Advertisement

Design for Resilience: Traditional Knowledge in Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

  • K. MitraEmail author
Chapter
  • 68 Downloads
Part of the Springer Geography book series (SPRINGERGEOGR)

Abstract

Design is a loaded term that encompasses diverse viewpoints. Loon (Inter-organizational design: a new approach to team design in architecture and urban planning. In Proceedings of the 5th Design & Decision Support Systems Conference in Architecture and urban Planning. Nijkerk, Netherlands. August, 2000) interprets the term ‘designer’ to include anyone who has an impact on design, irrespective of the individual’s professional background. It follows then that optimum design is the consensual design solution that is considered optimum for the largest number of people. People will have diverse responses to what constitutes optimum. These responses are likely to be dependent on a host of factors including gender, profession, occupation, health, race, religion, age, environmental experience and attitudes, to name just a few. Thus, ‘optimum’ will not necessarily be the ‘best looking design’ or the ‘most economic design’ or even the ‘most functional design’; it will be the solution that best balances issues considered important to the largest section of people. Such a solution should ideally ensure maximum comfort and sense of well-being for all participants. This chapter looks at design within the domain of traditional knowledge systems and shows how communities residing in some of the most disaster-prone areas in the world, such as the Himalayas, have “designed” resilient environments that have withstood the ravages of hazardous events, for example, earthquakes. Unfortunately, these traditional design skills which were handed down through generations are no longer evident in their places of origin. The easy availability and economy afforded by reinforced concrete in even the most remote parts of the country, along with the associations of permanence (of the home) and prosperity (of the family) with this material, have resulted in the hybridization of traditional masonry constructions in different seismic zones of India.

Experiences from several past earthquake.s have shown that in many cases, traditional structures have performed remarkably well, while newer, “engineered” structures have not. Traditional construction, in this discussion, does not refer to historic structures—though there are many examples of good earthquake performance in this category of buildings—but rather encompasses the vernacular residential constructions made with locally available materials and using indigenous knowledge. A number of such traditional earthquake-resistant practices exist in the Himalayan region, one of the most tectonically active in the world. Some of the most effective of these are Dhajji-diwari and Taq, around the Srinagar area in Kashmir, Ikra construction in Assam, and Shee-Khim, in Sikkim. This chapter describes some of these traditional construction techniques and shows how these are effective as earthquake-resilient systems.

Keywords

Earthquake resilience Traditional knowledge Design typologies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges C.V.R Murty, Hemant B Kaushik and Sutapa Joti for some of the photographs and the support from BMTPC for conducting surveys in Srinagar and Guwahati.

Bibliography

  1. Alkazi F (2014) Srinagar: an architectural legacy. Roli Books Private LimitedGoogle Scholar
  2. Audefroy JF (2011) Haiti: post-earthquake lessons learned from traditional construction. Environ Urban 23(2):447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann Geophys 47(2-3)Google Scholar
  4. Bommer JJ, Benito MB, Lemoine A, López-Menjı́var MA, Madariaga R, Mankelow J, de Hasbun PM, Murphy W, Nieto-Lovo M, Rodriguez-Pineda CE, Rosa H (2002) The El Salvador earthquakes of January and February 2001: context, characteristics and implications for seismic risk. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(5):389–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brzev S (2007) Earthquake-resistant confined masonry construction. NICEE, National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology KanpurGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixit AM (2004) Promoting safer building construction in Nepal. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  7. Dutu A, Ferreira JG, Guerreiro L, Branco F, Goncalves AM (2012) Timbered masonry for earthquake resistance in Europe. Mater Constr 62(308):615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Folke C (2004) Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:3Google Scholar
  9. Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio:151–156Google Scholar
  10. Güçhan NŞ (2007) Observations on earthquake resistance of traditional timber-framed houses in Turkey. Build Environ 42(2):840–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gülkan P, Langenbach R (2004) The earthquake resistance of traditional timber and masonry dwellings in Turkey. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  12. Hrasnica M (2009) Damage Assessment for Masonry and Historic Buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: Damage assessment and reconstruction after war or natural disaster. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IS 1893(Part 1) (2016) Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  14. Jain SK (2005) The Indian earthquake problem. Curr Sci 89(9):1464–1466Google Scholar
  15. Jigyasu R (2002) Reducing disaster vulnerability through local knowledge and capacity, The case of Earthquake Prone rural communities in India and Nepal.PhD thesis, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art Department of Town and Regional Planning.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaushik HB, Dasgupta K (2012) Observations on performance of structures during 18 September 2011 Sikkim (India) Earthquake.15 WCEE, LISBOAGoogle Scholar
  17. Langenbach R (2007) From “Opus Craticium” to the “Chicago Frame”: earthquake-resistant traditional construction. Int J Archit Herit 1(1):29–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loon PP (2000) Inter-organizational design: a new approach to team design in architecture and urban planning. In: Proceedings of the 5th Design & Decision Support Systems Conference in Architecture and urban Planning. Nijkerk, Netherlands. August 2000Google Scholar
  19. López M, Bommer J, Méndez P (2004, August). The seismic performance of bahareque dwellings in El Salvador. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, paper (No. 2646).Google Scholar
  20. Main H, Williams SW (eds) (1994) Environment and housing in third world cities. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Shakyaa M, Varuma H, Vicentea R, Costaa A (2012) Structural vulnerability of Nepalese Pagoda Temples, 15WCEE LISBOA 2012Google Scholar
  22. Wood SL, Wight JK, Moehle JP (1987) The 1985 Chile earthquake: observations on earthquake-resistant construction in Viña del Mar. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. College of Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Town and Regional PlanningIndian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, ShibpurHowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations