Earthbag as Alternative Building Technology for Nepal

Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2019-SummerPeer Reviewed

Year: 2019 Month: May Volume: 6ISSN: 2350-8914 (Online), 2350-8906 (Print)

Earthbag as Alternative Building Technology for Nepal

Rashmita Maharjan a, Sushil Bahadur Bajracharya b

a, b Department of Architecture, Pulchowk Campus, IOE, Tribhuvan University, NepalCorresponding Email: a [email protected], b sushil [email protected]

AbstractEarthbag technology is the sustainable and cost effective method for using ordinary soil to create disasterresistant structures of superior strength and durability. It builds safe, appealing, and cost effective structuresout of ordinary soil. As it is stronger, cheaper, and less harmful to the environment compared to conventionalbuildings constructed by brick and cement, it is generally considered the most promising of sustainablebuilding techniques. Though it has been used for long time of period, constructing permanent structurewith this technology is a new concept to the world. In case of Nepal, this technology got famous only after2015 earthquake. Nepal Government has approved earthbag technology as one of the model house forreconstruction and also included in its DUDBC catalogue volume II in 2017. People are not aware about thistechnology. Research related to the environmental aspect and durability of earthbag buildings had been doneby many. There is also some research done related to cost of earthbag buildings, but there is limited researchdone regarding the social aspect of these types of buildings. Rural poor of Nepal are not being able to affordproper shelter for themselves. They are either staying in temporary structure or constructing houses withoutany guidance. Even though earthbag buildings are environmentally friendly and could withstand naturaldisaster like earthquake and flood, people do not prefer it. Nepalese people get highly influence by society andNepalese society being conservative and reserved, they find it hard to accept new change, be it new culture ortechnology. Earthbag technology being new to the society it is important to know about its social aspects andacceptance level, for it to succeeded. This research paper study about the socio economic impacts of earthbagbuildings and also identifies the factor affecting its acceptance in society. For this, Bolgaun, Sindupalchowkand Chitre, Kakani have been selected as case area. Earthbag buildings have been studied through differentparameters of social and economic dimensions. The study is limited to residential buildings.

KeywordsEarthbag Buildings, Socioeconomic aspects, Social Acceptance, Rural Poor

1. Introduction

Earthbag technology is the sustainable and costeffective method for using ordinary soil to createdisaster-resistant structures of superior strength anddurability. It builds safe, appealing, and cost-effectivestructures out of ordinary soil. As it is stronger,cheaper, and less harmful to the environmentcompared to conventional buildings constructed bybrick and cement, it is generally considered the mostpromising of sustainable building techniques [1].Earthbag has been in used since centuries ago.Originally earthbags were used for flood control andmilitary bunkers because they are easy to transport towhere they need to be used, fast to assemble,inexpensive and effective at their task of warding offboth water and bullets. [2] The use of sandbags has

generally been associated with the construction oftemporary structures or barriers. Using sandbags toactually construct houses or permanent structures hasbeen a relatively recent invention. During 1976, theGerman professor Gernot Minke, after manyexperiment, developed the technique of using bagsfilled with pumice to erect walls. His first successfulexperiment was with cor belled dome shapes (aninverted catenary) which was obtained with the aid ofa rotating vertical template mounted at the center ofthe structure. But the technology of constructingpermanent structure out of earthbag, was popularizedby the Iranian-born American based architect namedNader Khalili. He named his technology super adobetechnology where the bags are filled with earth of thesite, overlapping one another connecting by barbedwire, to give consistency to the structures.

Pages: 751 – 763


It was stated that there were 55 earthbag buildingsconstructed in Nepal before earthquake hit Nepal inApril 2015. All 55 buildings, survived the 7.8magnitude earthquake with no structuraldamage.iNGOS and NGOs, such as Good EarthGlobal, Steadfast Nepal and First Steps Himalayahave been implementing the earthbag technique tobuild homes and schools since the 2015 earthquake.They are working in different parts of Nepal,especially in remote areas. They are helping thosepeople rebuilt their homes who cannot afford to do bythemselves. These organizations collect funds and askfor volunteers from all around the world. After almosttwo-year of struggle, Good Earth recently managed tomake Nepal the first country in the world to officiallyapprove of earthbag technology and adopt it as a safeand recommended building technique.

1.1 Problem Statement

On April 25 2015, Nepal was struck by a7.8-magnitude earthquake, followed by a7.3-magnitude earthquake on May 12, 2015, killing intotal nearly 9000 people and injuring 22,400. About800,000 houses were damaged or destroyed andbrought 8 Million people to the state of beinghomeless Out of 75 districts, 31 were most affected,and out of that number, 14 districts were severelyaffected. Among all the buildings that had beendamaged, most of building lies in remote areas wherethe accessibility is difficult. Some of the areas takesdays to reach by road and some areas cannot bereached even through vehicles. Reconstructingbuildings with modern technology and materialswould be expensive in these remote areas as theterrain lands make transporting materials a tough andexpensive task. Earthquake has triggered landslide inmany affected area resulting accessibility to affectareas more difficult.

These facts are generally affecting the rural poor, whocannot afford proper shelter. They are left with noother choice. Either they live in temporary structuresor construct their houses with traditional technologywithout earthquake resistant techniques, holding backin materials, labors and design, to save money. Dueto these kind of negligence in construction, buildingstend to degrades quickly even in best of time and whenanother disaster strikes they won’t stand a chance tosurvive. It will be endless cycle of constructing andreconstructing the affected buildings if reconstructionis not done in sustainable way.

For constructing strong, earthquake resistant building,conventional technology is not only the option. Thistechnology is way more harmful for environment.Building materials used in conventional buildings likecement and brick are toxic to the environment. Fromthe phase of raw material extraction to the demolitionphase, these materials bring negative effect onenvironment. Conventional buildings are notconstructed with consideration of climate of the area.The materials used in these buildings are not climaticresponsive. In summer season, they are hot and inwinter they are cold. This cause the extra use of activeenergy to maintain thermal comfort within thebuilding during whole operational phase. Therefore, itshows that the ongoing reconstruction method is notsustainable. To solve this problem, differentconstruction technologies should be introduced topeople which can be afforded by all families, areenvironment friendly and disaster resistant. Earthbagtechnology is one of these alternative buildingtechnology. It is environment friendly as it usagelimited amount of factory made building materials. Itis affordable as it uses locally available materials andsaves transportation expenses, as it doesn’t requiremachine and equipment to construct and locallyavailable labors can be used.

1.2 Research objective

1. Main objectiveThe general objective of this research is tostudy feasibility of earthbag building throughsocioeconomic aspect.

2. Specific objective• To know about the present situation of

earthbag buildings that have beenconstructed in Nepal.

• To identify the factors that are affectingsocial acceptance of earthbag technologyin case of Nepal.

1.3 Limitation

• The research is based on Specific case. Caseareas for this research is the residentialcommunity where Earthbag buildings coexistwith other buildings. Schools or any kind ofpublic buildings constructed by Earthbagtechnology is not included in study.

752

Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2019-Summer

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

• The study is focused on socioeconomic aspectof the Earthbag buildings, specially focusing onits social acceptance.

2. Methodology

The objective of this research is to do feasibility studyof earthbag building through socio-economic aspect.This research is done to check whether the earthbagbuildings constructed in Nepal are socially andeconomically sustainable so that it can be used as oneof the alternative technology. For this, the vital sourceof knowledge accumulation is through the localinhabitants who are actually residing in the case area.The information gained through discussions withfocus group participant, observation and unstructuredquestionnaire survey. The research investigates aboutthe social and economic sustainability of earthbagbuildings and local knowledge and understanding ofpeople living in Case area. Thus, the research isqualitative. Qualitative data is gathered throughindividual interviews, semi-structured andunstructured questions.

Ontology for this research is earthbag buildings arenot accepted by society even though it has many

advantages. It has less negative impacts onenvironment and is comparatively less expensive thancontemporary building, making it affordable to everyincome group. The buildings are approved byGovernment of Nepal and proven to be strong enoughto withstand earthquake and flood but still the numberof people willing to construct their house with thistechnology is less. The source of information for thisresearch are the people of the case areas and literaturestudies done in this particular topic. As people ofsociety and their perceptive were included in thisresearch, it goes with constructivist paradigm.Constructivists claim that truth is relative and that it isdependent on one’s perspective. One of theadvantages of this approach is the close collaborationbetween the researcher and the participant, whileencouraging the participants to tell their stories. Theresearch approach was inductive because the datawere collected to make an analysis of case area. Theprimary data was collected in field through in depthsemi structured interviews, direct observation,participant observation, questionnaire and focus groupdiscussions. Photography, audio recording and fieldnotes were used as tools.

753


2.1 Parameters of study

Figure no. 2 and 3 shows the list of social andeconomic parameter identified.

