reuse and ownership structure of shipping container units. In addition, acknowledgement exists that these are not suitable for all post-disaster applications and that more research is needed for suitability in different contexts. Implementation of such temporary housing projects need a focus on knowledge management to build on past lessons from other disasters and to avoid the tendency to focus efforts on technical innovation at the expense of social appropriateness. Disaster relief temporary housing policy needs to be developed in partnership with affected communities, with those experiencing disasters in the past contributing firsthand knowledge to enable a reconstru.ction response based on socially appropriate solutions. This will greatly benefit future disaster survivors. References Aldrich, D. & Crook, K., 2008. Strong Civil Society as a double edged sword: Siting trailers in Post- Katrina New Orleans. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), pp. 379-389. Barakat, S., 2003. Housing reconstruction otter conflict and disaster, London: Overseas Development Institute. Christensen, P. & Worzala, E., 2010. Teaching Sustainability: Applying studio pedagogy to develop an alternative post-hurricane housingb solution using surplus shipping containers. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 2(1), pp. 335-369. Davidson, C. et al., 2007. Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat international, 31(1), pp.100-115. Davis, I., 1978. Shelter after Disaster. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press. Gionvinazzi, Sonia, S. J., Mitchell, J. & Mason, A., 2011. Temporary Housing Issues following the 22nd Christchurch Earthquake, NZ. Christchurch, 2012 NZSEE Conference. Gionvinazzi, S. & Stevenson, J., 2011. Assessing temporary housing needs and issues following Christchurch Earthquakes, New Zealand, Christchurch: University of Canterbury. Global Portable Buildings, 2011. Disaster Relief. [Online] Available at: http://www.globalportablebuildings.com/Disaster Relief.html [Accessed 3 May 2013]. Hayles, C., 2010. An examination of decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(1), pp. 103-122. Johnson, C., 2007a. Impacts of prefabricated temporary housing after disaster: 1999 earthquakes in Turkey. Habitat International,31(1), pp.36-52. Johnson, C., 2007b. Strategic Planning for post-disaster temporary housing. Disasters, 31(4), pp. 435-458. Johnson, C., Lizarralde & Davidson, C., 2006. A systems view of temporary housing projects in post-disaster reconstruction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(4), pp. 367-378. Levine, J., Esnard, A. & Sapat, A.,2007. Population Displacement and Housing Dilemmas Due to Catastrophic Disasters. Journal of Planning Literature, 22(1), pp. 3-15. Lindell, M. & Prater, C., 2003. Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters. Natural Hazards Review, 4(1), pp. 176-185. Nigg, J., Barnshaw, J. & Torres, M., 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans: Emergent Issues in sheltering and temporary housing. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 604, p. 113. Pena, J. & Schuzer, K., 2012. Design of Reusable Emergency Relief Housing Units Using General Purpose Shipping Containers. International Journal Of Engineering Research and Innovation, 4{2), pp. 55-64. Quarantelli, E., 1995. Patterns of sheltering and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management, 4(3), pp. 43-53. Sean Godsell Architects, 2001. Future Shack. [Online] Available at: http://www.seangodsell.com/future-shack [Accessed 3 May 2013].

　Current developments in organic farming

　Abstract

　Organic farming uses almost exclusively biological and natural materials and processes to produce food. The practice aims to protect human health and conserve, maintain or enhance natural resources, with the goal to preserve the quality of the environment for future

　 generations

　 while

　 being

　economically sustainable. Organic farming has grown rapidly throughout the world in recent years. Currently, Australia (Oceania) has the largest land areas under organic farming, Liechtenstein (Europe) the highest percentage of organic area, and Mexico (Latin America) the greatest number of organic farms worldwide. One of the most valuable benefits of organic farming is the improvement in soil quality, which can be expressed in terms of chemical, physical and biological properties and their interactions. In this article, we will discuss the properties, regulations and impacts of organic farming on human livelihood and the environment. Overview of organic farming

