ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY 2015
Art, Architecture and Design, University of South Australia
SOCIO-‐CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY OF HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION IN RURAL NEPAL, FOLLOWING THE 2015 EARTHQUAKE Janai Lemar Student ID 110112913
number:
THEME: Social Sustainability ABSTRACT: This paper examines the potential architects have to promote socio-‐cultural sustainability through the reconstruction process of rural Nepalese housing, following the 2015 earthquake. Firstly, a brief exploration of Nepal’s different cultures, climates and resulting vernacular architecture is provided to demonstrate the complexity and importance of a culturally sensitive approach. The typical donor-‐lead post-‐disaster reconstruction (DPR) process is then evaluated by analysing socio-‐cultural implications of the reconstruction of rural housing in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake. This is then compared to owner-‐driven reconstruction (ODR), of the Urban Poor Linkage’s (UPLINK) reconstruction of 3 500 houses in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, following the 2001 tsunami. It is found that DPR is socio-‐culturally unsustainable as architects and local communities are rarely involved. DPR usually produces identical houses that disregard vernacular architecture and therefore the communities’ cultural identity, traditional lifestyles, and availability of local resources and skills. Furthermore, DPR does not encourage community empowerment and ownership in the reconstruction process of their built environment; whereas ODR aims to enable homeowners to direct reconstruction. ODR should utilise architects to provide support and guide local communities by interpreting their needs and facilitating their design ideas. Empowerment is not only crucial in the physical rebuilding of disaster-‐stricken communities, but also in the psychological, cultural and societal sense. It is recommended that ODR be employed in reconstructing rural houses in Nepal to empower local citizens, and to efficiently address the great variation in the vernacular architecture of different Nepalese communities. These variations cannot effectively be understood by outsiders in the context of disaster response. Although ODR is resource intensive and requires time, it inevitably results in a built and social environment which is more environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable in the long-‐term.
On April 25 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal killing over 8 500 people and destroying 450 000 rural homes. Being a developing country, foreign humanitarian aid organisations rushed into Nepal to provide immediate emergency relief and reconstruct homes and villages. Architecture has the potential to give hope and promote community resilience (Lee 2013, 224). The reconstruction process is not only important in rebuilding the physical environment but it is also an opportunity to empower vulnerable communities, helping them to psychologically recover from crisis. Historically, foreign aid agencies rarely involve architects, prompting this author to examine architects’ potential to promote social and cultural sustainability in the post-‐ earthquake reconstruction process of rural Nepalese houses. Social sustainability is the maintenance or improvement of people’s well-‐being by increased social cohesion, stability and improvement in quality of life (Chiu 2006, 66). Cultural sustainability is a pre-‐ condition of sustainable development, and is defined as the sustainability of culture itself through the consideration of shared values, perceptions and attitudes (Chiu 2006, 68). This paper begins by briefly exploring Nepal’s different cultures, climates and resulting vernacular architecture to demonstrate the complexity and importance of a culturally sensitive reconstruction approach. Current standards of Donor Led Reconstruction (DLR), where all funding and decisions are controlled by foreign organisations, is then considered by analysing the social and cultural implications of the 400% Housing Reconstruction Project in Zoranje, Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. Newspaper articles and independent reports are used to analyse the 400% Project, as there is a lack of published or peer reviewed information specific to DLR projects in Haiti. DLR is then compared to Owner Driven Reconstruction (ODR), which is a community participatory process that gives owners more control over the designs and use of funds. Books and journal articles are used to analyse Urban Poor Linkage’s (UPLINK) reconstruction of rural homes in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, following the 2004 tsunami, as an ODR case study. Reconstruction of Nepalese housing cannot be undertaken with a ‘one-‐size-‐fits-‐all’ attitude, due to the wide variations in vernacular architecture in different communities. Vernacular architecture is an expression of a community’s identity and relation to place. These variations are due to Nepal’s numerous ethnic groups (Fig. 1) and five climatic zones (Fig. 2), factors which influence living traditions, resource availability and therefore vernacular architecture.
1
ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY 2015
Art, Architecture and Design, University of South Australia
Houses damaged by earthquake
Source: (Gurang 2006 :35)
Figure 1. Map of Nepal’s ethnic variation indicated by the different colours and showing those affected by the earthquake
Houses damaged by earthquake
Source: (Earth Education Expedition 2014)
Figure 2. Map of Nepal’s climatic zones and the earthquake affected region
An example is the lower lying sub-‐tropical Terai regions (Fig. 3) which have an abundance of biogenic building materials, whereas the alpine Himalayan mountain regions rely more on stone, rocks and mud, and must respond to a much harsher climate (Fig. 4).
