earthquake_resistant_housing_peru.pdf

7/27/2019 earthquake_resistant_housing_peru.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/earthquakeresistanthousingperupdf 1/10

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANTHOUSINGIntroductionThe fundamental need for shelter can be easily recognised: people must have protectionfrom the elements, somewhere to grow as a family, a place to work from and a home to calltheir own. In many countries people do not have the resources to buy houses built by

professionals but rely on their own labour,using local materials to build their homesgradually. People make improvementsand extend their houses as familyrequirements change and resourcespermit.

Disaster st rikes

On the evening of 29 May 1990 Alto Mayo(see Figure 1) was struck by anearthquake measuring 6 on the Richterscale. The effects were felt in an areacovering more than 8000 squarekilometres, damage was sustained by8000 houses with nearly 3000 irreparablydamaged. These figures only begin tosuggest the magnitude of loss felt by localcommunities. In the district capitals ofHabana and Soritor, eight out of tenhouses were destroyed.

Rebuilding communitiesPractical Action is an organisation focusedon achieving long-term, sustainabledevelopment and does not undertakedisaster relief. However, Practical Action(then called ITDG) was well placed to

assist in thereconstruction efforts;staff who worked in thearea were well knownby local people. Inpartnership with localorganisations Practical

Action had establishedworking relationshipsand friendships thatenabled them to quicklybecome involved inpreparing areconstruction plan.

Figure 1: Map of Peru

Relief intervention wasthe remit of CáritasPeru, a churchorganisation supportedby an internationalnetwork of organisations concerned with humanitarian work. Given the disruption to dailylives caused by the earthquake, Practical Action recognised the opportunity to create long-

Figure 2: The impact of the earthquake on a tapial house in Soritor© Practical Action/Megan Lloyed-Laney

http://www.practicalaction.org/

http://www.practicalaction.org/



Earthquake resistant housing Practical Action

term benefit and was careful to consider how people could participate in rebuilding homes.Reconstruction had to continue at a pace that people could afford and at the same time meetpeople’s need for economic survival alongside their need for shelter. Practical Action had tobe certain that activities proceeded in accordance with local people’s priorities and would notbe dominated by external pressures and agendas.

Practical Action’s intervention in the reconstruction began in the town of Soritor (see map).This settlement was chosen as the starting point for two reasons: the extent of damagesustained in the town was relatively high as was the level of community organisation. Socialstructures existed that enabled Practical Action to consult with the local community despitethe disruptive impact of the earthquake. After community meetings Practical Actionengineers and social scientists developed a reconstruction plan for the Alto Mayo regionwhich was then presented to the local authorities.

Getting startedThe community based organisation FEDIP (el Frente de Defensa de los Intereses del Pueblode Soritor) had evolved in the preceding years, during times of economic hardship, tonegotiate prices and represent the interests of local producers: their organisational skills and

knowledge proved to be critical in achieving project success. Soritor is divided into sixneighbourhoods; each of these had an existing neighbourhood committee that organisedcollective meetings to discuss reconstruction efforts. FEDIP’s experience of fighting for theinterests of small-scale agricultural producers meant they were well aware of the realities oflocal life with a strong committee structure, they were able to seek the views of, andrepresent, people at district, provincial and departmental levels.

With financial support from the British Embassy and the Overseas Development Administration of the United Kingdom (now the Department for International Development)backed up with technical documentation from university researchers and photographicevidence of houses built in Huacucho, Duval Zambrano and Hermelando Aliaga, of Practical Action, set about consultation exercises with the 5000 inhabitants of Soritor.

Planning in partnershipDuring the initial six months after the earthquake, efforts focused on recording people’s

2

María Asencia Salva SedamanoMaría seen with her daughters Kary, Rosa and Zoryisabel, rebuilt her house on the outskirts ofMoyobamba in a neighbourhood called Huacucho.

The process of reconstruction was not an easy one for Mariabut she feels she learnt a great deal from her involvement inher community’s affairs. Despite considerable pressure fromher husband to rebuild their house in bricks and concrete,Maria saw the improved quincha project as a realisticopportunity to rebuild a roof over her family’s heads. She sold

her sewing machine to obtain the necessary capital topurchase building materials. María was chosen by hercommunity to represent their views in project discussions andnegotiations. Alongside a male representative she was tobecome involved in a series of activities which, she says,developed her skills in dealing with people and built her self-confidence.