　 Organic farming has expanded rapidly in recent years and is seen as a sustainable alternative to chemical-based agricultural systems (Stockdale et al., 2001; Biao et al., 2003; Avery, 2007). Its annual growth rate has been about 20% for the last decade (Lotter, 2003), accounting for over 31 million hectares (ha) and generating over 26 billion US dollars in annual trade worldwide (Yussefi, 2006). Nutrient management in organic farming systems is often based on soil fertility building via nitrogen (N) fixation and nutrient recycling of organic materials, such as farmyard manure and crop residues, with limited inputs from permitted fertilizers (Gosling and Shepherd, 2005). Although organic farming has been criticized for relying on the build-up of soil phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) by past fertilization before converting to organic (Nguyen et al., 1995; Greenland, 2000; Løes and Øgaard, 2001), its acceptance and popularity are growing due mostly to environmental and health-related concerns (Biao et al., 2003; Galantini and Rosell, 2006). Arecent polling of residents of Ontario, Canada reveals that more than half think organic food is more nutritious; two-thirds believe organic food is safer than conventionally grown food; and 9 out of 10 believe organic fruits and vegetables are grown without pesticides of any kind (Avery,2007).The aims and principles of organic farming, as presented in the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Basic Standards for production and processing are listed in Table 1. A shift to organic agriculture brings about significant changes: restricted use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, increases of other inputs such as organic materials, labor, perhaps machinery, cultural practices (e.g., crop rotation), and better knowledge of biological processes. These changes have serious implications. Thus, farmers should consider the following issues before practicing organics (FAO, 1998): * Labor inputs: Labor is important to the production process, and can be an impediment to the adoption of organic agriculture. Compared to large-scale mechanized agricultural systems, organic farming appears more labor-intensive. Many techniques used in organic farming require significant labor(e.g., strip farming, non-chemical weeding, composting). In the developed world, labor scarcity and costs may deter farmers from adopting organic systems. This may also be true for cash-poor farmers and those supplementing their incomes with off-farm work. However, where labor is not a constraint, organic agriculture can provide employment opportunities, especially in rural communities. Furthermore, the diversification of crops typically found on organic farms, with their various planting and harvesting schedules, may result in more work opportunities for women and a more evenly distributed labor demand which helps stabilize employment. * Other production-related inputs: The absence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in organic farming necessitates other inputs from manure addition to crop selection or irrigation. Farmers' knowledge of local conditions and of traditional practices is essential to the success of organic farming. The emphasis of crop varieties and animal breeds used in organic agriculture is on local suitability with respect to disease resistance and adaptability to local climate. * Crop rotation: This operation is required under organic certification programs and is considered essential in organic management. Agricultural pests are often specific to the host (i.e., a particular crop), and will multiply as long as the crop is there. Alternating crops in time (rotations) or space (strip- cropping and intercropping) is therefore an important tool for controlling pests, and also for maintaining soil fertility. As the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides allows the farmer to grow the crop that is financially most rewarding, not using those inputs may limit the choice of crops. The success of an organic farm depends on the identification of end-uses and/or markets for all the crops in the rotation, as few farmers can afford to leave fields fallow.This remains one of the most significant challenges in organic agriculture. * Yield: Yields on organic farms, although may not be as high as those produced by conventional practices, fall within an acceptable range (Avery, 2007). Encouragingly, organically produced yields currently are significantly higher than those produced before the 1950s. Part of this progress can be attributed to new varieties and better knowledge of biological processes used in farming. For example, if N miner alization is slow because of cool/wet growing-conditions, crops on organic farms may not have sufficient N early in the season. However, better knowledge on N synchronization between N release by manures and N demand by crops could minimize or even eliminate this N deficiency problem (Hue and Silva, 2000; Myers et al., 1997). Definition of organic farming

　 There are many definitions of organic farming, which is also known as ecological agriculture (Gosling et al., 2006) or biodynamic agriculture (Lampkin, 2002). Some have considered organic farming and sustainable agriculture synonymous, because they are both based on sustainability of agro- ecological systems. Sustainability can be defined as meeting the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations (WCED, 1987). The word "organic" is legally protected in some countries, avoiding their indiscriminate use in non-organic products. In the European Union (EU), for example, this word has been protected since the early 1990s in English- speaking countries. The equivalent in French, Italian, Portuguese and Dutch- speaking countries is "biological", and "ecological" in Danish, German and Spanish-speaking countries (FAO, 1998). Organic farming according to Henning etal. (1991) is both a philosophy and a system of farming, grounded in values that reflect an awareness of ecological and social realities and the ability of the individual to take effective actions. In practice, it is designed to work with natural processes to conserve resources, encourage self-regulation through diversity, to minimize waste and environmental impacts, while preserving farm profitability.According to Lampkin (1994, 1997), the aim of organic farming is: “to create integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable production systems, which maximize reliance on farm-derived renewable resources and the management of ecological and biological processes and interactions, so as to provide acceptable levels of crop, livestock and human nutrition, protection from pests and disease, and an appropriate return to the human and other resources”. As such, organic farming shares the fundamental objectives of agricultural sustainability and is deserved to be assessed as a mainstream part of sustainable agriculture (Edward-Jones and Howells, 2001).

