Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
-
Upload
jesse-meisler-abramson -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 1/67
Perma.Relief From Destruction Grows Sustainability:
On the Applicability of Earthen Architecture as a Post-Natural Disaster Rebuilding Strategy
By Jesse Meisler-Abramson
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Bachelor Arts
Department of Sociology
Pitzer College
May 2011
Approved by:
Phil Zuckerman, PhDProfessor of Sociology
Azamat Junisbai, PhDAssistant Professor of Sociology
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 2/67
A natural disaster is a blessing in disguise.Especially if it takes down the governing
system. It provides an opportunity to rebuildthe lives of the people. For the better.
-Nhac Cousteau, Builder with Earthship Biotecture
Necessity really opens the doors for experimental architecture.
-Steven Wright, CEO of 4 Walls International
Regardless of whether the disaster occurs inthe developing world or developed world, thepost-disaster environment very often opensthat door to change. And that is why I thinkit is particularly important to use thatopportunity for improving building practices.
And so, it is an unusual opportunity thatshould be taken advantage of for introducingsustainable building practices.
-Martin Hammer, Builders Without Borders – Haiti – Lead Architect
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 3/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 4/67
DedicationTo those who have experienced the benefits of earthen architecture as a
rebuilding medium, and to all who will one day experience it.
This thesis is dedicated to accessible shelter.
-Super Adobe Dome, Cal Earth - Hesperia, California
AcknowledgementsThere are more individuals than I can recall to whom I owe gratitude. It is to
those individuals whom I would like to thank first.
I must thank Pitzer College, the institution I have attended for the past four years:for without the institutions consistent support I would not have gotten to where Iam today. Specifically, I would like to thank my thesis advisors, Phil Zuckerman
and Azamat Junisbai. Your support has been invaluable. I would also like tothank all those who helped in the research process, provided information, andtheir time and support, including representatives from Earthship Biotecture, Cal-
Earth, and 4 Walls International.
I must also give gratitude to Asa Kamer for his never-ending support and keeninsights. And lastly, a warm thank you to my family and friends whom have
helped me through this last semester of college. Thank you!
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 5/67
Abstract
A dime of prevention is worth a dollar of cure.And only a cure that simultaneously serves as future prevention is worth a damn thing.
An underlying assumption of this paper is that natural disasters are partlytriggered by human activity – either through environmental degradation, humancaused climate change, population growth, or political policy. Whether we look atthe social production of natural disasters through the lens of the sociologicaltheory of social stratification or through the lens of environmental degradationcaused by human activity, we humans have dealt ourselves into the equation.Thus too we must deal ourselves out. This paper argues for the applicability of earthen architecture as a means of addressing the need for sustainablerebuilding practice in post-natural disaster situations. To do this, a literaturereview into sociological disaster research was conducted and interviews andsurveys were given to document the opinions of professional earthen builders onthe topic of Perma.relief.
Perma.relief is a word coined by the author to synthesize the fields of naturaldisaster relief and the implementation of sustainable rebuilding practice.Combining these two fields we come to the practice of sustainable disaster relief:Perma.relief. There are many focuses with in the study of Perma.relief, includingthe topic of earthen architecture.
Keywords: Disaster Relief, Earthen Architecture, Permaculture, Sustainability, Sustainable Rebuilding
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 6/67
Table of ContentsDedication……………………………………………………………………………………………………iAcknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………….…………………iAbstract…………………………………………………………………………………….………..………iiTable of Contents…………………………………………………………………………..………………iiiIntroduction………………………………………………………………………………………….………1
Welcome………………………………………………………………………...…………………1My Relationship to Earthen Architecture……………………………………………………….2
Chapter 1CREATING OUR FUTURE: The Basics……………………………………………………….4
i. Why sustainability?.................……………………………………………….4
ii. A Relevant Framework: Permaculture………………………………………6
iii. Perma.relief - Sustainable Reconstruction……………………………….…7
iv. Perma.Relief and Sociology……………………………………………….…8
v. Why Use Earth to Build? ………………………………………………….….9
Chapter 2Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………..11
i. A Brief History of Disaster Research: Where and Why it Came About..11
ii. The Social Construction and Production of Disaster………………….…14iii. Human Behavior Post-Disaster……………………………………………..20
iv. The Potential for Creative Destruction and Eco-Innovation…………..…23
a. Creative Destruction…………………………………………..……23
b. Eco-Innovation………………………………………………………26v. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….30
Chapter 3Methodology….………………………………………………………………………………….31
i. Networking……………………………………………………………………31
ii. The Survey……………………………………………………………………33
iii. Interviews……………………………………………………………………..34
iv. Observation………………………………………………………………..….34
v. Making Conclusions …………………………………………………………35Chapter 4
Discussion of Findings…………………………….……………………………………………36i. The Respondents……………….……………………………………………37ii. What is Earthen Architecture?...............................................................37iii. Strengths and Weaknesses of Earthen Architecture as Post-Disaster
Relief…………………………………………………………………………..38
iv. Creative Destruction and Eco-Innovation: Earthen Architecture………..41
v. Perma.relief in Action: The People’s Responses…………………….…..42
vi. What is Holding it Back: Why Earthen Architecture has not BecomeCommon Rebuilding Technique…………………………………………….44
- Poor Association……………………………………………………44- Education……………………………………………………………45- Lack of Major Funding……………………………………………..46
Chapter 5Concluding Remarks……………………………………………………………………………47
References………………………………………………………………………………………………...53Appendix ………………………………………………………..…………………………………………56
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 7/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 8/67
Introduction
WelcomeSome call it hell on earth, others call it creative destruction. Every year
natural disasters claim lives and cause havoc all over the globe. There is little
debate within the scientific community about the seriousness of climate change,
or the imminent threat our planet is facing from the rising frequency of natural
disasters. As noted by Maarten K. Van Aalst, Associate Director and Lead
Climate Specialist of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, there is
“scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities” (Van Aalst, 2006). With the understanding of
these two facts we must learn to “build back better”, a slogan and framework
many International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) have adopted in
natural disaster rebuilding projects. This research is focused on how to truly
build back better. Through an extensive literature review, as well as through
independent surveys and interviews with professional earthen builders and
architect, this paper shows that contemporary earthen architecture is an
applicable rebuilding strategy which can answer this need. It argues that
destruction can grow sustainability . Natural disasters open the door to
sustainable re-development in post-disaster scenarios.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 9/67
My Relationship to Earthen Architecture2 parts earth, 1 part stone, 1 part water, and a dash a fiber. Mix. Test the
product. Too soupy? Add more earth. Too thick and dry? Add water. Dump
the load into the wheelbarrow, plaster the wall, and repeat. This is how I spent
many of my days when I worked on my first Straw-Bale house in 2009.
Charlotte and Jan, and their two children, took me into their home, a small
trailer in the woods next to lake Båsjön, and we began a work-trade exchange. I
worked all day plastering, mixing, shoveling, and laying the adobe floor, and they
housed and fed me. Most importantly they introduced me to the world of
earthen-architecture.
Later in the year I returned to California to participate in a weeklong
workshop at The California Institute of Earth Art and Architecture, better known
as Cal-Earth. My theoretical and practical understandings of alternative building
were deepened by the teachings in that seminar. The workshop helped me
understand the longevity of earthen buildings. While in Sweden I loved what I
was doing, at Cal-Earth I felt like I was back in school. Cal-Earth challenged me
intellectually. From utilizing passive solar gain through the proper orientation of
the building to the use of thermal mass to keep the building at a constant
temperature, I gained an understanding that had been unclear to me previously.
At the same time I began to appreciate my original experience in Sweden much
more than I previously had. It finally made sense why humans have been using
this technique for so long.
Earthen architecture speaks to me like no other passion has. While I had
been aware of environmental issues for years before my work in Sweden, it was
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 10/67
only after mixing my first batch of plaster did I begin to realize my own agency in
creating a sustainable future.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 11/67
CHAPTER 1Creating Our Future: The Basics
Humans are dreamers: we create our future. It is our prerogative to
dream and create a future that is full of life, abundance, good health, and peace.
The question is, how best to get there? The answer is found in conscientious
and critical forethought. Conscious planning is particularly needed in natural
disaster relief and rebuilding. Perma.relief directly responds to this need. The
focus of this section is to introduce the theoretical grounding of Perma.relief and
what it makes it such an applicable disaster rebuilding medium.
i. Why sustainability?