The Huacucho Neighbourhood Reconstruction Committee thatMaría represented became an agricultural cooperative. Maríaworked with other men and women to generate income byraising small livestock, selling agricultural produce and home-made food in the local market place. For a period she wasalso president of the Mothers’ Club. Once María felt she hadplayed those particular roles in community leadership for longenough she went into business for herself. Her considerableskills are also put to use as governor at the local schoolattended by her three daughters.

Figure 3: Maria rebuiltthe family home usingimproved quincha ©

Practical Action /LuckyLowe




ideas, aspirations and concerns in order that these could be included in the Alto MayoReconstruction and Development Plan. Of equal, or perhaps greater significance was theprocess of drawing people together to share their opinions. This process enabled Practical Action and their project partners to develop practical working relationships andorganisational structures to forge links with the wider local population. The reconstruction

plan was not seen as a quick-fix solution to the very apparent housing problems but as anopportunity to link post-disaster efforts directly into long-term development activities.

BeneficiariesWith such a large and immediate need for rebuilding it was crucial for Practical Action to beconfident that the people who would benefit from the project were those who needed it most.Practical Action relied heavily on FEDIP and Cáritas to ensure that selection of projectbeneficiaries was undertaken in an objective manner and was seen to be fair. Initially thefeeling locally was that everyone was a victim of the earthquake and that everyone shouldtherefore benefit equally from incoming aid. However, it soon became apparent that somepeople had more resources at their disposal than others.

Practical Action staff did not decide who the project beneficiaries would be, though staff were

often intermediaries in complex negotiations with various parties. Neighbourhood committeemembers were consulted first, and were asked to write down a list of. 30 - 35 heads ofhouseholds. The people on that list were subsequently classified by Practical Action ’sCommunity Liaison Officer into four categories:• rich farmer e.g. 5 or more hectares of rice-growing land.• employee e.g. teacher.• poor farmer e.g. less than 2 hectares.• poorest e.g. landless, widow.This list of people was then passed to the local order of nuns who made final adjustmentsand decided who the beneficiaries should be.

One immediate problem Practical Action had to tackle was the widely held belief thatexternal interveners like Practical Action and Cáritas would provide all the materials required;1990 was an election year and politicians seeking election might have encouraged people tobelieve that new houses would be freely available. A high level of expectation existed – insome people’s minds that Practical Action’s role was as a housing provider: they shouldbuild the houses for people and hand over keys upon completion. Practical Action stronglybelieves that it is more useful to help people to help themselves and to assist in buildingtechnological capacity in order that people benefit in the long term, after Practical Action’sproject is over.

Building choicesDuring early discussions it was not clear which building technologies would be chosen. Itcould be argued that earthquake resistance was the only criterion governing the technicalchoices to be made. However, Practical Action believes that sustainable developmentdepends upon a good deal more than predetermined technical solutions.

Using drawings, manuals, photographs and videos from pilot housing projects in otherregions of Peru, project staff were able to demonstrate building technologies. A series ofmeetings resulted in an increasing level of understanding between project partners of theirrespective roles and the nature of support that was being offered; as well as linking needsand priorities to design and technology.

The technologies used to build houses cannot be viewed in isolation from their social oreconomic context. Although Practical Action staff could see benefits in working withimproved, local technologies, they were also aware that people tend to prefer ‘materialesnobles’ (noble materials), such as fired brick and reinforced concrete. These moderntechnologies are of higher status, greater durability and longer-term financial value.

However, affordable, earthquake-resistant building technologies were required for rebuilding;many of the rammed earth ‘tapial’ houses failed in the earthquake but ‘quincha’ (a type ofwattle and daub) had shown its inherent earthquake resistance. The need for affordable,

3




locally available, safe shelter won the argument: Practical Action project engineers and localmen and women decided that ‘improved quincha’ was a preferable and practicabletechnology choice.

Figure 4: Olympia Guerra working athome ©Practical Action / Lucky Lowe

Olympia Guerra

Olympia Guerra became known in herneighbourhood as ‘La Maestra’ – TheCraftswoman. She lived as a single woman inthe village of Jepelacio and worked in aneighbourhood building team with four otherwomen and four men. She felt that operating in asmall group was beneficial as everyone had to dotheir share of the work. Olympia was taught by askilled craftsman who was employed by ITDG toassist in the reconstruction project. With newlydeveloped skills Olympia learnt how to build aconcrete base for her own house and then wenton to help others do the same.

Practical Action were keen to employ Olympia asan extension agent but the strongly held beliefthat building is a man’s job, coupled with peerpressure, is said to have made this impossible.Instead she participated in the team’s ownworkload and played an active role in thereconstruction of her own and other neighbours’houses during a programme of activities lastingmore than six months.