　IFOAM (2000) has defined organic agriculture as “a process that develops a viable and sustainable agro ecosystem”. In practical terms, organic farming is a form of agriculture that shies away from synthetic inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers (because of their negative effects on the ecological balance) but uses agricultural practices such as crop rotation, proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into the soil, and composting (Kuo et al., 2004). With restrictions on the use of chemical fertilizers, the principal challenge to converting a conventional farm to an organic one is to provide N, K (because these two elements are required at rather large quantities by most crops and because they are easily leached from soils), and to a lesser extent, other plant nutrients at rates and times to ensure acceptable crop yields (Rodrigues et al., 2006; Hue and Silva, 2000). Production requirements in organic farming While conventional farming needs abundant, man-made resources, organic farming makes use of functional integrity of the system (Boelling et al., 2003). Organic farming depends on the local environment (soil, water) and less powerful tools (heavy equipment). Although the exact production methods vary, general principles include the exclusion of most synthetic biocides and fertilizers, the management of soils through addition of organic materials and use of crop rotation (IFOAM, 1998). The requirements (which apply to the way the product is created, not to the measurable properties of the product itself) by the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) are summarized as follows (NOP, 2006). Crop requirements Land will have no prohibited substances applied to it for at least 3 years before the harvest of an organic crop. The use of genetic engineering (included in excluded methods),ionizing radiation and sewage sludge is prohibited.Soil fertility and crop nutrients will be managed through tillage and cultivation practices, crop rotations, and cover crops, supplemented with animal and crop waste materials and allowed synthetic materials. Preference will be given to the use of organic seeds and other planting stock, but a farmer may use non-organic seeds and planting stock under specified conditions. Crop pests, weeds, and diseases will be controlled primarily through management practices including biological controls.physical, mechanical, and When these practices are not sufficient, a biological, botanical, or synthetic substance approved for use on the National List may be used. Livestock requirements

　 Animals for slaughter must be raised under organic management from the last third of gestation, or no later than the second day of life for poultry. Producers are required to feed livestock agricultural feed products that are 100 percent organic, but may also provide allowed vitamin and mineral supplements. Producers may convert an entire, distinct dairy herd to organic production by providing 80 percent organically produced feed for 9 months, followed by 3 months of 100 percent organically produced feed. Organically raised animals may not be given hormones to promote growth, or antibiotics for any reason. Preventive management practices, including the use of vaccines, will be used to keep animals healthy. Producers are prohibited from withholding treatment from a sick or injured animal; however, animals treated with a prohibited medication may not be sold as organic. All organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants. They may be temporarily confined only for reasons of health, safety, the animal's stage of production, or to protect soil or water quality. The absence of soluble chemical fertilizers and the limited use of natural biocides in organic agriculture mean that it is largely dependent on biological processes for the supply of nutrients (e.g., N2 fixation), and for protection of crops from pests and disease (Gosling, et al., 2006). Organic manures could provide essential nutrients to crops but, if not properly managed, may also promote N losses by denitrification (Smith and Chambers, 1993) and ammonia volatilization (Holding, 1982). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) can be used to enhance P uptake. Biocontrol agents that may be used in organic systems to control pathogenic fungi do not appear to damage the AMF association (Ravnskov et al., 2002; Gaur et al., 2004). Fine green sands and feldspars, which are natural minerals, could provide K (Hue and Silva, 2000). Neem (Azadirachta indica A.) extract could be use as a biocide; also the introduction or augmentation of predators or parasites of pests can be implemented for pest control. Despite the potentially adverse effect of tillage on soil quality and the high cost of tillage operations, tillage forms an important part of weed control strategies in organic systems (Bond and Grundy, 2001). That is because low or no-till can result in an increase in perennial weed numbers, which are difficult to control in the absence of herbicides (Kuowenhoven et al., 2002; Torresen et al., 2003; Håkansson, 2003). Thus, there is a limit to which tillage can be reduced in organic systems while maintaining adequate weed control. Alternatively, mulching with fully biodegradable materials, where possible, is encouraged in organic production.