Figure 2: Social Parameters [3]

Figure 3: Economic Parameters [3]

2.2 Key informant Stakeholder Identification

• Locals living in earthbag building

• Locals not living in earthbag building but aroundone

• Organizations working in earthbag buildings

– Er. Roshan K. Jha (Managing Director ofGood earth Nepal)

– DN Dhital (Project Manager of Good earthNepal)

• Local Government

• Government of Nepal

• NRA and DUDBC

• Engineers and architects

• Local Labors

• International Volunteers and national volunteers

• International and national Donors

3. Case Area

In order to fulfill the defined objective, the study areahas to be chosen in such a place where the communityexists which has ample number of earthbag buildingsalong with other types of buildings. The study ofsocial and economic aspects of earthbag buildings hasto be done in a society or community where familieswho stay in earthbag buildings and families who stayin other types of buildings co-exist. There are fewnumbers of earthbag buildings constructed in Nepaland among them number of schools (public buildings)are high. Even if residential buildings are constructed,there is one or two earthbag buildings in village.Therefore, Bolgaun Village and Chite Village hasbeen chosen for the case area for this research. Thereare 11 earthbag buildings in Bolgaun Village and 6 inChitre Village.

3.1 Bolgaun,Sindupalchowk

Bolgaun is a small village situated in PachpokhariThangpal Gaupalika in Sindupalchowk. Thegaupalika covers area of 436 km2 and has density of48.08/km2 according to 2011 Central Bureau ofStatistics Nepal. The village is a Tamang communitywhere Sonar Loshar, Maghe Sankranti, Dashin andTihar are celebrated as their main festivals. Thevillage is approx. 54 Km. away from Kathmandu andapprox. 25 Km. away from Melamchi. It takes 5 to 6hours in bus to reach Baruwa and from there 2 hoursof walking to reach Bolgaun Village. There is no anyaccess through public transportation in the village. Itlies in the high level of Sindupalchowk, thereforewinter last long in this village and snowfall occurs

754


during winter season. The people in this villagedepends upon agriculture and animal husbandry.

Sindhupalchowk is one of the worst-affected districtsas a result of the earthquake that took place on the25th April. While the initial epicenter of theearthquake was in Gorkha district, the highestmagnitude (6.7) aftershock took place inSindupalchowk district 17km south of Kadari . As forBolgaun Village, whole village has been destroyed in2015 Earthquake. Many people lost their lives andmany properties were damaged. The village had goneon huge loss. Still after 4 years the disaster struck,families are staying in temporary structure as theycannot afford proper shelter. Nimbin Health andWelfare Association from Australia with the help ofGood Earth Nepal constructed 11 residential buildingswith earthbag technology. These 11 buildings havebeen scattered in the village along with otherresidential buildings.

The settlements of the Bolgaun village has similarcharacteristic to other Tamang Village settling in coldareas of Nepal. It is compactly built settlement withstone paved roads. Several houses are typicallyattached to each other reducing the exterior wallsurface exposed to the coldness. Traditional houseshave an elongated form, oriented towards the sun toenhance solar gains. The buildings are of two storeys.The upper storey is used for storage of grain and otherhousehold possessions, while the elevated groundfloor is used as a kitchen, dining place, and bedroom.The traditional buildings in this village have usually abalcony on the first floor and a veranda beneath it infront of the main entrance. In all houses the openhearth, normally located in the center of the kitchen.It plays an important role because it is not only usedfor cooking. It is also the only comfortably warmplace where the family members can sit during coldernights and in the winter season. The porch located atthe entry to a Tamang house also serves as a protectedsemi-open space. These semi-open spaces providecomfortable places. Walls are made of locallyavailable stones; stonework is either dry or boundtogether with basic mortar made of soft clayed earth.In Tamang houses the outer walls are made of drystonework while the entry facade of the first floor ismade of timber. Inner walls of main living spaces areoften planked with timber lathes. No openings areplaced in the back side of the houses which are notsun-faced and for effective exposure to the winter sun;openings are placed along the south east face of the

house. The size of openings is generally small forpreventing cold wind to enter the house. [4]

Table 1: Demographic data of People living inEarthbag Building in Bolgaun

SN Duration Occupation Members

1 2 yearsLabor(EarthbagBuilding) 3

2 4 months - 23 2 years Agriculture 24 1.5 years - 25 2 years Remittance 16 1.5 years Labors/Agriculture 37 1 year Agriculture 28 1 year - 19 1 year Remittance/Labors 610 Incomplete Labors 211 1 year Agriculture 3

Figure 4: Earthbag Buildings in Bolgaun

3.2 Chitre,Kakani

Chitre is a small village situated in Kakani Gaupalika(Ward no.4) in Nuwakot District. Kakani Gaupalikacovers 88 km2 and had density of 301.4/km2 accordingto 2011 Central Bureau of Statistics Nepal. The villageis a Tamang community celebrating losar, Dashin andTihar as their main festivals. It is approx. 30Km. awayfrom Kathmandu. There is no direct access of publicvehicles to the village. It takes 2 to 3 hours travel inbus to reach Kaulekhana and 1 hours of walking fromKaulekhana to the village. Chitre village is known forstrawberry and poultry farming. Kakani is flourishingin tourism sectors as well. The picnic spots and trout isfamous among the tourist. The weather of this villageis similar to Kathmandu. It is cold in winter and hot insummer in Kakani.