When all the fireflies shine the way for one another,We will succeed at developing the country.
Haitian Proverb
All of the choices we make and act on today affect our future. In order to
avoid future peril we need to make sound decisions in the present. There are
many reasons why sustainability has become such a hot topic recently. Amongst
many others, the most discussed reason is global climate change. James
Hansen, one of NASA’s lead scientists has warned that if we do not change our
current behavior,
“it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce whatI would call a different planet—one without sea ice in the Arctic; withworldwide, repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and acontinuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due tofreshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones” (Hansen, 2007).
Sim Van Der Ryn, one of the leaders in moving this ideological shift forward
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 12/67
explains,
“There is a growing consensus that we have approximately one generationto make the transition from fossil fuels, ecological overshoot, anddevastating social inequity to renewable energy, stable ecosystem services,
and the ability to meet fundamental human needs” (Van Der Ryn, 2008)
Sustainability is a quest that can be applied to all walks of life, from food to
transportation choices to personal hygiene to building materials. There are
sustainable and unsustainable choices to be made in every minute of the day.
While there are varying estimations on the data, it is clear that the housing
industry is a major contributor to the problem of carbon emissions, and
subsequently, to the problem of global warming. Buildings that use modern
technologies and building techniques are dependent on destructive mining and
deforestation practices.
“Every material used in a typical modern building is the product of energy-intensive processing. The mills which saw our lumber, the factories whichmake plywood and chipboard, the foundries which make steel, the plantswhich turn natural minerals into cement by subjecting them to enormous
heat, all consume vast quantities of power, supplied either by thecombustion of coal and oil, the damming of rivers, or the splitting of atoms”(Smith, 2008).
There is a critical need to successfully address and change the current
unsustainability of building to perform more ecologically responsible practices.
New frameworks can be used to address this concern and act in positive
directions.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 13/67
ii. A Relevant Framework: Permaculture
Permaculture is the practice of designing and integrating agricultural and
human settlements to work together in order to make the greatest mutual gain
with the smallest carbon footprint. It gives understanding to the interaction
between human settlement and the natural systems of the earth.
The term permaculture was coined by David Holmgren, an Australian
ecologist, and his associate Bill Mollison in the 1970’s. Permaculture is about
designing ecological human habitats and food production systems. Further,
permaculture is a social movement, working to focus humanities attention on
land use and community building.
The great oval of the designrepresents the egg of life; thatquantity of life which cannot be
created or destroyed, but fromwithin which all things that live areexpressed. Within the egg is coiledthe rainbow snake, the Earth-shaper of Australian and Americanaboriginal peoples. Within the bodyof the Serpent is contained the treeof life, which itself expresses thegeneral pattern of life forms. Itsroots are in earth, and its crown inrain, sunlight and wind. Elementalforces and flows, shown external tothe oval, represent the physical
environment, the sun, and thematter of the universe; thematerials from which life on earth isformed.
– Bill Mollison
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 14/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 15/67
iv. Perma.Relief and Sociology
Sociology is concerned with the study of society at large, holding the
understanding that individuals not only live in and engage with society, but
actively create it. By applying established sociological knowledge of human
interaction and existence we are able to better understand emerging
phenomena. All events, including natural disasters, occur within sociological
space.
Perhaps the best definition of disaster has been offered by Charles Fritz
(1961), nearly 50 years ago. He defined disasters as:
“Actual or threatened accidental or uncontrollable events … in which asociety, or a relatively self – sufficient subdivision of a society undergoessevere danger, and incurs such losses to its members that the socialstructure is disrupted and the fulfillment of all or some of the essentialfunctions of the society, or its subdivision, is prevented.”
Martin Hammer, of Builders without Borders, has clearly explained the
sociological link between disaster relief and broader societal phenomena.
“There is an extremely important sociological and cultural component tothis. It is not just about building science. So you can talk about thebuilding science part of it as much as you want, but you can reallyemphasize the sociological part of this, because none of these things existin a vacuum. These things exist in cultures, and within societies, and thesocietal/cultural perceptions are huge.”
No matter how environmentally sustainable a building is, it can only be a
successful model for reconstruction if the people who are affected by disaster
accept it as a rebuilding model.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 16/67
v. Why Use Earth to Build?
Earth turns to gold in the hands of the wise.
Rumi
Humans have used the earth for housing since the beginning. Earthen
architecture is the world’s oldest and most widespread form of building. From
simple single-inhabitant shelters to the world’s most impressive architectural
feats, as seen in the Great Wall of China, the missions of the American South-
West, and many others, dirt is literally everywhere. Simply put, earth is the
world’s most abundant and natural resource. In fact nearly three billion people,
half the world’s population live in buildings built out of the earth. Dirt is the
ground we walk on, the food for our crops to grow from, and the walls of our
homes. People have historically used earthen homes to create warm, stable,
and low-impact, low-cost buildings: people currently live in earthen buildings for
economic, environmental, and eco-ethical reasons.
It is hard to give a single definition of earthen architecture, though it is safe
to say that natural building/earthen architecture places its highest value on social
and environmental sustainability.
“It assumes the need to minimize the environmental impact of our housingand other building needs while providing healthy, beautiful, comfortableand spiritually-uplifting homes for everyone” (Smith, 2008).
Natural buildings use simple easy to learn techniques, grounded in locally
sourced material. Earth is almost always available. Further, because these
buildings rely heavily of human labor input they are severely less dependent on
fossil fuels.
The numerous positive environmental, economic, and social advantages
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 17/67
of earthen buildings are well documented in academic literature (See Zami,
2010). Although earthen architecture is clearly a model of sustainability, there
remains a major disconnect between sustainable re-development, earthen
architecture, for the great benefits it can offer disaster victims.
CHAPTER 2:Literature Review: Sociological Disaster Research
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 18/67
The literature review reveals an absence of academic research specifically
related to Perma.relief. There is a set of common disaster scenario
characteristics studied on in the literature. While earthen architecture caters to
these characteristics, there remains a gap in the academic literature bridging
earthen architecture and disaster relief. However, the academic reports
reviewed can be pieced together to build a framework to understand the real
implications and benefits that Perma.relief, in the form of earthen architecture,
can offer.
This literature review has 5 sections: 1) a history of sociological disaster
research, 2) the social construction and production of natural disasters, 3) human
behavior and group dynamics post-natural disasters, 4) creative destruction and
eco-innovation, and 5) a conclusion drawing together the themes that are applied
to Perma.relief.
i. A Brief History of Disaster Research:Where and Why it Came About
The article From the Margins to the Mainstream? Disaster Research at
the Crossroads (Tierney, 2007) has given the most comprehensive and recently
updated history of the field of disaster research. This section generally follows
her work. Tierney (2007) traces the evolution of the field, with specific attention
paid to the core researchers perspectives, why these perspectives developed the
way they did, how the scope of research has been limited by these perspectives,
and how these few researcher’s concerns have shaped disaster inquiry on the
whole.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 19/67
Sociological research on natural disasters came to life in the early days of
the Cold War, circa 1950's. The research centered on the concern of
governmental and military leaders for the public’s responses to nuclear war. It
was believed by those funding the research that natural and technological
disasters provided a great laboratory to study and understand social behavior in
disaster situations. “The earliest disaster research in the social science area was
almost exclusively supported by U.S.A. military organizations with very practical
concerns about wartime situations” (Quarantelli, 1987). The most famous field
team researching the human experience of disasters was the National Opinion
Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago between 1950- 1954. The
research was mostly funded by the Chemical Corps Medical Laboratories of the
Army Chemical Center in Maryland (Quarantelli, 1987). Because research was
so heavily subsidized by governmental organizations, the scope of research was
greatly limited. The effects can still be seen throughout the field of disaster
research.
The founding of the Disaster Research Center (DRC) at the Ohio State
University in 1963 marked the next phase of disaster research. The DRC was
founded by E.L. Quarantelli who had been trained at NORC, as well as co-
founders Russell Dynes and J. Eugene Haas. “Guided by its own substantive
concerns, and by the priorities of funding agencies, DRC developed a research
focus on both organizational and emergent social behavior during and
immediately following disasters” (Tierney, 2007). Research took a positive turn
and began to focus on debunking some of the common myths surrounding
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 20/67
disaster behavior (see section iii). In short, “in place of these myths, early
disaster research stressed positive behaviors and outcomes that characterized
disaster, such as enhanced community morale, declines in crime and other
antisocial behavior...” (Tierney, 2007).