　Regulations in organic farming Factors that are used to classify organic farming may partly vary with local circumstances in terms of needs and availability of resources. In countries where organic farming is not widely adopted, and where no organic seedlings are available, seedlings originating in conventionally managed enterprises may be used on an interim basis (Khristiansen and Merfield, 2006). Similarly, in such situations, manure may not always be available from organic farms, and sourcing it from conventional farms may sometimes be allowed. The certification of the production process at the farm level, as opposed to product certification, is specifically chosen to ensure that organic products are indeed grown according to organic standards. The task is complicated because it includes ascertainment that the farmer has incorporated a number of practices to cope with soil fertility and pests, as appropriate, in the particular area where the farm is located (FAO, 1998; NOP, 2006). Many organizations or countries have their own certification standards, which need to be at the same level or stricter than the IFOAM's guidelines. In total, more than 100 national or regional standards have been developed, some of them in developing countries, particularly in Latin America. Certification can be carried out by an organization outside the country, especially if no national standards for organic agriculture are available, and no local certifying organization exists. Developing countries in particular make use of this possibility, as setting up the infrastructure needed for certification of organic products (standards, inspection scheme, ratification appeal procedures, etc.) can be costly, and is seldom self-financing, especially in the early stages. In the early days of organic certification, traders found it sometimes difficult to know which schemes genuinely certified organic produce. IFOAM has developed an accreditation program, which evaluates certification schemes and hence assists both the traders and the evaluated scheme (FAO, 1998). Organic farming regulations can be viewed in different ways. In the EU, certified organic agriculture is viewed as a long-term solution to natural resource conservation concerns, restoration of rural landscapes, and public health promotion. EU countries provide direct and indirect aid to certified organic production, and as of 2004, had formed a European Action Plan for Organic Agriculture (Gomez-Tovar et al., 2005). The recent use of policy by the EU to develop more environmentally sensitive farming practices has led to a widespread interest in organic farming (van Diepeningen et al., 2006). Mexico, in contrast, has viewed certified organic agriculture as a short- term solution to export and foreign exchange concerns. International buyers introduced the concept of organic certification into Central American countries. At first, farmers followed the instructions necessary to fulfill the certification requirements without a clear understanding of the certification process itself. To them, organic certification was just another rule imposed by the “first world” with cost being so high that only international buyers were able to afford (The organic standard, 2001). Themajor support for smallholder certification efforts has come from foreign foundations. At present, nearly a quarter of a million hectares (ha) are certified by up to 17 organic certification agencies, mostly foreign, operating in Mexico and by the Mexican National Certifier (Certimex) that has been formed and accredited under the Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. Other certifying agencies, such as MayaCert in Guatemala, Eco-Logica and AINCOPOP in Costa Rica and CENIPAE in Nicaragua were initiated. These organizations later joined efforts with other certification agencies from South America, which were IncaCert (Peru), Biopacha (Bolivia) and BioMuisca (Colombia), to form a Latin American Organic Certification body called BIOLATINA. These agencies offer producers such benefits as lower certification cost and clearer communication, making organic certification more accessible to small producers. This has helped shift the certification authority/responsibility from buyers to producers, giving producers the full right to choose their own buyer (The organic standard, 2001). In the United States of America (US), the USDA National Organic Standards are in effect since 2002 (NOP, 2006) and there is a national list of substances approved for or prohibited from use in organic production and handling (USDA, 2000). To earn certification, organic farms must: a) have long term soil management plans, b) establish buffers between their fields and nearby conventional farms, c) meet specific requirements for labeling and record keeping d) use only allowed substances (see Production Requirements), e) keep detailed records of all the materials used in their farming operations (NOP, 2006). The products from a certified farm can then be sold as “100% organic” where all ingredients must be organically produced, “organic” where 95% of the ingredients must be organic, “more than 70% organic” and “less than 70% organic” (MAF, 2005). In Japan, the new agricultural standards for organic products were introduced by the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture in 2000, and have been implemented since April 2001 (Shi-Ming and Sauerborn, 2006). At present, Tunisia is the only African country with its own organic (EU compatible) standards, certification and inspection systems. Egypt and South Africa have both made significant progress in this direction, both have two certifying organizations and are well on the way to developing standards (Yussefi, 2006). The supply of organic products has not gone hand in hand with developments on organic regulations until recently. In fact, the lack of clear organic standards and labeling in several countries has caused trouble for organic producers and consumers. Several products labeled as ‘organic’ and ‘ecological’ have been found in Canadian supermarkets yet their producers really have not followed any production standards. These incidences were threatening Canada’s organic industry, and “organic fraud” is becoming a growing concern among consumers. Consequently, organic farmers in Canada have called for the food inspection agency to produce a strict set of standards and an organic seal (MAF, 2005). Despite the government’s efforts to keep a transparent market environment, New Zealand has not been exempt from the organic labelingand standards debate. A survey done by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority in 2004 (NZFSA) found more than 20% of the “organic” fruit and vegetable sampled contained chemical residues. Certification schemes in New Zealand are self regulated and only products that are exported are checked by the NZFSA for compliance (MAF, 2005). Today, 395 organizations worldwide offer organic certification services. Most certification bodies are in Europe (160) followed by Asia (93) and North America (80). The countries with the most certification bodies are the US, Japan, China and Germany. Many of the certification organizations also operate outside of their home country. Forty percent of the certification bodies are approved by the EU, 32% have ISO 65 accreditation, and 28% are accredited under the US National Organic Program (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). Effects on soil quality Organic farming improves soil fertility over time (Clark et al., 1998; Petersen et al., 1999). In the short term (about 3 years of the transition period), organic farming may have negative effects on crop production, however. The transition period between conventional and organic farming practices is often marked by a decrease in N availability and in yields due to a shift in biological activity and N sources that are not immediately available for plant use (Petersen et al., 1999). Soil biological properties. Among the benefits of organic farming is an increase in soil microbial activity and biological processes (Gunapala and Scow, 1998; Petersen et al., 1999; Scow et al., 1994; Werner,1997). Axelsen and Elmholt (1998) estimated that a conversion to 100% organic farming in Denmark would increase microbial biomass by 77%, the population of springtails by 37%, and the density of earthworms by 154%. A decrease in disease and parasitic nematodes has also been observed (Scow et al., 1994; Matsubara et al., 2002). Wander et al. (1994) studied three farming systems: (1) animal-based (cover crops and animal manure only), (2) legume based (cover crop only), and (3) conventional (N fertilizer). Their results showed that the two organic systems had higher levels of microbial activity and more diverse species than the conventional system. Soil physical properties. Organic fertility inputs (animal and/or green manures) improve soil physical properties by lowering bulk density, increasing water-holding capacity, and improving infiltration rates (Petersen et al., 1999; Tester, 1990; Werner, 1997; Lee et al., 2006; Sadanandan and Hamza, 2006). Lower bulk density implies greater pore space and improved aeration, creating a more favorable environment for biological activity (Werner, 1997). Tester (1990) also found that amending soil with compost significantly decreased bulk density and increased soil water content. Soil chemical properties. Organic farming increases SOM content (Alvarez et al., 1988; Bhat and Sujatha, 2006; Clark et al., 1998; Goh et al., 2001; Petersen et al., 1999; Reganold et al., 1993) and humic substances (Nardi et al., 2002). During the transition years from conventional to organic systems, most soils show a slow but steady increase in SOM (Clark et al., 1998; Kuo et al., 1997). Wander et al. (1994) proposed that the quality of SOM may even be more important than the quantity of SOM present in farming systems that use cover crops and other organic inputs and those that do not. Clark et al. (1998) found that SOM levels in the 0-30 cm depth had increased in the organic and low-input treatments by 19% after four years of organic practice. Alvarez et al. (1988) found a positive correlation between SOM content and available Ca, K, Mg, Na, and P. Obviously, total soil N will increase with organic practices, but extract able P and exchangeable K also.often do (Alvarez et al., 1988; Bhat and Sujatha, 2006; Clark et al., 1998; Petersen et al., 1999; Reganold et al., 1993). Perhaps because of improved soil quality, organic crops often contain more vitamin C and B-group vitamins, more phenolic compounds, and beta- carotene than conventional crops (Adam, 2001; Rembialkowska, 2004; Reganold et al., 2001). Sadanandan and Hamza (2006) reported that the levels of piperine and oleoresin in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) were much higher in Indian fields fertilized with poultry or goat manure as compared to those receiving NPK chemical fertilizers. Development and distribution of organic farming