Nuwakot district is another district that sufferedextensive damage in 2015 Earthquake of Nepal.

755


Initial estimates based on Government data ofdamaged buildings in the affected districts, suggestedthat 51% of the population of Nuwakot have beenaffected by the earthquake. According to Governmentestimates from 12 May, 30,000 buildings weredestroyed in the earthquake and 15,000 are partlydamaged. Highly affected were the northeast VDC ofthe district where reportedly all infrastructure andhouses are destroyed. Chitre village has been highlyaffected by 2015 earthquake resulting many people tostay in temporary structure. Lamas has helped villagein reconstruction but Good Earth Nepal has alsohelped to construct 6 Earthbag Buildings in thevillage. Settlements in this village have rather ofscattered and dispersed character. Houses are placedon the hill terrace along the slope with the rectangularshape whose longer facade faces towards the south,south-east or south-west. The traditional buildings areof two storeys with pitch roof. The ground floor ismain living area which is also open space designatedfor activities like cooking, dinning meeting andworshiping.The first floor is primarily used as granaryand storage for family’s valuables and, possibly, asbedroom if the space in ground floor is not sufficientfor all family members. The wall is mostlyconstructed of locally available stone with clay andearth as main mortar. The openings are mainlysituated at the long side of house and the back wallsoften have no openings. [4]

Figure 5: Earthbag Buildings in Chitre

Table 2: Demographic data of People living inEarthbag Building in Chitre

SN Duration Occupation1 1.5 years Agriculture2 1.5 years Agriculture3 1 years Agriculture4 Incomplete -5 1 years Labor(Earthbag Building)6 Not rebuild -

4. Findings, Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Bolgaun Village

The village was approached by organization (Goodearth Nepal) with propose to construct 22 earthbagbuildings in the village as support to earthquakevictims. Through many community base meetings anddiscussion, they selected the families to get support.Their first priority was those families who don’t havegovernment support and single member household.The villagers had no idea about earthbag buildingsbefore good earth Nepal introduced it to them. Theywere unsure about this construction technology. Asbuildings were being constructed villagers came toknow more about earthbag technology. Out of 22buildings, only 11 were constructed because few ofthem refuse to construct their house with earthbag andother lost their land in road expansion

4.1.1 Social Aspects

1. CulturalEarthbag technology being new approach, itdoesn’t continue the legacy of traditionalbuilding of Bolgaun Village. As explainedabove, traditional buildings were of 2 storeysconstructed using locally available stone andclay and earth mortar and wood as supportingmembers. Ground floor was used for cooking,dinning and bedrooms whereas upper floorwere used for storage. As the constructedearthbag buildings are single storey with singleroom, same cultural of space division is notmaintained. The shape of building isrectangular and the orientation is same astraditional buildings but the proportion of thebuilding were not proper as compare totraditional building of the village. Pitch roofhave been used in earthbag buildings but theslope is not maintained as in traditionalbuildings. Traditional buildings have openhearth in ground floor. The fire in hearth is notused for cooking but also used to heat up theroom during winter. Family members gatheraround the hearth at evening. They cook andchit chats together as a family; this time act assocializing time for family. Since burning fireinside the earthbag is not allowed, this cultureof socializing with own family has beendiscouraged. This is also one of the reasonswhy some families are not living in earthbag

756


building but temporary structure adjoined to itwhere they can burn fire and socialize withfamily members.

2. Health and ComfortThe materials used for constructing earthbagbuildings are environment friendly and natural.These types of buildings use limited amount offactory made materials like polythene bags,cements and rods, therefore there is less chanceof indoor air contamination. The indoor airquality is maintained through natural crossventilation as shown in figure 6. But as Bolgaunis cold area, the residents rarely open windows.To maintain good indoor air quality, burningfirewood inside the building is not allowed. Thethermal insulation of earthbag building is goodas its thermal mass is high. For single room, 2nos. of windows and a door allows enoughdaylight inside the buildings. As mentionedabove windows are not opened due to coldclimate, daylight through door are only beingused. Still they don’t have to use artificiallighting in daytime.