Systems theory became the most highly influential perspective, claiming
that “extreme events were seen as disrupting ongoing societal systems and
subsystems, requiring adaptation on the part of affected social units” (Tierney,
2007). Further, this theory held disasters as events solely concentrated in
specific times and places. When disaster is defined as a specific event in time, it
precludes the possibility that disaster manifests and/or triggers systems that
already exist – a theoretical argument offered in contemporary analyses of
disaster – and instead limits disasters to having completely natural origins.
Sociological disaster research was also greatly influenced by the natural
hazards perspective developed by geographer Gilbert F. White. White was a
student at the University of Chicago like Quarantelli. He later founded the Natural
Hazards Center (NHC), focusing on human and societal adjustments to natural
hazards. He often concluded that hazards could be entirely avoided through pre-
planning (Tierney, 2007). This concept, that disasters can be socially produced,
is beginning to be used in contemporary sociological understanding. It has been
used in the field of environmental studies, and is extremely relevant to the
application of earthen architecture.
This section discusses how established parameters for much of modern
day discussion and analysis of disaster research have been set. In the following
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 21/67
sections we explore more contemporary theory which challenges these older
assumptions. Further, contemporary theory lends itself to the discussion of the
applicability of earthen architecture as a post-natural disaster response strategy.
ii. The Social Construction and Production of Disaster
Classical disaster research focused on disasters originating from the
earth, in a set time and place. Research has now begun to acknowledge the
social effects of disasters and analyses are beginning to change. Disaster
researchers have become more and more apt to apply current sociological theory
to their analyses of natural disasters. This section particularly focuses on how
social construction and production perspectives have been applied to
understanding and analyzing natural disaster. Five articles are reviewed in this
section - all of which give slightly different focuses to the concept of the social
construction and production of natural disasters and disaster response. Finally,
the conclusion of this section will draw out the key themes directly related to the
applicability of earthen architecture.
Susan Cutter (2006), in her article The Geography of Social Vulnerability:
Race, Class, and Catastrophe, gives an analysis of hurricane Katrina based
heavily in social constructionist theory. She posits “social vulnerability” as the
major cause behind the havoc in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. Social
vulnerability is identified as the main factor deciding which groups were most
greatly affected. Social vulnerability, according to Cutter (2006), involves a
myriad of indicators including the basic provision of health care, the livability of a
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 22/67
place, and capital and political representation among others. Further,
understanding the interplay of race and class as they inform social stratification is
vital to understanding social vulnerability. Cutter (2006) keenly notes who is
most bulnerable: “poor, black, single mothers, young, and old - struggling just to
survive; options limited by the ineffectiveness of preparedness and the
inadequacy of response” (Cutter, 2006). The social vulnerability of an individual
dictates the extent and harshness of one’s experience of disaster. Cutter
concludes, “Disasters will happen. To lessen their impacts in the future, we need
to reduce our social vulnerability and increase disaster resilience with
improvements in the social conditions and living standards of our cities” (Cutter,
2006). This analysis challenges the classical concepts that characterize disasters
as single events in time and place. According to Cutter (2006) disasters deeply
interact with social vulnerability.
One weakness in Cutter’s (2006) article is her statement “…socially
created vulnerabilities are largely ignored in the hazards and disaster literature
because they are so hard to measure and quantify” (Cutter, 2006). In opposition
to her argument, I found articles written prior to Cutters (2006) that give clear
quantification to racial issues effecting victim’s experiences of disaster situations.
Brenda D. Phillips (1998), in her article Sheltering and Housing of Low-
Income and Minority Groups in Santa Cruz County After the Loma Prieta
Earthquake, provides a quantitative analysis of racial issues after an earthquake.
The research conducted a longitudinal study including 117 in-depth interviews
with sheltering and housing-related organizations that responded to the needs of
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 23/67
low-income and minority victims of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989. The
article found that a major cause of the severity of housing displacement among
particular populations were a lack of affordable housing, ethnic differences, and
victims cultural traditions not being fully being anticipated by emergency
response officials. “Unless those systems are vulnerable (as in the Loma Prieta
analysis), physical events alone do not constitute disasters; an event is not a
disaster unless human beings and social systems are affected in a negative way”
(Tierney, 2007). Phillips (1998) concludes that there are major differences of
experience in the effectiveness of disaster relief depending on ones ethnic and
economic status. She ends, “…minority groups therefore carry a higher risk in
disaster” (Phillips, 1998).
Similarly, Madhavi M. Ariyabandu (2006), in her article Gender Issues in
Recovery from the December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: The Case of Sri
Lanka, discusses how gender differences and inequalities are amplified in post-
disaster situations. “...Deep-rooted social and institutional systems often act as
barriers that prevent women and girls from accessing opportunities, services, and
benefits on an equal footing” (Ariyabandu, 2006). This echoes Cutter’s (2006)
claim that social vulnerability, including gender, affects victim’s lived experience
of post-disaster situations. Ariyabandu (2006) finds that women can experience
an increased workload, and at the same time, less access to relief goods and
recovery information.
Disaster is not only socially constructed but also socially produced. The
social construction of disaster theory is based in the differences of lived
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 24/67
experience of post-disaster life based on ones social status and vulnerability.
The social production theory explains that disasters have human caused and
identifiable origins.
“Human emissions of greenhouse gases are already changing our
climate” (Van Aalst, 2006). It is predicted by scientists that weather extremes will
become more frequent. Blaikie (1994) argues that disasters themselves originate
in social conditions and processes. “The crucial point about understanding why
disasters happen is that it is not only natural events that cause them. They are
also the product of social, political, and economic environments” (Blaikie, 1994).
This theory takes the views presented by Phillips (1998), Cutter (2006), and
Ariyabandu (2006) of the social construction of the post-disaster environment to
a new place, positing that disasters stem from social vulnerability, actions of
states, and overall environmental degradation, including deforestation and mass
mining practice. It is “…formulations like these [that] challenge mainstream
research” (Tierney, 2006).
This social production theory is explored and supported in multiple
articles, including JARing Actions that Fuel Floods by Kousky & Zeckhauser
(2006). JARing is an abbreviation for Jeopardize Assets that are Remote.
“The ability of ecosystems to reduce the risks and scales of naturaldisasters...has been neglected in natural disaster planning and policymaking...The actions that cause the loss of these services are oftenremote from the impacts” (Kousky, 2006).
JARing creates negative externalities. Environmental sacrifices have been made
by private individuals for their own profit, disregarding negative long-term
degradation to the environment. This leads to the increasing severity and
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 25/67
frequency of disasters. While hurricanes and other extreme events could have
been soaked up by the natural environment, the environment has been so
altered and/or destroyed that it has nearly been rendered useless for easing
disasters. “As with other negative externalities, private landowners undertake
JARing actions because they fail to value the costs of their actions that are borne
to others” (Kousky, 2006). Thus, to better address disaster, we must be aware of
how our present actions affect the future. The authors suggest solving this
problem through greater regulation. “A dime of prevention is worth a dollar of
cure” (Kousky, 2006). Permaculture and Perma.relief work to solve this same
problem through different means.
Penny Green, in her article Disaster by Design: Corruption, Construction
and Catastrophe, further addresses the theory that disaster is socially produced.
In this case-study of three major earthquakes in Turkey, occuring between 1999
and 2003, Green (2005) argues for a reinterpretation of these natural disasters.
Green posits the severity stems from political choices and human rights
violations rather than by violent seismic events. It is noted that the culture of
laisez faire, which made it possible to build wherever and whatever one liked,
caused major housing failure, and subsequently human death, during the
earthquakes in Turkey. Coburn and Spence (1992) explain that “…earthquakes
themselves are only natural energy releases. An earthquake will not be a
disaster unless it strikes a populated area” (Coburn, 1992). Further, Green
(2005) notes the relationship between earthquakes and unsafe building
structures as the defining feature of earthquake driven disaster. This analysis
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 26/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 27/67
common media mythology, that disasters and other forms of extreme events
actually increase social cohesiveness. People are generally more generous and
helpful than during non-disaster times (Dynes and Quarantelli 1971, Drabek
1986). “In fact, during emergency time the 'best within us' is usually exhibited as
we become much more altruistic” (Fischer, 1998). These inter-personal non-
organizational relationships are considered unorganized behavior.