　worldwide

　 Since the 1990s, organic farming has expanded considerably, especially in Europe (e.g., Germany and Scandinavia). In 1996, Austria (the only country which equates sustainable agriculture to organic agriculture) counted over 7% of its agricultural land as being under organic management, and Switzerland 6%. The Central and Eastern European countries show the same trend in growth, although the absolute rates of adoption are considerably lower (FAO, 1998). A recent survey has shown that there are more than 31 million ha of land worldwide under organic management by at least 633,891 farms (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). Certified forest and wild harvest plants would add at least another 19.7 million ha, totaling more than 51 million ha (Yussefi, 2006). As of 2006, the countries with the greatest organic areas are Australia (11.8 million ha), Argentina (3.1 million ha) and China (2.3 million ha) (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). Table 3 shows detailed information of organic area in 2006 by country. There has been significant growth of organic areas in North America and Europe: Each continent has half million ha more over 2004. In most countries, organic farming is on the rise. In China, the organic land area has increased by 37.5% over that in 2001 (Shi-Ming and Sauerborn, 2006). In Liechtenstein, 26% of agricultural land area is managed organically, which is the highest percentage of organic area in the world (Table 4) (Yussefi, 2006). Organic farming has been practiced in 120 countries of the world (FAO, 2002). It is reasonable to assume that uncertified organic farming is practiced in even more countries (Yussefi and Willer, 2007); about 50% of those are developing countries (Willer and Yussefi, 2000). However, the area of organic land is less than 1% of the total agricultural land of the world. The current organic area in each continent is presented in Figure 1 (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). The proportion of organically to conventionally managed land is highest in Europe. Latin America has the greatest total number of organic farms (Table 5) (Yussefi, 2006)