Figure 6: Provision of Cross Ventilation in Building

3. SafetyThe strength of earthbag building is increasedby using rebar, buttresses and lintel band whichhelps building to resist the force fromearthquake. Residents feel safe to stay in thebuilding. The earthbag building are resistant toearthquake, safe from flood and fire.Maintenance have not been required still thestudy time. The building does not requiredmaintenance frequently. Earthbag technology issimple to construct. It doesn’t require special

machine or equipment. Due to this, safety ofworkers is maintained. The relationshipbetween owner, contractor and workers weregood. As there were international volunteersworking in this project, local people got to learnnew things from them and volunteers gotchance to learn new cultural of Bolgaun Village.The figure 7 represents the opinion of 11families who are living in earthbag buildingsregarding the safety of buildings. It shows thatpercentage of people believing that earthbagbuilding are safe from earthquake are highwhere as they were not sure about safety for fireand other hazards. Literature has shown thatearthbag building is safe from fire and flood.But the graph shows that people are unawareabout it.

Figure 7: People’s opinion on safety of building

4. Aesthetics quality of building andfunctionalityAll 11 houses are of singled room with samesize of room (10’*13’). While designing andplanning the house local’s opinions were notincluded. Their requirement of spaces is notincorporated in design. They were not evenasked for requirement of space they want intheir own house. Rebuilding local’s houseswere their first priority at that time. As theywere living in temporary structure, for them toconstruct a permanent house was huge thing.Therefore, locals had no problem with the spacemanagement in earthbag buildings duringdesigning phase. As they are living in thebuilding now, families having more than twofamily members don’t have enough space.Therefore, they have either added the storey orconstructed another building. Out of 11

757


families, 2 families have added storey withlightweight materials, 3 families haveconstructed permanent structure using differenttechnology rather than earthbag technology and4 families have constructed temporary structurefor kitchen and store. For those families whohave not extended living space have either oneor two family members. As per their culture,they have high respect towards their guests.Some families are using earthbag building forguests and they themselves are living intemporary structures adjoined to earthbag. Asseen in figure , the number of people unsatisfiedwith the plan of earthbag building is higher thanothers. This shows that the existing earthbagbuilding does not fulfill the space requirementsof residents and culturally not sustainable.

Figure 8: Addition of space

4.1.2 Economic Aspects

1. AffordabilityFor constructing earthbag buildings in Bolgaun,almost all materials had been provided by GoodEarth Nepal. The expenses people had to bearwere for wood for openings and roofs. Theseexpenses range from Rs. 60,000 to Rs.1,00,000. The expenses vary according to the useof wood for openings and roof. Locallyavailable materials were used like stone, earthand wood and materials from previous housewere also used which decreased price ofbuilding materials. The nearest market forbuilding materials is Melamchi which is approx.30 km away from village. Transportation cost iscomparatively high because of distance. Thereis still continuation of perma and volunteers

were available through good earth Nepal. So,Labor charges were comparatively lesser. Laborcost at the time of construction were Rs.350-400 per person per day but now it has beenincreased to Rs. 600 to Rs. 800. Labours werereadily available at the time of construction butnow labours are not easily available. There areno any consult or contractor that have technicalknowledge about construction method ofearthbag building. Therefore, if people have toconstruct earthbag building at present time, itseems difficult. Time of construction varyaccording to the availability of labors since thistechnology is labor driven. Usually it took 5 to6 weeks to complete standard size earthbagbuildings with 4 to 5 labors. When earthbagbuildings were constructed in this village, itwas not included in DUDBC Catalogue, sopeople didn’t get governmental support. Since2017 the governmental supports (Rs. 3, 00,000)is provided to earthquake victim if earthbagbuilding is constructed as per the guidelinesprovided. But people in this village are stillunaware of it.

2. Operational CostEarthbag walls exhibit high levels of thermalmass, which is the measure of a material’sability to absorb, store and transfer heat. Theroom temperature of earthbag building inBolgaun village tends to increase duringsummer season because CGI sheet is used asroof. Thin layer of CGI sheet won’t be able tostop heat to transfer into the building for longperiod of time. All 11 buildings have CGI sheetroof but some families have used wood as falsecelling which protect from heat in summer andcold during winter season. They have not usedactive energy to maintain cool environmentinside the room during summer. As the villageget cold in winter, extra energy in form offirewood is used to maintain thermal comfortinside the building. The firewood is collectedfrom community forest. Earthbag buildings areto be plastered as soon as wall is constructedbecause when polypropylene bags are exposedsun and rain frequently, it gets damaged and thestrength of building is decreased. All 11buildings are cement plastered for protection.Maintenance has not been required till date. So,no any cost is spent in maintenance.