Origins of quincha and technology developmentQuincha technology has been used in parts of Peru for many centuries. Traditionally, aquincha house would have a round pole frame which was set directly into the ground, infilledwith smaller wooden poles and interwoven to form a matrix which is then plastered with oneor more layers of earth. Since 1535, the Spanish colonisers employed quincha for buildingdomes on top of massive earthen church walls. The 1746 earthquake, which had adevastating impact upon the city of Lima, triggered much wider use of quincha. After thatearthquake, the governors of Peru decreed that any construction above ground floor levelshould be built of quincha. One can still find older houses in Lima with earth walls at groundfloor level and a quincha structure above.

In the Alto Mayo region, a large proportion of the population have immigrated from the

mountainous region of Cajamarca where massive earthen architecture predominates. Thecollective memory of these people did not include experience of earthquakes and theirtechnology choices reflected their earthquake-free homelands.

An earthquake in 1970 produced renewed interest in earthquake-resistant buildingtechnologies. During the 1980s researchers at the Catholic University, the NationalEngineering University and the National Institute of Housing of Peru, supported by the UnitedStates Agency for International Development, investigated ways of improving upontraditional building materials and housing systems: they focused in particular on quinchatechnology.

The results of investigating quincha technology in a university environment were newdesigns with increased earthquake resistance. Research highlighted methods of improvingdurability and creating standardised construction units. Housing units were designed to

4




include uniform measurements of 1.2m between structural columns which were made ofsquare timber sections (200mm x 200mm).

Practical Action engineers drew on this academic research when presenting the improvedtechnology to the men and women of Soritor. Technical details were soon adapted once

Practical Action project engineers and technicians started work in Alto Mayo. For example,timber poles replaced the square columns as they are more readily available and do notrequire machinery or labour to process them from their raw state.

Improved quincha has thefollowing characteristicsover and above traditionalquincha:• concrete foundations to

give greater stability.• wooden columns

treated with tar or pitchto protect against

humidity, concreted intothe ground with nailsembedded in the woodat the base to give extraanchorage.

• use of concrete wallbases to preventhumidity affecting thewood and the canes inthe walls.

• careful jointing betweencolumns and beams toimprove structuralintegrity.

• canes woven in avertical fashion toprovide greater stability.

• lightweight metal sheetroofing to reducepotential danger tooccupants from fallingtiles.

• nailing of roofingmaterial to roof-beams;tying of beams and

columns with roof wiresto guard against strongwinds and earthmovements.

• roof eaves of sufficientwidth to ensure protection of walls against heavy rains.

Figure 5: Plan view ©Practical Action /DuvalZambrano/J. Cuizano

D1

C1 C2C2

C2C2

4 0 0 0 m m

C1C2C2C1

4000mm 4000mm

Figure 6: Wall construction ©Practical Action /Duval Zambrano/J. Cuizano

VariableVariable

Detail ‘B’

Column

Detail ‘A’Beam/Wall Plate100mm diameter

1st

Coat2

nd Coat

Improved quincha has many advantages in addition to earthquake resistance. Easy accessto materials and low cost were of primary concern to Practical Action and to local men andwomen. The local availability of timber poles, bamboo and earth means that improvedquincha is more suited to a self-help building programme than many alternatives.

People’s participation After the initial project phase Practical Action planned to demonstrate improved quincha in areal project (seeing is sometimes believing). A community building was erected in central

5




Soritor. It took six months to build this structure, which resulted in this technology beingnicknamed ‘delayed quincha’ rather than ‘improved quincha’.

However, the slowapproach was deliberate. It

takes time to fully involve adiverse and numerousgroup of people in aconstruction project. Ateam of ten to fifteen menand women from differentneighbourhoods wereinvolved in the constructionprocess every week. Thisled to greater awarenessand an increasedunderstanding of how thetechnology was used: many

people learnt the details ofconstruction and the skillsrequired to successfullycomplete an improvedquincha building. In addition to manual labour the community alsoprovided the bulk of materials which were sourced locally.

3 0 0 m m

3 0 0 m m

100 mmdia

100 mm dia

Floorlevel

Floorlevel

Floorlevel

150 mm

Figure 7: Details of the footings©Practical Action /Duval Zambrano/J. Cuizano

400mm

Typical crosssection C1 tofooting

400mm

Typical crosssection D1-D1

Nails

400mm

Typical crosssection C2 tofooting

Bituminouspaint orrecycled oil

Column details

Practical experience of workingwith this technology during thedemonstration meant thatPractical Action staff andmembers of the community wereable to ‘learn by doing’. This

resulted in new thinking and somechanges: for example, the firstcoat of plaster put onto the woveninfill panels was found to crack, sorather than allow cracks todevelop naturally, the first layer ofplaster was deeply scored to allowfor the shrinkage upon drying andto provide a better grip for thesecond coat of plaster.