　 In Europe, the share of organic land area is between 1.4 and 3.7%. In Africa, the area percentage under organic management is the lowest in the word (Yussefi and Willer, 2003; SOEL, 2003; FiBL, 2003). Latin America now is one of the regions with the highest growth rate of organic farming (Yussefi and Willer, 2003; FAO, 2002). This is perhaps because Latin America has a great deal of education and extension activities relating to ecological agriculture (Yussefi and Willer, 2003; FAO, 2002). Table 6 shows the main land use categories and crop categories under organic agriculture. More than half of the organic agricultural land for which land use information was available (Table 6) is under permanent pastures/grassland. About one quarter is used for arable cropping (Willer et al., 2007). Organic agriculture by continent

　Oceania

　 This area includes Australia and New Zealand as well as smaller countries like Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and Vanuatu. Altogether, more than 11.8 million ha and 2,689 farms are under organic management (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). Most of this area is pastoral land for low intensity grazing in Australia (Yussefi, 2006). Growth in the organic industry in Australia has been strongly influenced by overseas demand. The key market for export of Australian organic products has changed over the years. In the early 2000s, it was Europe accounting for over 70% of Australian organic exports. Other countries such as Japan, the US, Singapore and Hong Kong were emerging as promising future export markets for Australian produce. Most organic beef was exported to the US. In 2006, Australia agreed to adopt organic standards, which, once in place, can then be used by authorities to enforce on the domestic market. In New Zealand, a National Organic Standard was launched in 2003, underpinning the various certification schemes that already exist. Through the launch of the New Zealand Organic Sector Strategy, the government does acknowledge the importance of organic farming, but it only gives limited support (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). North America In North America, almost 2.2 million ha are managed organically, representing approximately a 0.6% share of the total agricultural area. Currently, the number of farms is about 12,000. North America has reached a growth rate of almost 30% in recent years (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). The number of organic farmers is increasing at a rate of about 12% per year in the 1990s (USDA, 2000) and may have reached 20% annually between 2002 and 2007 (Willer and Yussefi, 2004). The US market has seen more and more organic products being introduced, the number of certification agencies. accredited by USDA has grown, and talks are progressing to expedite international trade of organic products. Since 1999, Canada has had a voluntary Canada Organic Standard that is not supported by regulations. The organic industry continues to devote its energies toward implementation of a mandatory national organic regulation to help expedite trade relations with such major trading partners as the US, the EU, and Japan (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). Latin America In Latin America, many countries have more than 100,000 ha of organic land, which are expanding fast. The total organically managed and certified area is now almost 6.4 million ha with an additional 6 million ha certified as forest and wild harvested areas (Yussefi, 2006). The countries with the highest proportion of organic land are Uruguay, Mexico and Argentina. Argentina is the country with the largest organic land in the region, ranking second in the world, and a major part of their 3.1 million organic hectares are extensive grassland (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). In general in the region, no governments provide direct subsidies or economic aid for organic production. The exception is Brazil, where the government recently issued an inter-ministerial Pro Organic Plan officially stimulating organic production, research, association building, marketing and trade (Yussefi, 2006). In Bolivia, an action plan for the ‘Promotion of the development of ecological production and establishment for a national control system’ was recently launched. Costa Rica and some others have official funding for research and teaching, Argentina and Chile have had official export agencies helping producers attend international fairs and print product catalogues, and in Mexico there is a growing interest from national and state agencies (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). In Brazil, organic farming started in the 1970s. Its annual growth rate was around 10% in 1990s and is approximately 50% during the last three years, being higher than the EU and USA, where the growth rate is estimated at 20% and 30% per year, respectively (Darolt, 2006). Central America has a young but fast growing organic agriculture. In fact, for the past five years total acreage under organic production has increased 15% annually (Table 7) (The organic standard, 2001). In Mexico, organic farming started in the late 1980s, and keeps growing fast in the past 5 years. Mexico has the highest number of organic farmers in Latin America, and almost all organic produces are destined for the US market (Darolt, 2001). Costa Rica is third in number of organic farmers after Mexico and Brazil (Darolt, 2001). The major export organic crops are coffee, cacao, banana, sesame, pineapple and vegetables (González and Nigh, 2005). Organic coffee is of high demand worldwide, being produced in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador (Darolt, 2001). Europe In the EU, organic farming has experienced a fast growth since the end of the 20th century (Lampkin, 2001). This is in part a result of the emphasis of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on environmentally sensitive agricultural systems and their policy implementation (Häring, 2003). There are almost 6.3 million ha under organic management with almost 160,000 organic farms. This constitutes 3.9% of the agricultural area (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). In Austria and Switzerland, more than 10% of the agricultural area is managed organically (Mäder et al., 2002; Soil association, 2000). However, the country with the highest number of farms and the largest organic area is Italy (Yussefi, 2006), where organic farming currently represents 7.94% of the total area farmed (IFOAM, 2003). For comparison, France has 1.8% of agricultural land under organic management (MAF, 2005). In Denmark, organic farming has been subsidized and covered 6.5% of the agricultural land in 2001 (Yussefi and Willer, 2003). The conversion from conventional to organic dairy farming occurred mainly in the mid 1990s (Petersen et al., 2006), and further conversion in the next 8-10 years could reach 15% of the cultivated area (Christensen and Fradsen, 2001). The Dutch government intended to have 10% of the agricultural land under organic management by 2010 from the current 2.1%. (MAF, 2005; van Diepeningen et al., 2006). In Ireland, farming is predominantly grass-based, so is the organic sector. A target of 3% of arable