758


3. Recovery CostThe most material used like earth, stone andwood are recyclable. Even if the building isdemolished these materials can be used forconstructing another building. As the bindingmaterial is barbed wire, it is easy to demolishthe building. No any equipment or dynamitewill be required.

4.2 Chitre Village

Chitre Village was not severely damaged by Bolgaunvillage. Good earth Nepal helped one family toconstruct the earthbag building as a model house.Then interested families contacted Good earth Nepal.Like in Bolgaun, for selecting the families they didn’tgo through community base meetings and discussion.The villagers had no idea about earthbag buildingsbefore good earth Nepal introduced it to them. Theywere unsure about this construction technology. Asbuildings were being constructed villagers came toknow more about earthbag technology. 6 earthbagbuildings were constructed almost 3 years back butbecause they did not plaster as soon as the wall wasconstructed 4 buildings were damaged. After that only3 houses were reconstructed.

4.2.1 Social Aspects

1. CulturalThe earthbag building constructed in Chitredoesn’t address the culture value of the place.The size and shape of the building is same toearthbag building constructed in Chitre whereastraditional buildings in Chitre are totallydifferent. Traditional buildings as seen in figure,were of 2 storeys constructed using locallyavailable stone and mud with wood assupporting members, with balcony in first floorand projected pidi in ground floor. As theconstructed earthbag buildings are single storeywith single room, appearance of earthbagbuilding is totally different from traditionalbuilding. The shape of building is rectangularand has pitch roof as in traditional building butthe proportion of the building were not properas compare to traditional building of the village.There are buildings where storey is added withlightweight material and tried to bring back theessence of traditional building but they could

not maintain the proportion of building.

2. Health and ComfortAs natural building materials where used likeearth, it is environmental friend and doesn’taffect the health of people living in the building.Factory made material as polythene bags,cements and rods, are less comparison toconventional building. The dominant buildingmaterial is earth which is good for health ofpeople. The indoor air quality is maintainedthrough natural cross ventilation as in earthbagbuilding of Bolagaun. The thermal insulation ofearthbag building is good as thermal mass ofearth is high. But since CGI sheets have beenused for roof, heat transfer rate is increased.Therefore, they feel hot in summer season andcold in winter. The gap between roof and wallis not closed properly. During winter seasoncold air enters the building through these gapand during windy season all dirt are carriedinside the building through the gap. Thedaylight is sufficient through 2 nos. of windowsand door. Roof are projected which act asshading device.

3. SafetyLikewise in case of Bolgaun, for strengtheningthe building rebar, buttresses and lintel band areused. The earthbag building is resistant toearthquake, safe from flood and fire. They arefacing problem from rats. As the building ismade of earth, it is easier for rats to make holethrough the wall and enter the building. ratsalso enter through the gap between wall androof. As the earthbag buildings are easy toconstruct and doesn’t require heavy equipmentand special machines, safety of workers ismaintained during construction period.

4. Aesthetics quality of building andfunctionalityThe earthbag buildings constructed in thisvillage are of same size (10’*13’). People’sopinion and requirement were not consideredwhile designing the building. Alteration indesign of building was not allowed. Thefamilies living in earthbag building haveanother house for their other family members.A husband and wife is only using earthbagbuilding as their bedroom whereas their

759


parent’s bedroom and kitchen and otherfunctional spaces are in another building. Allbuilding owner having joint family have anotherhouse. This shows that the single roomearthbag building doesn’t fulfill the spacerequirement of the joint family

4.2.2 Economic Aspects

1. AffordabilityEarthbag buildings were constructed insupervision of Good earth Nepal. The supportthey provided were in material was polythenebags and barber wire. They helped to erect thewall. Other materials for openings, roof andfinishing were to be bear by owner themselves.As finishing were left up to owner, they didn’tplaster the wall in time as they cannot afford.Because of this, wall was damaged and out of 6buildings, 4 had demolition and rebuild. Thiscaused their expenses to increase. Theseexpenses range from Rs. 80,000 to Rs.1,50,000.The expenses vary according to the use of woodfor openings and roof and according to additionof storey. Locally available materials were usedlike stone, earth and wood and materials fromprevious house were also used which decreasedprice of building materials. The nearest marketfor building materials is Kathmandu which isapprox. 30 km away from village.Transportation cost is comparatively highbecause of distance. There is still continuationof perma tradition in the village. Somevolunteers were available through Good earthNepal. Due to this Labor charges werecomparatively lesser. Labor cost from perma isRs.1000 per day per person whereas if laborsfrom outside the village is used the charge is Rs.1500 per day per person. Labors were readilyavailable at the time of construction. But theskilled labors are gradually decreasing. As canbe seen in buildings, the finishing works are notgood. There are no any consult or contractorthat have technical knowledge aboutconstruction method of earthbag buildingwithin the village. But Kathmandu is not farfrom Chitre. If they want to construct earthbagbuilding in present time they can contact thesupervisor easily. Time of construction varyaccording to the availability of labors since thistechnology is labor driven. Usually it took 5 to