Source: (Pearson, 2013)
Figure 3. Vernacular Western Terai (sub-‐tropical) detached homes, using biogenic material with double height volumes and high openings
Source: (Bodach, 2013: 279)
Figure 4. Vernacular attached Tarang homes in the alpine region, with stone walls, elevated ground floor and small volumes
2
ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY 2015
Art, Architecture and Design, University of South Australia
Consideration of resource availability is imperative. Firstly, because transporting large volumes of materials to these rural regions would be inefficient and costly, and secondly to ensure communities have access to materials for future maintenance. Respecting vernacular architecture enhances the social and cultural sustainability of projects and has been refined over generations to suit the climate, provides familiarity and social continuity to residents after a disaster, and respects and preserves the traditions of local communities. Therefore, for reconstruction efforts in Nepal to be socially and culturally sustainabe, the regional differences in vernacular architecture must be understood and respected. The current model of post-‐crisis reconstruction is donor driven (DLR). Donations are vital during a crisis as they provide capital and resources local communities would not have available. DLR technical staff also provide regulations for the projects to ensure safety standards are met, reducing risk of future disasters. However, it often excludes local communities, giving foreign experts who are not familiar with the country, control over all decisions regarding the reconstruction process (Lee 2013, 483). This is advantageous as it produces quick, tangible results, but it fails to consider long-‐term impacts of these projects on local communities (Lee 2013, 483. For these reasons DLR has been criticised for being socially and culturally unsustainable. These disadvantages can be seen by analysing the social and cultural implications of the Inter-‐American Development Bank’s $30 million 400% Housing Reconstruction Project in Zoranje, Haiti (Fig. 5). The lack of information specific to DLR projects in Haiti could suggest their failure to provide social and cultural sustainability.
Source: (Schindler Saint-‐Val, 2014)
Figure 5. 400% Housing Reconstruction Project in Zoranje, Haiti, showing a street of identical houses with no open porch On January 12, 2010 a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti’s capital, Port au Prince, destroying over 300 000 homes and displacing more than 1.5 million people. The 400% Zoranje reconstruction project was to construct 400 identical homes for low income families in 100 days in 2011. The project was conceived before specific intended owners were determined. The houses remained unoccupied for five months after construction was completed due to a lack of running water (Kayle 2014). The lack of ownership led to squatters, vandalism and theft of electrical wiring, fixtures and metal roofs (Kale, 2014). This demonstrates the absence of respect and psychological sense of ownership, due to the exclusion of the community and intended owners in the design and construction process. Like many large scale DLR projects, the homes were identical, designed by foreign personnel and show limited understanding of Haitian culture and lifestyle. This is illustrated by the omission of open porches or front rooms, significant features of traditional Haitian homes, as a response to climate as well as an opportunity to operate small home-‐businesses (Audefroy 2011, 252). The design and construction of the houses did not allow for future expansion and customisation by residents, limiting their sense of ownership and individual identity, thus impeding psychological recovery. Prior to the commencement of the project architecture staff and students from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology worked with a local community close to Zoranje, to produce a 180 page proposal for a housing project of a similar scale. The initial stage of this project involved establishing a community construction training centre to empower the residents to participate in constructing their future built environment. However, the whole proposal was discarded due to pressure from funders to build houses quickly (Regan 2012). This is an example of how DLR results in the sacrifice of long-‐term sustainability for short-‐term results due to external economic and political pressures from the donor to spend the money. One can be critical of this pressure to produce housing quickly, as it is not to address the urgency to help those in need, but is about providing tangible results that can be broadcast in the donor countries as a statistic (Edmonds 2012, 447). Research has also found that approximately 90% of contracts were awarded to foreign agencies and contractors, who then subcontracted work to other foreign companies, instead of using local organisations, meaning most of the aid money eventually left Haiti (Sharkley 2013). This is economically unsustainable as it failed to stimulate the local economy and added another layer of administration costs. It can also be seen as a missed opportunity to empower local people. This is socially and culturally unsustainable as it can be seen as a lack of consideration for locals’ skills and knowledge, and has made Haitians feel like victims, rather than survivors, disenfranchised in their own recovery (Sontag 2012). In addition, the sole focus on physical reconstruction, means the international organisations withdraw upon completion, leaving the communities without an income, developed social network or support for the future (Edmonds 2012, 448). This can be seen in the 400% Project as the houses were not gifts, as owners who are mostly unemployed, were indebted with a five year mortgage with repayments of US$40 a month, when the average income is only US$33 a month (Kale, 2014). This undermines the sustainability of the projects and the effectiveness of the funding.