　land under organic has been set for 2010 (Duggan, 2005). The area of organic and in-conversion land in the UK doubled between 1999 and 2000 (Rigby and Cáceres, 2001), with more than 500,000 ha of organic and in-conversion land, or 3% of the agricultural area of the country. Despite this expansion of the organic sector, the UK currently imports 75% of its organic food (Rigby et al., 2001). Asia

　In Asia, the area under organic management was rather small in the past. China, in 2004, had nearly three million ha, which were dedicated to organic pastures, but has not been certified (Yussefi, 2006). India reported 2.5 million ha under organic farming with 332 new certifications issued during 2004 (MAF, 2005) Officially, the total organic area in Asia is almost 2.9 million ha, managed by 130,000 farms (Yussefi and Willer, 2007) with an addition of 6.4 million ha being certified as forest and wild harvested areas. China, India, and Russia are among the most significant countries producing organic products in Asia. Recently, aquaculture, particularly organic shrimp farming, has become popular, particularly in China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam (Yussefi, 2006).

　Africa In Africa, organic production is rarely certified. Nevertheless, organic farming is increasing, especially in the southern countries. More than 1 million ha are now managed and certified organically. Additionally, 6.8 million ha are certified as forest and wild harvested areas (Yussefi, 2006). An important growth factor in Africa is the demand for organic products by developed countries. Most certified organic production in Africa is geared towards export markets, mainly the EU (Yussefi and Willer, 2007). Another motivation is the maintenance and building of soil fertility on land threatened by degradation and erosion. Impacts of organic farming In many parts of the world, agriculture has caused environmental pressure, such as land degradation, water use and greenhouse gas emissions. Some specific impacts of agriculture on the global environment are documented below (Pimentel, 1994; Kendal and Pimentel, 1994).During the past 40 years almost one third of the world’s cropland has been abandoned because erosion and degradation. Agriculture accounts for 80% of deforestation, and 40% of the world’s population lives in regions where water resources are over drafted and stressed, and where users compete for water. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from agriculture in the EU amounted to 383mi. tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent in the year 2000, which correspond to approximately 10% of the total EU greenhouse gas emissions (Gugele et al., 2002) The increase of environmental pressure from agriculture is unlikely to reverse in the near future, since the world population continues to increase faster than global food supply, and diets continue to shift towards animal products (Goodland, 1997; Pimentel, 1994; Kendal and Pimentel, 1994). A transition to organic farming could be a viable way of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Synthetic chemicals and fertilizers are significant sources of energy use, and the transition to organic agriculture, being less reliant on these inputs, would alleviate these impacts (Wood et al., 2006). According to FAO (1998), organic farming would have long lasting, mostly beneficial effects on such important areas as: * Long-term productivity of the land: Protecting soils and enhancing their fertility would ensure productive capacity for future generations. Farmers often quote deteriorating soil quality as a major reason for adopting organic management. It can, therefore, be assumed that those farmers who adopted organic management practices found ways to improve the quality of their soil within the new management system, or at least stemmed the deterioration. Security of land tenure is important to the success of this task. If security is not guaranteed, there is little incentive for farmers to invest in a method that might only bring them income in the future rather than immediate rewards.