6 weeks to complete standard size earthbagbuildings with 4 to 5 labors. When earthbagbuildings were constructed in this village, itwas not included in DUDBC Catalogue, sopeople didn’t get governmental support. Since2017 the governmental supports (Rs. 3,00,000)is provided to earthquake victim if earthbagbuilding is constructed as per the guidelinesprovided. But people in this village are stillunaware of it.

2. Operational CostEven though it gets hot in summer and cold inwinter, they have not used extra energy tomaintain comfort level. During winter season,they do burn firewood for heat but as they arenot allowed to burn it inside the building.people didn’t had knowledge that earthbagshould be plaster as soon as the erection of wallis finished for it to be not affected by weather.they didn’t plaster on time and 4 earthbagbuilding had to rebuild again. Other than that,maintenance is not required.

3. Recovery CostThe most material used like earth, stone andwood are recyclable. Even if the building isdemolished these materials can be used forconstructing another building. As the bindingmaterial is barbed wire, it is easy to demolishthe building. No any equipment or dynamitewill be required.

4.3 Social Acceptance

1. New technologyAny new technology or innovation or any newthing in the market will not be accepted bypeople over the night. People believe what theysee. In case of Bolgaun village, duringearthquake, almost all buildings were eithertotally demolished or damaged. Only onebuilding seen in figure 9 which wasconstruction in frame structure was standingstill. That gave an impression to the people thatframe structure can withstand earthquake.Therefore, post-earthquake scenario isdrastically changed from that of pre earthquakeseen in figure 10. People started to constructbuilding with concert pillars and brick or stone

760


Figure 9: R.C.C. building not damage in Earthquake

Figure 10: Post earthquake scenario of Village

infill. Even though they have to pay double theprice for building material as transportationcharge is high, they preferred to construct theirbuilding in same technology. The case issimilar to Chitre village too. They have seenold traditional building being demolished infront of their eyes during earthquake whereasR.C.C. frame structure building surviving theearthquake. But they could not understand thefactor that traditional buildings have beensurviving since 100 of years but R.C.C.buildings are around few years. Earthbag beingnew to people, they hesitate to accept it. Theyare unsure about the technology even thoughearthbag is proved to be one of the promisingsustainable building.

2. AwarenessEarthbag technology may have internationalrecognition but rural area of Nepal is stillunaware about the earthbag building. In case of

both the village, people were not aware ofearthbag building. They came to know aboutearthbag buildings only after the organizationteam had introduced them. They had smallworkshop about how the buildings would beconstructed from earth. Even when explained,people didn’t understand the mechanism oftechnology. Their first question would alwaysbe the related to possibility of erecting buildingsimply with earth and bag. Therefore, firsthouse act as model house for the village. In thisfirst project, people get to know about theprocess of constructing earthbag building stepby step. It is important for any new technologyto be known by people.

3. ‘Pakki Ghar’Pakki ghar means frame structure building ofconcrete pillars with brick or stone infill.Everyone dream of having pakki ghar. If youhave a pakki ghar, your standard in society

761


automatically get high. This is how society hasbeen working in Nepal. If to be quoted one ofthe local of Bolgaun words, “Everyone wantspakki ghar. They construct them even if theyhave to take loans and be in debt for lifetime. “In Bolgaun village, people who have earthbagbuilding have also constructed another buildingwhich is not of earthbag (Figure 11). It wouldhave been easier for them to construct earthbagbuilding adjoining the existing one. But as theysaid, they have one mato ghar and now theywant one pakki ghar.

4. Flexibility in designAll the earthbag buildings that have beenconstructed for residential purpose are ofsimilar size and shape. The buildings are singleroomed and are of size 10’*13’. Even peoplewants to change the plan of building they werenot allowed. As earthbag buildings dependsupon buttress, even to add a room buttress hasto be added. For adding additional opening too,buttress has to be added. Additional floorscannot be added without proper structural studyof buildings. People who have not chosenearthbag technology for reconstruction havemain problem with the flexibility in design. Asthey have seen, the earthbag buildingsconstructed in their village are single roomedwhere floor cannot be added. They foundearthbag buildings less spacious and for familyhaving many family members single roomedbuilding is not enough.