On the other hand, Dynes (1970) created a typology of four categories
that described organized behavior post-disaster. Type 1 are called Established,
which represent organizations existing pre-disaster carrying out regular tasks
post-disaster. This includes police and fire departments. Type 2 are called
Expanding, which means existing organizations taking on new tasks. Much of
what they do is predetermined. This includes Red Cross chapters. Type 3 are
called Extending, which means they undertake non-regular unanticipated tasks.
An example of this would be a construction company using their equipment to dig
through rubble in search for survivors. Finally, type 4 are called Emergent, which
is a group of individuals who are new to working together.
Gary A. Kreps and Susan L. Bosworth (1993), in their article Disaster,
Organizing, and Role Enactment: A Structural Approach, use archival material
from the DRC, engage middle-range theory to “exploit two basic sociological
constructs – organizing and role enactment – to account for the transition of
social structure from the more routine circumstances to those of crisis” (Kreps,
1993). The article gives an analysis of organized behavior. It notes three
dimensions of role enactment: status role nexus, role links, and role
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 28/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 29/67
the primary response to this event (Katrina), widespread media reports of
massive antisocial behavior to the contrary” (Rodríguez, 2006). The authors offer
quantitative evidence to prove that the emergent activities of individuals and
organizations showed an opposite pattern than the media portrayed,for example
on the reflexive nature exhibited by hospitals and hotels,. Hospitals and Hotels fit
into Type 2 organizations according to Dynes (1970) work, by expanding their
services to help respond to Katrina. Pro-social behavior heavily outweighed the
antisocial behavior reported on the news.
It is important to keep in mind the following concepts presented in this
section when attempting to understand the applicability of earthen architecture in
post-natural disaster rebuilding: 1) pro-social active behavior (in relation to the
labor of building), and 2) un-organized and organized behavior.
iv. The Potential for Creative Destruction and Eco-Innovation
a. Creative Destruction
In the past section we focused on literature researching, explaining, and
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 30/67
documenting the integrative effects disasters have played in communities. This
section focuses on literature that discusses the potential for creative destruction
and ecological innovation.
Originally, the Marxist term creative destruction was used to describe how
capitalist economic growth takes advantage of the destruction of prior foreign
economic systems. In today’s world, the term has jumped political parties and
has become heavily identified with the Australian-American economist Joseph
Schumpeter (b.1983, d. 1950). The term now bares little resemblance to Marx’s
original meaning, but rather is currently used as a popular theoretical framework
among neo-liberal/free market economists to promote free-market development.
The article Natural Disasters as Creative Destruction? Evidence from
Developing Countries, by Cuaresma (2008), notes that recent studies have found
positive correlations between the frequency of natural disasters and long-run
economic growth. Through cross-country and panel data regressions the study
found that the degree of catastrophic risk tended to have a negative effect on
“the volume of knowledge spillovers between industrialized and developing
countries” (Cuaresma, 2008). Further, the study found that it is primarily
countries with a high level of development that most benefit from capital
upgrading through trade after natural disasters. “There is evidence that poorer
countries are not systematically stimulated by disaster shocks and may even be
driven into poverty traps by certain disasters” (Mutter, 2009). While on the
surface this seems to severely limit creative destruction to highly developed
countries, this is not necessarily the case. The article is much too specific to
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 31/67
come to this conclusion. It solely analyses the relationship between foreign
technology absorption and catastrophic events. Foreign technology absorption is
not the only type of innovation seen in disaster situations: for example the
opportunity to update technology and mobilization internally – by which social
units gain resources they previously did not control, thus increasing their ability to
act collectively (Etzioni 1968).
At this point it would be remiss to not briefly touch on Naomi Klein's 2007
book Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Instead of framing
creative destruction as a positive opportunity to introduce new sustainable
building techniques, Klein argues that free market policies have been
successfully deployed in numerous countries, to the detriment of the citizenry,
due to prior engagement in responding to disaster.
She holds the United States Government, in conjunction with other major
private corporations liable for these abuses of power. She argues:
“Most people who survive a disaster want the opposite of a clean slate:they want to salvage whatever they can and begin repairing what was notdestroyed...But disaster capitalists have no interest in repairing what oncewas. In Iraq, Sri Lanka and New Orleans, the process deceptively called"reconstruction" began with finishing the job of the original disaster byerasing what was left of the public sphere” (Klein, 2007)
While creative destruction is most often used to discuss the role natural
disasters can play in economic development (see Dacy and Kunreuthur 1969,
Albala-Bertrand 1993), the insight behind the economic theory can and has been
applied to other fields as well.
Below are two examples of how creative destruction has been applied to
the field of education The first quote is from American Economist Milton
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 32/67
Friedman (b. 1912, d.2006), and the second quote is from U.S. Secretary of
Education, Arne Duncan, both in relation to Hurricane Katrina, and future
educational opportunity.
Milton Friedman in Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2005:“Most New Orleans schools are in ruins, as are the homes of the childrenwho have attended them. The children are now scattered all over thecountry. This is a tragedy. It is also an opportunity to radically reform theeducational system” (Friedman, 2005).
U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan told Washington Watch 2010:“This is a tough thing to say, but let me be really honest. I think the bestthing that happened to the education system in New Orleans wasHurricane Katrina” (Duncan, 2010).
While both of these quotations address creative destruction as it relates to
the field of education, they exemplify that the once economic theory can be
applied to other fields as well.
Disasters open the window for competing groups, which tend to be private
interests, to take advantage of the situation for new profit making opportunity
(Tierney, 2007). “A country whose capital stock is reduced by a natural disaster
may have an incentive to replace it with capital that embodies newer technology
than which it was destroyed” (Cuaresma, 2008). Skidmore (2002) embodies this
same concept: “disasters also provide the impetus to update the capital stock
and adopt new technologies” (Skidmore, 2002).
b. Eco-Innovation
Now that the concept of creative destruction has been laid out, and it is
clear that disaster can create opportunity for numerous types of change and
development, we move to discuss how creative destruction can pave the way for
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 33/67
eco-innovation. Eco-innovation is the innovation processes that leads to
sustainable development. Very much like our definition of sustainability, it comes
in all shapes, sizes, and materials. “Their nature can be technological,
organizational, social or institutional” (Rennings, 2000).
The journal of Industrial Ecology has published two articles since 2009
relating to eco-innovation.
Ardani, Reith, and Donlan (2009), in their article Harnessing Catastrophe
to Promote Resource Recovery and Eco-Industrial Development , present a case
study of Hurricane Katrina, claiming that New Orleans was well suited for
resource recovery and eco-industrial linkages. However, for numerous reasons
little progress was made on implementation.
“Eco-industrial relationships are defined here as relationships in whichbusinesses cooperate amongst themselves and with the local communityin an attempt to reduce waste and pollution, share resources, and worktoward sustainable enterprises and development” (Ardani, 2009).
The study uses the concept of creative destruction to explain how
disasters present opportunities to increase a regions advancement of eco-
industrial development. The article focuses on six general areas of opportunity:
1) deconstructing, 2) recycling botanical debris, 3) sorting and recycling non-
botanical debris, 4) establishing permanent recycling infrastructure, 5) producing
renewable energy from waste, and 6) enhancing eco-industrial networks to
improve regional eco-efficiency for the future (Ardani, 2009). The research
unfortunately found this not to be the case for New Orleans. The reasons why
this eco-industrial development did not take place in New Orleans were
considered to be 1) a lack of funding to acquire relevant technology and 2) the
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 34/67
initial sense of urgency in recovery efforts being overly extended, thus
suppressing the ability to formulate city-wide recycling and debris management
plans.
In a similar article, Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-Innovation: An
Integrated Framework (2010) by Río, Carrillo-Hermosilla, and Könnölä elaborate
on specific policy that can be used to mitigate barriers to eco-innovation. The
research takes a systems view, highlighting
“the multilayered conception of obstacles to eco-innovation, calls for acombination of environmental and technology policies adapted to the
different barriers and characteristics of the technologies” (Rio, 2010).
Eco-innovation is defined in the article as innovation that improves the
environmental performance of consumption and production activities.