3
ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY 2015
Art, Architecture and Design, University of South Australia ODR is a less prevalent reconstruction process, based on the philosophy that reconstruction is ‘about lives, not just houses’ (Sykukrizal and Hafidz and Saute 2009, 9), where rebuilding communities is as important as rebuilding homes. ODR focuses on empowering local citizens by sharing skills, values and social capital. Empowerment is not only crucial in the physical rebuilding of disaster-‐stricken communities, but also in the psychological, cultural and societal sense. Through ODR, communities are given greater control over decisions regarding design, materials, use of funds, and contractors. ODR still involves foreign professionals who work with, not over, the communities, to provide support and technical assistance to ensure a standard of safety and quality are met. In this model the architect’s role is to promote design equity by supporting and guiding local communities by interpreting their design ideas and daily needs. Advantages of ODR are evident in UPLINK’s reconstruction of 3 500 housing in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, after the 2004 tsunami, which killed 250 000 people and displaced 500 000 of the region’s residents. UPLINK constructed 3 500 homes, 12 community centres and 1 mosque in two years with a budget of approximately US$22 million. UPLINK saw reconstruction as an opportunity to develop communities in the physical, environmental, economic, social and political sense (Aquilino 2011, 29). With the goal of empowerment UPLINK aimed to ensure the communities: “have access to welfare and resources; are politically aware; participate in decision-‐making (with government, across genders, and in both domestic and public domains); have the power to determine the interests and future of their community” (Sykukrizal and Hafidz and Saute 2009, 17). UPLINK approached reconstruction with a people-‐centred focus, locating their design headquarters in the villages to promote transparency, accessibility and participation. Their first building project was a community centre in 2006 which became a place for members of 26 different communities, who were previously strangers to each other, to develop a network, Jaringan Udeep Beusaree (JUB) (The Village Solidarity Network), which became UPLINK’s local counterpart. This community centre acted as a place for weekly meetings where problems, solutions and decisions would be discussed collectively, as well as a location for design workshops and training. Despite initial reluctance from male members of the community, UPLINK insisted that women be permitted to participate in the JUB and design process. This demonstrates how ODR can produce social capital and solidarity, making communities more socially sustainable and resilient in the long-‐term. UPLINK endeavoured to maximise community empowerment by providing citizens with choices and responsibility throughout the design and reconstruction process. Firstly, UPLINK set guidelines about easements and offsets, but allowed residents to choose the position of the houses. UPLINK’s architects then worked with local communities to design five modern, earthquake safe housing options with different floor plans, orientations, roofs and openings. UPLINK believed that traditional Acehnese wooden stilted houses (Fig. 6) were appropriate due to their climatic and seismic advantages, but the communities were opposed to them, regarding them as outdated, preferring “modern” masonry construction which is fatal in earthquakes.
Source: (Morad, 2014)
Figure 6. Vernacular Acehnese stilted wooden house Instead of enforcing stilted houses, UPLINK advocated for them by building pilot homes in villages and promoting their advantages through media, t-‐shirts, posters and meetings. Communities eventually realised that a stilted house (Fig. 7) would effectively provide double the floor area than grounded houses (Fig. 8).