　 * Food security and stability: In organic agriculture, a diversity of crops is often grown and many kinds of livestock kept. This diversification minimizes the risk of variation in production, as different crops react differently to climatic and edaphic variations, or have different times of growth (both in the time of the year and in length of the growth period). Consumers' demand for organic food and premium prices provide new export opportunities for farmers of the developing world, thus increasing their self-reliance. Organic agriculture can contribute to local food security in several ways.Organic farmers do not incur high initial expenses so less money is borrowed. Synthetic inputs, unaffordable to an increasing number of resource-poor farmers due to decreased subsidies and the need for foreign currency, are not used. Organic soil improvement may be the only economically sound system for resource- poor, small-scale farmers.

　 * Environmental impact: In a study with pesticides and fruit thinners used in apple production, Reganold et al. (2001) showed that the total environmental impact rating of the conventional system was 6.2 times that of the organic one. Organic farmers forego the use of synthetic fertilizers. Most certification programs also restrict the use of mineral fertilizers, which can only be used to the extent necessary to supplement organic matter produced on the farm. There are environmental advantages to this: non-renewable fossil energy needs and Nleaching is often reduced (Eltun, 1995). Instead, farmers enhance soil fertility through use of manure (although the kind and its handling have significant effects on N content, and poor usage can create leaching problems), crop residues (e.g. corn stover, rice straw), legumes and green manures, and other natural fertilizers (e.g., rock phosphate, seaweed, guano, wood ash). Within the agricultural sector, dairy production systems represent the largest source of CH4 and N2O emissions and may therefore have a large potential for greenhouse gas mitigation (Weiske et al., 2006). Lal et al. (1998) point out that SOM can significantly mitigate the greenhouse effect (e.g., via carbon sequestration). Disadvantages for not using synthetic chemicals must be considered as well: energy needs may escalate if thermal and mechanical weeding or intensive soil tillage is used. Many resource-poor farmers do not have access to livestock manure, often an important fertility component. Sometimes immature composts are used, which may contain pathogens and other contaminants. Finally, some areas in tropical countries may have such low soil fertility that synthetic inputs are essential. Soil protection techniques used in organic agriculture (e.g., terracing in the humid tropics, cover crops) combat soil erosion, compaction, salinization, and degradation of soils, especially through the use of crop rotations and organic materials that improve soil fertility and structure (including beneficial microbial influence and soil particle aggregation). Integrating trees and shrubs into the farming system also conserves soil and water and provides a defense against unfavorable weather conditions such as winds, droughts, and floods. Techniques used in organic agriculture also reduce water pollution and help conserve water on the farm.

　 Although the benefits (both real and perceived) of organic farming and organic food are many, potential negative effects should also be noted, including the risk of contamination for human consumption (Pretty,1995; Rigby and Cáceres, 2001). For example, nitrate leaching may contaminate ground water used for drinking, or organic livestock might be contaminated with disease-causing microorganisms from manure and by animal parasites (Rosati and Aumaitre, 2004). * Social impact: The social impact of organic farming is considerable as mentioned in the IFOAM's Principal Aims. The main benefit according by some organic farmers in developing countries (e.g., China and India) is that they now have better standards of living. Good product prices, low unemployment, dropped rural emigration, and reduced health risks (from chemicals) are the results of farming organic (MAF, 2005). In summary, the organic food movement apparently had its roots in a philosophy of life, beginning perhaps with Rudolf Steiner, a notable German thinker, in the 1920s. One of its common believes is that natural products are good, whereas man-made chemicals are not, or at least not as good as natural ones. This partially explains why organic farming avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Certainly, organic farming has many benefits ranging from reduced environmental pollution to increased soil quality. Let us hope that organic farming will lead all farmers, and their consumers, toward a more productive, prosperous, sustainable, and healthy future. References 1. Christensen J., S. E. Frandsen. 2001. Economic perspectives for the development of organic farming. Report No. 124, Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Copenhagen, Denmark.

　 2. Clark, M.S., W.R. Horwath, C. Shennan, K.M. Scow. 1998. Changes in soil chemical properties resulting form organic and low-input farming practices. Agron. J. 90: 662-671.

　 3. Darolt, M. 2006. A evolução da agricultura orgânica no contexto brasileiro. http://www.planetaorganico.com.br/brasil.htm Accessed Dec 2006.

　 4. Darolt, M.R. 2001. A agricultura orgânica na America Latina. http://www.planetaorganico.com.br/trabdarolttal.htm Accessed Dec 2006.

　 5. Dexter, A.R. 2004. Soil physical quality. Part I. Theory effects of soil texture, density and organic matter and effects on soot growth. Geoderma, 120: 201-214.

　 6. Doran, J.W., B.T. Parkin. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, B.A. Stewart (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Special Publication. Number 35. Madison, WI, USA, pp. 3–21.

　 7. Doran, J.W., M. Sarrantonio, M.A. Liebig. 1996. Soil health and sustainability. Advances in Agronomy., 56: 1-54.