Schumpeter theorized that there were two types of innovation: 1) Radical
change, creating major disruptive changes, and 2) Incremental change,
continually advancing change. “It is increasingly acknowledged that a focus on
incremental innovation along established paths does not suffice for achieving
demanding environmental sustainability goals such as mitigating climate change”
(Nill, 2009). Rio et al. discuss a number of general barriers impeding the
development and implementation of eco-innovation, some of which overlap with
those presented by Ardani (2009). The most important barrier presented by Rio
et al., in relation to this thesis, is that existing technology, no matter how
unsustainable, is often deeply embedded within a society and part of systemic
interdependences, thus making it difficult to change because it creates
“economic, technological, social, cognitive, cultural, and political barriers for
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 35/67
innovations” (Rio, 2010). The article goes on to suggest nearly twenty policy-
based instruments and perspectives and frameworks to better promote eco-
innovation. Three of which particularly pertain to the applicability of earthen
architecture in post-disaster response.
First, policy should support a wide range of technologies and maintain a
diversity and flexibility of possible alternative technological trajectories. If policy
is not open to exploring all possibilities it will not reflect the best-suited solutions.
This suggestion is important because it reflects the need to support eco-
technological exploration, such as the use of earthen architecture in disaster
relief situations among others.
Second, it is beneficial to understand that there are appropriate times to
introduce new eco-policy. “Periods of stability (showing high barriers) should be
distinguished from periods of instability (characterized by low barriers) when a
new trajectory can be researcher more easily” (Rio, 2010). This consideration is
directly related to post-disaster change, as is explained through creative
destruction.
The final applicable solution is that we must acknowledge the limitations of
public policy as a driver of environmental change. Existing policy is reflective of
currently accepted technological capacity, and thus often halts eco-innovation.
The practice of earthen architecture falls into this camp. “Stricter building codes
have left little room for experimentation” (Marcum, 1999). It is important to
understand that sometimes it is necessary to abandon the status quo in order to
develop and implement necessary eco-innovation and technology. The
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 36/67
opportunity for such exploration is widely expanded in post-disaster situations.
This opportunity must not be halted or seized by regulation or disaster capitalists
but rather by realistic forward thinkers to introduce sustainable rebuilding
practice.
Morrish (2008), in his article After the Storm: Rebuilding Cities upon
Reflexive Infrastructure, explores the concept of reflexive modernization in
relation to Hurricane Katrina. This is done particularly in light of environmental
awareness and sustainability. Reflexive modernization, drawing from the tenants
of sustainability, is used to re-evaluate and redeploy resources already available
within a community rather than expanding on the imported resource demand.
Reflexive modernization can also be a product of natural disasters. The
ecological term 'succession' is used to describe a situation when cultural and
physical landscapes are irrevocably altered (Morrish, 2008). Succession is also
a common characteristic following major disasters. “They leave behind a huge
list of 'change' issues that can overwhelm local governance...” (Morrish, 2008).
While local governance may be debilitated, the concept suggests that these new
environments open up the market to sustainable development.
“Every new urban structure or landscape modification becomes anopportunity and responsibility to add needed value to systemcapacity and reduce its negative impacts...In a volatile world of changing climate and the potential for cascading infrastructurefailures, the investment in sustainable distributed infrastructure willhave direct and substantial return return for communities...”(Morrish, 2008).
Creative destruction and eco-innovation lend themselves naturally to
understanding the future possibilities disaster for response and rebuilding.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 37/67
Creative destruction can open the door to many forms of development, including
eco-innovation and sustainable reconstruction. With the obvious need for more
environmentally conscious building practice, one answer is becoming
clear: sustainable building practice, in the form of earthen architecture.
v. Conclusion
This literature review elucidates some critical information relevant to the
sustainable rebuilding process in post-disaster situations, including an
understanding of the social construction and production of disaster, human
behavior post-disaster, and growth than can rise out of disaster, particularly in
the form of eco-innovation. All of these findings will be referred to in the following
chapters/sections on the applicability of earthen architecture in the reconstruction
phase of disaster relief. Through this literature review it becomes clear that it is
necessary to begin to bridge the gap between the sociological understandings of
human behavior post-disaster, as well as theoretical and applicable frameworks
of social constructionist theory, with the real life need for a more socially and
environmentally responsible rebuilding strategy. We now move into a discussion
of the author’s research findings on the applicability of earthen architecture as a
way to fill this void.
CHAPTER 3:Methodology
Perma.relief is not yet an accepted term to describe the act of sustainable
reconstruction. While there is no prior academic research on Perma.relief, one
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 38/67
would think there would be numerous articles on the applicability of earthen
architecture as a feasible rebuilding practice in natural disaster relief. That is not
the case. Thus, I found myself in a new position. I realized that my research
could only be informed by prior findings in the field of sociological disaster
research, but I could not ground my own work in it. Relevant theories were
therefore synthesized and applied to my work.
i. Networking
A major thrust of my work networking to further build relationships with
builders in the field in order to distribute surveys and set up phone and Skype
interviews. This was of primary importance in order to gather information from
those with direct experience with Perma.relief. I began the research process by
contacting those I had previously met through my own experiences working in
the field, through my work with Cal-Earth, Earthship Biotecture, and 4 Walls
International. Reconnecting was heavily reliant on the Internet, especially on the
social networking site Facebook .com to re-connect with these acquaintances. I
sent emails to all those whom I had the contact information for. In each email I
asked if they would be willing to talk to me about my research and if they would
be willing to help connect me with other builders whom they thought would be
knowledgeable in the field. I developed and attached two surveys to the emails.
While I was contacting old acquaintances, I was also working to make new ones.
I realized that the best method was to attempt to get in contact with as many
builders as possible. Again, in order to get in touch with builders, I was heavily
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 39/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 40/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 41/67
Perma.relief in disaster rebuilding. Unfortunately I was unable to meet in person
with any interviewees, as their locales ranged from San Francisco to Saudi
Arabia. Thus all interviews were conducted over the phone or through Skype.
The interviews were semi-structured. They began by mirroring the survey
questions, then moved into the realm of informal conversation as each interview
progressed. 3 phone interviews were conducted - Feb 24, 2011, Feb 26, 2011,
and Mar 27, 2011. Each interview ranged between 30 minutes and 1 hour. Each
interview was tape-recorded and fully transcribed with the permission of the
interviewee. Phone interviews allowed me to get to know the interviewees in a
more holistic manor, which allowed interviewees to feel comfortable giving me
the contact information of others builders they knew.
- Observation
Research was supplemented by on-site visits to Cal-Earth (March 6, 2011)
and Earthship Biotecture (June-July 2010), to see firsthand how little off-site
material was needed to build the emergency response buildings at those sites.
This experience further convinced me of the applicability of these building
methods. While I was unable to travel to see these buildings in actual disaster
rebuilding zones, seeing the methods used was both enlightening and built my
confidence as to the true applicability of this technique.
- Making Conclusions
By constantly reviewing and reflecting on my results throughout the
research process, I was able to actively adapt the focus of interviews, and plan
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 42/67
the remainder of the research accordingly. In this way, my research was circular;
I researched and reflected, reflected and researched. Further, the research
conducted in this thesis has followed that of traditional sociological research,
applying sociological theory to the topic. Through deploying a systematic
empirical inquiry using a qualitative research methodology for gathering
information on the topic, I have gathered valuable knowledge on the applicability
of Perma.relief.I believe these two process have led to true and legitimate
conclusions.
Though the sample size of the research was relatively small, I believe the
findings to be representative of the larger target population. For one, this is
because the larger population is itself a small population. Further, the sub-group
interviewed represented numerous organizations and experiences implementing
Perma.relief, and thus the results become much more viable. This research
targeted a new group in sociological academic research which presents both
opportunities and challenges.
In the following section the findings of the research will be discussed. The
research, both surveys and interviews, have been analyzed for different trends
and categories.
CHAPTER 4:Discussion of Findings
While there is major study in the field of disaster research, there is little
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 43/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 44/67
sustainable rebuilding projects in Haiti, Mexico, and Pakistan, addressing
damage caused by earthquakes, flooding, and land slides.
They were:
• Brian Cheverie, Earthship Biotecture, Builder
• KT Tierney, Konbit Shelter, Builder
• Martin Hammer, Builders Without Borders, Lead Architect
• Mohammad Sharif Zami, Mohammad Sharif Zami, Professor of Architecture, Planning and Housing at The University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa
• Nhac Cousteau, Earthship Biotecture, Builder
• Steven Wright, 4 Walls International, CEO
• Tina Therrien, Camel's Back Construction
• Waylon Matson, 4 Walls International, Lead Builder
ii. What is Earthen Architecture?