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Conclusion

The objective of the research is to know about thesocial and economic aspect of the earthbag buildings.As explained above, social sustainability of earthbagbuilding in term of culture and aesthetics quality ofbuilding and functionality is not maintained. Thecultural value of traditional building and surroundingcontext is not addressed. The main problem seen is infunctionality of the buildings. The earthbag buildingwere of single room and with same size in both thevillage. But as residential buildings required manyfunctional spaces like for cooking, dinning orbedrooms, single room is not being able to fulfil these

functions. The social sustainability through health andcomfort and safety and service quality of earthbagbuilding is maintained somehow. The earthbagbuildings are made of natural material so the health ofoccupants is not harmed. It is dominant buildingmaterials of earthbag building is earth which is goodthermal mass itself. Therefore, indoor temperature ismaintained and occupant’s comfort is not disturbed.Earthbag buildings are good resistant of earthquakeand flood. It is safe from fire too. So, the occupantsliving in earthbag buildings feel safe and secure. Theearthbag building seems to be somehow economicallysustainable as it uses locally available materials andlocal labours. The construction technology is simpleand doesn’t required special equipment and tools. Themaintenance is not required frequently and due toclimatic responsive building materials use of activeenergy are also not so high. But as the labours cost areincreasing rapidly and people having proper technicalknowledge about earthbag technology is not availablewithin the village, in near future the cost ofconstructing earthbag building will be increased. Asearthbag technology is labour driven technology,availability of labours and the wages of labours playsimportant role in economic sustainability of earthbagbuildings. Another objective of this research is toknow about the current situation of earthbagconstructed in Nepal. The earthbag building that havebeen constructed in Bolgaun village are in goodcondition in comparison to that of Chitre Village. Asall phase of construction of earthbag buildings aretaken care by Good earth Nepal, the finishing is good.But in case of Chitre village, organization supportedthem only to erect the wall. Villagers got choice tochoose labours for finishing, therefore the quality isnot maintained as they go for cheaper workers. Lastobjective of this research is to know about the factoraffecting social acceptance of the earthbag buildings.Only one reason cannot cause the social acceptingfactor. There may be many reasons behind it but fourcommon issues were found in both the site. Theissues were:

• Earthbag technology is new to people andanything new takes time to get accepted.

• People were not aware of earthbag buildings.Even though government have approved thetechnology, people have no idea about earthbagbuildings before organization introduced them.

• Pakki Ghar is every man’s dream. They want

762


Figure 11: Earthbag building and pakki ghar of same owner

a house which is constructed of concrete pillarand brick walls, not the one which is constructedwith earthbag. People are not aware about theadvantages of earthbag buildings.

• Earthbag buildings are not flexible in design orat least the model earthbag buildings that havebeen constructed in village are not. So when thespace requirement of villagers is not fulfilled,they choose those technologies which fulfilledtheir requirements

5.2 Recommendation

• As the earthbag technology is new concept, peopleshould be awarded about it. The engineers andtechnical people working in rural area of thecountry in reconstruction projects should informedpeople about the option ‘earthbag building’.Earthbag building is one of the suitable alternativebuilding technology for rural Nepal. People shouldknow about it. If for residential buildings, earthbagtechnology is not used then it can be used forpublic buildings like schools and health post wherelocal people can be involved in constructionprocess. Workshops can be held where people aretrained about the technology.

• Almost all the residential earthbag buildings thathave been constructed in Nepal are of similar shapeand size. People have conceived the idea thatearthbag building can be of that form. They don’thave idea about other option of earthbag buildings.The experiments in design and plan of earthbagshould be done. Earthbag buildings are not arectangular room with two windows at two sides of

Figure 12: Other option of Earthbag building

building and a door at the front facade. Proportionof earthbag building should also be maintained withthe traditional building so that the visual effect isnot deteriorated, especially the roof of the building.

References

[1] Kateryna Zemskova Nathan Belofsky. Bringingearthbags to the people-a new, democratic approach tosustainable building. 2018.

[2] Kelly Hart. Earthbag Architecture: Building YourDream with Bags. Hartworks, 1st edition, April 27,2015.

[3] Luıs Braganca Joana B. Andrade. Analysis ofthe impacts of economic and social indicators tosustainability assessment. 2011.

[4] Hamhaber Johannes Bodach Susanne, LangIng. Werner. Climate responsive building design ofvernacular architecture in nepal. 2014.

763

Earthbag as Alternative Building Technology for Nepal

Documents

Transcript of Earthbag as Alternative Building Technology for Nepal