Source: (Aquilino, 2011; 37)
Figure 6. UPLINK’s stilted house design, effectively providing double the floor area than a grounded house
4
ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY 2015
Art, Architecture and Design, University of South Australia
Source: (Aquilino, 2011; 37)
Figure 7. UPLINK’s grounded house design This method of convincing people was effective as it maintained respect for their opinions, and promoted understanding of why stilted houses were better, allowing them to make an informed decision. UPLINK gave owners the responsibility of finding the best deals for materials and contractors (Aquilino 2011, 35). This ensured the use of local suppliers, improving accountability while stimulating the economy. UPLINK also provided training in construction management, building, crafts, advocacy and alternative medicine (Sykukrizal and Hafidz and Saute 2009, 10). This education and training promotes independence, and enables owners to repair their homes in the future. UPLINK’s work in Banda Aceh illustrates that ODR has a strong commitment to local communities and is more focused on the long-‐term impacts of their projects on the local people, instead of foreign economic and political pressures. The empowerment provided through ODR helps restore people’s sense of belonging, identity, resilience and hope, assisting them to psychologically recover from the trauma caused by disaster. Through analysing the 400% Project in Haiti and UPLINK’s work in Banda Aceh it can be concluded that architects have the potential to promote social and cultural sustainability of reconstruction through involvement in ODR. DLR was found to be socially and culturally unsustainable as it rarely involves architects and local communities. It often results in identical homes that disregard vernacular architecture and therefore the communities’ cultural identity, traditional lifestyles, and availability of local resources and skills. DLR’s exclusion of local communities fails to encourage community empowerment and ownership, contrasting with ODR’s community centred approach. Providing local citizens with the chance to feel empowered is not only crucial to the physical rebuilding of disaster-‐stricken communities, but also helps recovery in a psychological, cultural and societal sense. It is suggested that the architect’s role is to provide support and guide local communities by interpreting their needs and facilitating their design ideas while still considering safety, environmental and logistic issues. Considering the advantages of ODR, it is evident that despite being more resource intensive and time consuming, it inevitably results in a built and social environment which is more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. Therefore it is recommended that reconstruction of rural Nepalese housing be approached using ODR to empower local citizens and effectively address the great variations in Nepalese vernacular architecture. These variations result from differences in climate, resource availability, ethnicities and cultural traditions, and cannot be effectively understood by outsiders in the context of disaster response.
REFERENCES
Aquilino, Marie Jeannine. (2011) Beyond Shelter: Architecture for Crisis. Thames & Hudson: London Audefroy, Joel F. 2011. "Haiti: Post-‐earthquake Lessons Learned from Traditional Construction." Environment and Urbanization 23, no. 2: 447-‐62. Accessed August 15, 2015. Doi: 10.1177/0956247811418736 Bodach, Susanne, Werner Lang, and Johannes Hamhaber. 2014 "Climate Responsive Building Design Strategies of Vernacular Architecture in Nepal." Energy and Buildings 8, no.1: 227-‐42. Accessed August 15, 2015. Doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.0220378-‐ 788 Chiu, Rebecca L. H. 2006. "Socio-‐cultural Sustainability of Housing: A Conceptual Exploration." Housing, Theory and Society 21, no.2 : 65-‐76. Accessed August 15, 2015. Doi: 10.1080/14036090410014999 Edmonds, Kevin. 2012. "Beyond Good Intentions: The Structural Limitations of NGOs in Haiti." Critical Sociology 39, no. 3: 439-‐52. Accessed September 1, 2015. Doi: 10.1177/0896920512437053 Lee, Alexandra-‐Jayeun. 2013 "Casting an Architectural Lens on Disaster Reconstruction." Disaster Prevention and Management 22, no. 5: 480-‐90. Accessed September 2, 2015. Doi: 10.1108/DPM-‐10-‐2013-‐0178. Kale Je, Ayiti. 2014 "Questions about the Reconstruction's Housing projects." Haiti Grassroots Watch, January 8. Accessed September 28, 2015. http://haitigrassrootswatch.squarespace.com/haiti-‐grassroots-‐watch-‐engli/2014/1/8/questions-‐about-‐the-‐ reconstructions-‐housing-‐projects.html Regan, Jane. 2012. "Haiti: Housing Exposition Exposes Waste, Cynicism." The Huffington Post, October 4. Accessed September 24, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-‐regan/haiti-‐housing-‐exposition-‐_b_1911898.html?ir=Australia Sharkley, Brielle. 2013. "Haiti Continues to Struggle Three Years After the Earthquake." Council on Hemispheric Affairs, January 18. Accessed August 28, 2015. http://www.coha.org/haiti-‐continues-‐to-‐struggle-‐three-‐years-‐after-‐the-‐earthquake/. Sontag, Deborah. 2012. "Rebuilding in Haiti Lags After Billions in Post-‐Quake Aid." New York Times, December 23. Accessed August 28, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/world/americas/in-‐aiding-‐quake-‐battered-‐haiti-‐lofty-‐hopes-‐and-‐hard-‐
5
ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY 2015
Art, Architecture and Design, University of South Australia truths.html?_r=0 Syukrizal, Ade and Hafidz, Wardah and Sauter, Gabriela. 2009. “Reconstructing life after the tsunami: the work of Uplink Banda Aceh in Indonesia”, International Institute for Environment and Development, London: 2-‐18.