The respondent’s definitions of earthen architecture, while all generally
related, were quite different in regards to their specifics. Overall, the common
base for their definitions was centered on earthen architecture being an
environmentally sustainable building model. Nhac Cousteau aptly defined it as
“things that help reduce the eco-footprint of building or sustaining of a shelter”. In
fact 37% of respondents included the use of garbage as a building material in
their definitions. Using garbage up-cycles materials from landfills into building
blocks was considered to be a valid building material. Waylon Maston explained
that he considered “man-made by-products that would serve no other purpose
than occupying a land fill” to fit into the category of earthen architecture and he
further noted that “the sky is the limit here as repurposing materials cuts carbon
and waste”. However, there was also a camp of respondents dedicated to
defining earthen architecture as solely being a technique capitalizing on the
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 45/67
properties of thermal mass, a property of compacted earth that allows a building
to hold a stabilized temperature over an extended period of time with no external
energy inputs. KT defined earthen architecture as any building using more than
50% earth, while others were much more stringent in their definition, limiting it to
90-95%. What did become clear through these varied answers, all from
experienced natural builders, is that there are no “right” definitions, so long as the
building is environmentally sustainable.
iii. Strengths and Weaknesses of Earthen Architecture as Post-Disaster Relief
Like all building models, earthen architecture exhibits strengths and
weaknesses in both its raw and embodied forms. These advantages and
disadvantages have been well documented in previous literature (Zami 2007,
among others). These findings were generally mirrored by the respondents even
though they were asked specifically about the strengths and weaknesses in
relation to post-disaster rebuilding. 75% of respondents cited one of the major
strengths of earthen architecture in disaster relief to be its low need for major
financial input. This strength is especially important as it relates to the findings of
the literature review. Specific populations, those in lower economic classes
specifically, are most greatly affected by disaster; thus it is important to explore
rebuilding strategies that they can afford. Nhac Cousteau noted, “The materials
for a shelter can be free”. The cost of building is offset by the small expense of
locally available materials, namely the earth under the building site.
The ease in finding building material was another common strength cited
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 46/67
by respondents. The ease of sourcing building materials allows builders to save
money and time throughout the building process, because such a large portion of
the building material is locally sourced. Thus there is also a much lower
environmental cost. Common building materials generally only show an “off-the-
shelf” price, meaning that the price only reflects the manufacturing and
transportation costs, not the social or environmental costs, which are often
thought to be immeasurable but are in reality devastatingly high. Earthen
architecture reflects lower social and environmental costs, and nearly zeros
manufacturing and transportation costs because the material is locally sourced.
Martin Hammer explained the need for environmentally aware architecture:
“I think it is important in every circumstance, in every place in the world,for sustainable building practice to be introduced if they are not therealready, and to promote it, including not just the so called developingcountries, but the industrialized countries as well. Maybe even more sothe industrialized countries. Because the practices that have developedthrough the industrial revolution have tended to be not so sustainable. Indeveloping countries it is important because those are the places where
broader development is about to occur. So you kind of have anopportunity in developing countries to spread good practice and thenavoid some of the problems some of the developed countries have.”
The last common response to the strengths of earthen architecture in
disaster rebuilding was the accessibility and quick learning curve of the method.
In disaster rebuilding it is essential for people to feel empowered and
independent, capable of rebuilding their own lives as so often governments are in
shambles (see Morrish, 2008). “Natural building is personally empowering
because it teaches that everyone has or can easily acquire the skills they need to
build their own home” (Smith, 2008). Steven Wright noted, “after natural
disasters it only makes more sense because like I said, it’s accessible for almost
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 47/67
everyone and I feel people are more eager to embrace it once they’ve lost almost
everything”. Nhac Cousteau summarized, “anyone can do it”.
There were few weaknesses reported by respondents, all of which were
similar. The most often cited weakness was that earthen architecture requires
substantially more manual labor than technologically dependent contemporary
building models. Brian Cheverie explained, “It is labor intensive, which is only a
weakness if people are not willing to put extra efforts in to build sustainably”.
Although earthen architecture requires more manual labor, it has been cited in
the research that people are more generous and helpful in post-disaster life, so it
seems that this concern can be substantially offset. The other main concern
expressed by respondents was that because buildings are so dependent on soil
quality and makeup it is difficult to easily reproduce designs. This is certainly a
major concern for the future success of implementing large scale building
projects, as mass housing is needed post-disaster. However, it is feasible to
move past this road block. Tina Therrien explained that she was working on
opening a natural building school in Haiti to address this problem. She spoke
of...
“Opening a natural building school, in which participants will receive boththeory and practical hands on building experience in natural building andearthquake resistant building methods. Participants will build a building inthe community, and then, before they can receive a certificate for thecourse, they have to go back to their own community and build a newhouse (for a selected family) with a small group of the other participants,with supervision. What I like about this, is that the participants have to takeon a role of responsibility….and by rebuilding in their own communities,countless other people will then be exposed to earth block construction. Ifeel like this has a great chance to succeed and spread”.
This is a helpful technique to both empower people to build and move past
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 48/67
the two weaknesses discussed. The two weaknesses begin to feel surmountable
when compared to the great benefits that earthen architecture can provide for
marginalized populations.
iv. Creative Destruction and Eco-Innovation: Earthen
Architecture
The theory of creative destruction frames natural disasters as events
opening the door to opportunity. The possibility of eco-innovation, the process of
sustainable development, is greatly enhanced in disaster situations. As
Schumpeter theorized incremental change not to be sufficient for achieving
environmental sustainability. Rather, it is radical eco-innovation that creates
major disruptive change that is needed to make substantial environmental steps
forward, such as earthen architecture.
Respondents explained that in their experiences natural disasters did in
fact create opportunity to introduce sustainable building practice. As Brian
Cheverie aptly put it,
“…natural disaster situations are the best opportunity to introduce earthenarchitecture on a large scale. Places effected by disasters are most oftendestroyed and in need of total new infrastructure. Their current buildingtechniques most likely couldn’t withstand the current disaster. Thus thedisaster. Introducing building with indigenous material and in sustainableways is easy when people have little to no funds and can see the effectsof modern structures”.This was a common theme among many of the respondents. Steven
Wright explained that it is a necessity that opens the doors for experimental
architecture to take hold. It is the economic, environmental, and social positive
aspects of earthen architecture that allow it to take hold when introduced. Brian
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 49/67
also focused on the social attributes of earthen architecture. “When people are at
their worst and hardest times, they become more willing to open their eyes and
look toward a more sustainable future”. Destruction can grow sustainability.
“Change must start somewhereand the Phoenix rises from the ashes, sadly,
but it still must rise” – Waylon Matson, 4 Walls International
v. Perma.relief in Action: The People’s Responses
After all is said and done, the final say on the implementation of earthen
architecture as an applicable re-building technique is whether or not the people
affected by disaster accept the buildings. This concern was widely addressed by
the respondents. Participants in this study broadly felt that their interactions with
locals were overwhelmingly positive. No matter the building system, from
rammed earth to super adobe to straw bale, they found locals fully appreciative
and accepting of the techniques they were introducing.
At this point I believe it is best to allow the respondents to speak to this
topic: this is what they had to say:
“I have been especially interested in the observations of the Haitians who Ihave worked alongside in these various projects. They have really boughtinto earthen architecture, and using natural materials, and are quite proudof their work. Many people, when seeing the straw bale house for the firsttime, for instance, are both surprised to know that it is made of straw &plastered with clay, and then, quite happy to know that it is made withlocal materials”. - Tina Therrien
“At first, people were like, ‘Oh we are going to build this out of dirt?’ Andnow they are like ‘these are super strong structures’, and they are notafraid that these are going to fall. You know, there is a situation that a lotof people won't sleep in their houses a year later because they are afraidthat the roofs are going to collapse while they are sleeping, so they sleepin tents outside of the house”. - KT Tierney
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 50/67
“So the idea of placing something sound and renewable in an area wewere at was most welcomed and created a spark in the air amongst localofficials and architects alike”. - Waylon Matson
“When people who struggle are introduced to this type of building, they are
usually astounded and find the structures amazing”. - Steven Wright
“They loved it, as the Canyons in Tijuana are full of tire retaining walls theuse was not new, but to see a house emerge the surprise in their faceswere unforgettable. Even in the building process as locals saw what wewere doing you could literally see the little light bulbs illuminate above their heads as the smile crossed their faces”. - Waylon Matson
“Every Haitian I worked with (seriously ever Haitian) had never knownanything about sustainable building or the effects of it, both on them andthe environment. We worked with between 30-40 local people and I would
say 90% of them of told us of their personal plans to build usingtechniques we have taught them. Stating reasons between having nomoney to buy materials to wanting the simple feeling of falling asleep atnight and not worrying that their house may collapse in the night inanother disaster. There wasn’t one negative response. Every personinvolved was willing to learn and try everything that we could teach them”.- Brian Cheverie
These numerous quotations show that those affected by disaster are often
both open to new building methods and welcome it, which is vital to the future
success of any form of eco-innovation.
vi. What is Holding it Back?Why Earthen Architecture has not become Common Rebuilding Technique
Earthen architecture is clearly an applicable rebuilding technique, in all
concerned realms – environmental, social, and economic. Yet it has not become
a commonly accepted rebuilding medium. This is of major concern. I asked
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 51/67
respondents why they believed this to be the case. There were three main
responses: a) peoples poor associations of earthen architecture to poverty, b) a
lack of appropriate education, of both non-builders and architects alike, and c) a
lack of major funding.
a. Association with Poverty
Earthen architecture is often associated with obsolete building techniques
from the past. According to Martin Hammer, the buildings “carry baggage of
something that has been abandoned”. Tina Therrien explained, “I think in part,
people in developing countries have a resistance to returning to natural
materials, due to their association with poverty. They want more modern houses
built of more modern materials”. The reality of the situation is not always
aspeople’s prejudices believe them to be. There are countless examples of
brilliant large-scale expensive earth-works. This false conception that earthen
buildings are from the past and are only applicable for the poor is a major
stumbling block for the successful implementation of Perma.relief. Of course,
both of these connected concerns would be best addressed by public education
in the field of sustainable architecture. Lack of proper education has become
another major problem thwarting the process of implementation.
b. Education
Respondents spoke of two sides of the education gap. First, there is a
lack of education among the general public. Modern architecture has become so
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 52/67
far removed from the average person’s experience of the building process that
people simply do not know about it. Nhac Cousteau explained, “Not enough
people know how to build strong sustainable structures anymore. It’s like they
forgot it’s in their nature”. This sentiment was shared among other respondents
as well. Tina Therrien explained,
“Many people in the ‘developing’ world have moved away from traditionalbuilding methods such as wattle & daub, to instead build with bricks &cement, which have status for some. What this means is people arespending more money on housing materials than is necessary, andpollution to produce cement, for instance, contributes to air quality issuesin the country in questions. After a natural disaster, it is important to be
able to provide shelter quickly, and to provide shelter that is affordable,sustainable, and shelter that will withstand another such natural disaster…Many natural materials fare better in earthquakes and hurricanes. I haveseen wattle & daub buildings in the countryside in Haiti post-earthquakethat are still standing, despite perhaps being skewed, right next to brick&concrete buildings that have failed and crumbled. After a disaster,especially if you have lost everything, you need to be able to rebuild asolid, affordable house”.
The other educational concern was voiced by Dr. Mohammad Zami.
Trained architects are not trained in the area of earthen architecture.
“I have not seen any school teaching about this kind of construction. It iscompletely eliminated from the universities. This is an alarming situation.This is the major reason why it is held back. And the result is that they
will never recommend to clients to have the building out of this material.This is the major inhibitor”.
Professional architects literally do not know because they have never
been taught that “earth can be pre-fabricated, earth construction can be
earthquake resistant, and earth construction can be flood resistant” (Zami). Thus
earthen architecture is rarely considered in disaster rebuilding plans, even by
those who are interested in sustainable rebuilding.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 53/67
c. Lack of Major Funding
The other major barrier inhibiting the exploration of earthen architecture as
a rebuilding technique is the lack of major funding. Unanimously respondents
noted that their groups had to completely fundraise by their own means, from
their own communities, rather than from receiving large governmental
assistance. Waylon noted, “…we fundraised through events, canvassing, and
public and private contributions online”. Similarly, Brian said that they got
“donations via our website and through a fund-raising event”. In effect all groups
were “self-funded”, which severely limits the amount of capital that can be
dedicated to the implementation of earthen architecture. Lack of available
governmental/larger scale funding for earthen architecture is not specific to
disaster relief. In fact, Martin Hammer explained that it might be a little easier to
fundraise in post-disaster situations compare to times of normalcy due to the
obvious housing needs. Never-the-less, when financial resources run dry,
building screeches to a halt. Lack of funding has had and will continue to have
great effect on the implementation of large scale rebuilding efforts.
CHAPTER 5:Concluding Remarks
Having read and reread the body of this paper, it would be impossible to
define natural disasters as simply “natural”. Disasters do not arise out of the
earth alone. In opposition to this classic understanding, they are complex
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 54/67
physical events that have interplay with larger societal phenomena. Natural
disasters act as triggers, lifting curtains placed by society, giving light to the pre-
existing ills of society. Previous literature discusses both the social construction
and social production of “natural” disasters. These analyses are spot on.
Disasters exist within the confines of society, and at the same time, society plays
a major role in producing the rising frequency of disasters. Current human efforts
to create a more sustainable society and to address the increasing severity of
disasters have been unsatisfactory. However, there is hope. Natural disasters
open the door to sustainable development. In order to more effectively create
this very badly needed societal make-over from environmental degradation to
sustainable development, we must reorient ourselves to disaster response and
rebuilding. To do this, we must come to realize new frameworks that can cater to
this need. For only a cure that simultaneously works as future prevention is
worth a damn thing.
The rise of industrial civilization over the last 200 years has left a large
portion of humanity especially vulnerable to disasters. While this reorganization
of society from pre-industrialism to post-industrialization has taken us forward in
numerous ways, it has also created a sort of new order of natural disasters. A lot
has been unaddressed, and many have been left behind and unattended to. The
focus of this paper is not to debate whether or not industrialization should have
happened, but instead it is a response to the present need to find ways in which
we can best respond to these problems in the most equitable ways.
By using the sociological theory of social construction as a means to
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 55/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 56/67
and at the same time is able to avoid their own creations, the other group is
forced to deal the hard way.
These two factors create immense vulnerability for marginalized
communities existing within the framework of global capitalism. The work of
major aid organizations in rebuilding has been unsatisfactory because there are
not enough resources going into rebuilding projects and their framework still
largely exist within the regime of global capitalism. In an economy based on
creating capital there is little reward for addressing disasters. If there is little
capital dedicated to addressing these problems, how can there ever be enough
to help people who are marginalized and vulnerable to disasters? Even though
this is an ideologically constructed version of value, which is clearly beneficial to
specific sectors of society, it is something that everyone has to deal with. It is not
natural and there is no reason why it has to be this way. As humanity created
this framework it too holds the power to change it.
With these three factors in mind: the social construction of disaster, the
social production of disaster, and the woes of capitalism causing insufficient
disaster response, it becomes clear that a technique is necessary that responds
to the needs of vulnerable populations. This technique needs a multi-faceted
approach. It needs to be a viable financial solution for marginalized
communities, offer environmental solutions instead of burdens, and take the form
of open-source technology which exists outside the confines of industrial
capitalism, so it can be accessible to all. Perma.relief, in the form of
contemporary earthen architecture gives life to an innovative rebuilding model
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 57/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 58/67
building materials that create large scale environmental degradation. Therefore,
it makes no economic or environmental sense to continue using them,
particularly when the option to begin introducing sustainable building practice is
so obvious and available. This is especially the case because these “valuable”
building materials are not even available to those who most often suffer from
natural disasters.
Capitalistic disaster response models provide relief that is hierarchical and
intends to promote the same types of development that caused the problem in
the first place, giving little thought to the long term effects of building material
choices. In opposition to this, one of the major strengths of earthen architecture
is its open-source quality, meaning that it is both available for use to all and
anyone can alter the technique to their own needs. Due to the ease of the
technique it is extremely empowering. When people are empowered they
become independent and capable of creating their own operating systems that
can exist outside of industrial capitalism. Thus they become even more
independent and capable to providing for themselves.