IMAGES Figure 1. Adapted from Gurang, Harka. 2006. “Ethnographic map” in Nepal Atlas of Ethnic & Caste Groups. Lalitpur: National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities, 50. Figure 2. Adapted from "Nepal's Physiographical Regions." 2014. Earth Education Expedition. http://lt.umn.edu/earthducation/expedition6/climate/. Figure 3. Pearson, Chris. 2013. "Local Architecture, Western Terai, Nepal." Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/37656204@N08/3762355101. Figure 4. “Typical attached Tamang house” in Bodach, Susanne, Werner Lang, and Johannes Hamhaber. 2014 "Climate Responsive Building Design Strategies of Vernacular Architecture in Nepal." Energy and Buildings 8: 239. Figure 5. Schindler Saint-‐Val, Marc. 2014. "400% Housing Project." Haiti Grassroots Watch. http://haitigrassrootswatch.squarespace.com/haiti-‐grassroots-‐watch-‐engli/2014/1/8/questions-‐about-‐the-‐reconstructions-‐housing-‐ projects.html. Figure 6. Morad, Ahmad F. 2014. "Rumoh Aceh Traditional stilted house." Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/adaduitokla/14386051473/in/photolist-‐hvCSEs-‐hvDN7X-‐hvCQcw-‐hvC4a8-‐hvC1nz-‐hvDCuk-‐hvDy5t-‐ hvBPEc-‐hvCVXQ-‐hvCUPC-‐hvDKmr-‐nVfgUe-‐hvCeb1-‐hvBTCT-‐5f1KGs-‐xnxaLU-‐nB5BVv-‐nTk89E-‐nAYgsD-‐nB5BR2-‐nAYgFp-‐nAYkV5-‐nTk8eu-‐ vLoHnA. Figure 7. “New Stilted houses in the village of Lam Isek” in Aquilino, Marie Jeannine. 2011. “Learning from Aceh’ in Beyond Shelter: Architecture for Crisis. London: Thames & Hudson ; 37. Figure 8. “Mud brick landed house” in Aquilino, Marie Jeannine. 2011. “Learning from Aceh’ in Beyond Shelter: Architecture for Crisis. Thames & Hudson: London ; 37.
FURTHER READING Chang, Yan, Suzanne Wilkinson, Regan Potangaroa, and Erica Seville. 2010. "Donor-‐driven Resource Procurement for Post-‐disaster Reconstruction: Constraints and Actions." Habitat International 35, no.2: 199-‐205. Doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.08.003 Daly, Patrick, and Caroline Brassard. 2011. "Aid Accountability and Participatory Approaches in Post-‐Disaster Housing Reconstruction 1" Asian Journal of Social Science 39, no.4: 508-‐33. Doi: 10.1163/156853111X597305 Davidson, Colin H., Cassidy Johnson, Gonzalo Lizarralde, Nese Dikmen, and Alicia Sliwinski. 2007. "Truths and Myths about Community Participation in Post-‐disaster Housing Projects." Habitat International 31, no. 1: 100-‐15. Doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.08.003 Donovan, Jenny. 2013. Designing to Heal. CSIRO Publishing : Collingwood, Victoria. Katz, Jonathan. 2013. The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to save Haiti and Left behind a Disaster. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Lyons, Michal. 2009. "Building Back Better: The Large-‐scale Impact of Small-‐scale Approaches to Reconstruction." World Development 37, no. 2: 385-‐98. Doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.006 McEntire, David. 1999. "Issues in Disaster Relief: Progress, Perpetual Problems and Prospective Solutions." Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 8, no. 5 : 351-‐61. Norris, Fran H., Susan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum. Karen F. Wyche, and Rose L. Pfefferbaum. 2007. "Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness." American Journal of Community Psychology Am J Community Psychology, 127-‐50. Doi: 10.1007/s10464-‐007-‐9156-‐6 Sinclair, Cameron. 2006. Design like You Give a Damn. Abrams: New York, NY.
6