Yes, it is a better building material. Yes, if done properly, it is likely to
withstand earthquakes. But there is clearly much more to it. Earthen
architecture has a lot to offer, even more than it’s characteristics of
independence and accessibility. There are much larger socio-economic
implications behind this building practice. This application speaks to all of the
actors in this story. It directly halts those industrializing - creating JARing effects-
and by turning slums into sustainable and resilient communities. It affects
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 59/67
landowners and practices of INGOs, and most importantly it truly helps those
affected by disaster build back better . It is through this framework that one can
understand how a seemingly unconnected form of building, which could simply
be framed as architecture, art, or even as a study of environmental design can
have major societal implications. Earthen architecture addresses real problems
through a theoretical framework being applied to real life solutions. Isn’t that
what building back better is all about? We must continue working to find solutions
that address theoretical problems while still remaining cognizant of their
applicability. And that is what earthen architecture offers.
References1. Albala-Bertrand, J.M. 1993. The Political Economy of Large Natural Disasters:
With Special Reference to Developing Countries. Oxford, UK; Clarendon Press.
2. Ardani, Kristen B., Charles C. Reith, and C. Josh Donlan. 2009. Harnessing
Catastrophe to Promote Resource Recovery and Eco-industrial Development .Yale University.
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 60/67
3. Ariyabandu MM. 2006. Gender issues in recovery from the December 2004Indian Ocean tsunami: the case of Sri Lanka. Earthq. Spectra 22:S759–75
4. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards.People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. New York: Routledge.
5. Coburn, A. W. and Spence, R.J.S. 1992. Earthquake Prevention. London: JohnWiley and Sons.
6. Cuaresma, Crespo, Hlouskova, and Obersteiner. 2008. Natural Disasters As
Creative Destruction? Evidence From Developing Countries. Economic Inquiry,Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 214-226.
7. Cutter SL. 2005. The geography of social vulnerability: race, class, andcatastrophe. Understanding Katrina: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Soc.Sci. Res. Counc. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/ . (Last AccessedApril 11, 2011)
8. Dacy, Douglas C., and Howard Kunreuther. 1969 The Economics of Natural
Disasters: Implications for Federal Policy , New York, NY; The Free Press.
9. Duncan, Arne. 2010. ‘Katrina Was “Best Thing To Happen To Education In NewOrleans.’ Available at http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/news-one-staff/arne-duncan-katrina-was-best-thing-to-happen-to-education-in-new-orleans/ (last accessed 11 April 2011).
10. Drabek TE. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster . New York:Springer-Verlag.
11. Dynes RR. 1970. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books
12. Dynes RR, Quarantelli EL. 1971. The absence of community conflict in
the early phases of natural disaster . In Conflict Resolution: Contributions of theBehavioral Sciences, ed. CGSmith, pp. 200–4. South Bend, IN: Univ. NotreDame Press
13. Etzioni, Amitai. 1968. The Active Society : Theory of Societal and Political
Processes. New York: Free Press.
14. Fischer, Henry W., III. 1998. Response to Disaster: Fact Versus Fiction &
Its Perpetuation. 2nd Edition. Landham, Maryland: University Press of America.
15. Friedman, Milton. 2005. Wall Street Journal.
16. Fritz, Charles. 1961. Contemporary Social Problems. Disasters. NewYork, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
17. Green, P. 2005. Disaster by design: corruption, construction, and
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 61/67
catastrophe. Br. J. Criminol. 45:528–46
18. Hansen, J. 2007. Why We Can't Wait. The Nation, 284, 13-14.
19. Klein, Naomi. The Shock doctrine: The Ride of Disaster Capitalism.
20. Kousky C, Zeckhauser R. 2005. JARring Actions that Fuel the Floods: OnRisk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.Press, pp. 59–73.
21. Kreps GA, Bosworth SL. 1993. Disaster, organizing, and role enactment:
a structural approach. Am. J. Sociol. 99:428–63
22. Marcum, Diana. 1999. Down to Earth. The Los Angeles Times.
23. Morrish, W. 2008. After the Storm: Rebuilding cities upon reflexiveinfrastructure. Social Research, 75 , 993-1014
24. Mutter, J. C. ; Archibong, B.; Pi, D. 2009. When is a natural disaster a
development disaster; when is a natural disaster not a disaster? AmericanGeophysical Union, Fall Meeting.
25. Nill, Jan, and René Kemp. 2009. Evolutionary approaches for sustainable
innovation policies: From niche to paradigm? Research Policy 38.4 p. 668-680.
26. Oliver-Smith, Anthony. 1997. From Rubble to Reconstruction.Hemisphere. Latin American and Caribbean Center. V8, In1,P24.
27. Phillips B. 1998. Sheltering and housing of low-income and minority
groups in Santa Cruz County after the Loma Prieta earthquake. In The LomaPrieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Recovery, Mitigation, and Reconstruction, ed. JM Nigg, pp. D17–28. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap.1553D.Washington, DC: USGPO.
28. Quarantelli EL. 1987. Disaster studies: an analysis of the social historical factors affecting the development of research in the area. Int. J. Mass Emerg.Disasters 5:285–310.
29. Quarantelli, E. L. 2008. Conventional Beliefs and Counterintuitive
Realities. Social Research: An International Quarterly 75.
30. Rennings, Klaus, 2000. Redefining innovation -- eco-innovation researchand the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, Elsevier,vol. 32(2), pages 319-332.
31. Río, Pablo D., Carrillo-Hermosilla, Javier, Könnölä, Totti. 2010. Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-Innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology. VL.14, IS. 4.Blackwell Publishing Inc .
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 62/67
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 63/67
completion of this survey is completely voluntary. The purpose of this study is tounderstand the all aspects of earth building as a response to natural disasters. Take as
much time as needed to complete this survey truthfully, to the best of your ability. Pleasefeel free to email the research coordinator with questions and/or concerns, and upon
completion email to: [email protected]. Thank you for your help.
1) What is your age? _________
2) What is your gender? Male Female
3) How many years have you been working with earthen architecture? ____________________________
4) In which specific country(s)/years have you worked on relief projects? __________________________
5) What type of natural disaster (earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, etc) was the responseto? ______________________________________________________________________ _______________
6) Which building technique did the build use? _______________________________________________
The following questions ask for a more in depth analysis.Please respond with as much information as possible.
7)What do you consider to be earthen architecture? What type of materials does thisframework include?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
8)What do you believe to be the strengths and weaknesses of earthen architecture? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
9) Why do you believe it is important to introduce sustainable earthen architecture to theworld community, and especially in natural disaster relief situations?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 64/67
10) How did you/your group procure funding for this endeavor? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
11) What was the role of the Government in the build? Did they provide funding or anyother help?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
12) Was the build in any way affected by building codes/other policies? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 13) Did governmental building code shift in the wake of the disaster? Did buildingbecome easier due to this?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
14)Do you feel that natural disaster situations give room for experimental architecture toemerge?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
15) Once in the community, was there conversation between you/your group and thelocal population as to the wants and desires of the community? If so, please elaborate.
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
16) What was the response from the locals to this form of building? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
17) How did you/your group decide exactly where to build? ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
18) Was there a long term vision for the building project? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
19) Why do you think earthen architecture has not sky rocketed as the number one way
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 65/67
to rebuild after natural disasters? Further, what do you believe is holding it back? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
Any additional comments:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your help.
Survey B
This is a self administered survey. The answers will be kept confidential, and thecompletion of this survey is completely voluntary. The purpose of this study is to
understand the all aspects of earth building as a response to natural disasters. Take as
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 66/67
much time as needed to complete this survey truthfully, to the best of your ability. Pleasefeel free to email the research coordinator with questions and/or concerns, and upon
completion email to: [email protected]. Thank you for your help.
Please complete this survey if you have not participated in natural disaster rebuilding relief efforts.
1) What is your age? _________
2) What is your gender? _________
3) How many years have you been working with earthen architecture? __________________________________
4) Which types of building techniques do you have experience with? ___________________________________
The following questions ask for a more in depth analysis.Please respond with as much information as possible.
5)What do you consider to be earthen architecture? What type of materials does thisframework include?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
6)What do you believe to be the strengths and weaknesses of earthen architecture? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
7) Why do you believe it is important to introduce sustainable earthen architecture to theworld community, and especially in natural disaster relief situations?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
8)What do you believe are the advantages of building with the earth and other recycled
materials. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
9)Why do you think that earth as a building material has lost it's credibility as a buildingmaterial?
______________________________________________________________________
8/6/2019 Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/permarelief-from-destruction-grows-sustainability 67/67
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
10) Why do you think earthen architecture has not sky rocketed as the number one wayto rebuild after natural disasters? Further, what do you believe is holding it back?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
11)Do you feel that natural disaster situations give room for experimental architecture toemerge?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
Any additional comments? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your help.