In the Alto Mayo region self-helpconstruction remains the

predominant method of buildinghouses. Individual householdmembers help each other toconstruct their homes and alsohelp other households in thesame community. If structuresare for communal use then everyhousehold in the communityassists in the building process.This has recently become lesscommon as more people haveformal jobs and are unable todevote their own time. Oftencraftsmen will be employed on acasual basis to complete

6

Figure 8: Cross section ©Practical Action /Duval Zambrano/J.

dia100 mm

dia 50 mm

Detail A

Dia50 mm

Recess

Concretewall base

Beam 100mm dia

2300mm

100 mm

300 mm

Detail B

Floor level

Bamboo andwoven infill

SpecificationsConcrete pad and strip foundations:Mix – 1:10 (cement: aggregate)+30 % large stonesConcrete wall baseMix – 1: 8 (Cement: aggregate)Wood is structural quality poles

Render1

st coat – mud: straw

Mix – 100kg: 50kg2nd coat – cement: lime: sand: or sieved soilMix – 1:1: 5or cement: gypsum: sandMix – 1:1:5*ratios are by volume




specialist tasks and oversee the building process. Practical Action’s ways of working had toreflect traditional approaches whilst taking into account the constraints of modern life.

Building the community centre introduced the improved quincha technology to those directlyinvolved in the construction process as well as to the many observers who stopped by to

watch the work progress. The opportunity to collaborate in a practical task also createdunderstanding between project staff, local people, organisations and authorities.

Designing a new homeFollowing the demonstrationphase a series of activitiesconcentrated on designinghouses with people. Byworking with men and womenin small groups, architecturaland building professionals usedcolour coded wooden blocks tomodel design options and

produced plans for a corehousing unit. It was essentialthat the design remainedsufficiently flexible so as to beadaptable to specific familyrequirements, to incomes, tomaterials available, to landfeatures and to any unexpected factors which may arise.

Figure 9: Careful jointing between columns and beams improvesstructural integrity ©Practical Action /Chris Martin

By modelling their ideas people could create their preferred house in miniature. Their designwas drawn up by an architect and then adjusted once more with input from householdmembers. These activities were undertaken within specific neighbourhoods and served toplan the subsequent work, identify materials required and engage people in the whole

reconstruction process.

Building work started oncematerials had been gathered andtransported to all the groupmembers’ plots. Groups of 20–25people formed constructionteams; they worked in turns oneach other’s plots until all thehouses were completed. Thiswork usually proceeded atweekends thus allowing for familyresponsibilities, agricultural work

and people’s jobs during theweek. When people wereavailable, work would alsoproceed during week days. At the beginning of the project itwas assumed that people couldprovide materials such asaggregate, sand, timber and bamboo in addition to any salvaged materials from theirdamaged dwelling. If an individual member of the group had insufficient resources tocontribute others would often assist. When individuals had no agricultural land from which toharvest bamboo or timber they would have to transport materials from distant forests.Transport was often a problem for people; in some cases the local authorities or other donorprojects would lend their vehicles for transportation of sand from the local river bed. ITDGand Cáritas provided sufficient additional materials to the people in most need (galvanisediron sheeting, nails and cement) to build a 30m

2 housing unit.

Figure 10: The Community building in Soritor during construction©Practical Action /Rumi Velaclliaga

7




Technicalsupervision

Evaluation

Work Methodology

First contacts Characteristics ofbeneficiaries

Availability of resources Typology of plots Socio-economics

Aggregates Transport

Promotion

Training and dissemination

Housing designConstruction systemExhibition of photographsModels and slides

A. Architectural criteriaB. 1. Marketing out and

foundations2. Structure – columns andverticals3. Roofing4. Earth applications5. Plastering - theory

Promotion

1.Agreements: Practical Action/Cárita – beneficiaries2. Provision of materials – institutional

beneficiaries

3. Start of work on site4. Construction

Construction stages1. Marking out and foundations2. Structure – Columns and verticals3. Roofing4. Earth application5 plastering

Designworkshop

Communitypromotion

Characteristics of Land

Identification

Despite these efforts to explain and promote this technology scepticism towards improvedquincha remained – it was after all an unknown technology that had little social standing(seeing is not always sufficient to be convinced of the value of new technologies, especiallywhen resources are very

limited). A significant factorin improving the popularityand acceptance ofimproved quinchatechnology was anotherearthquake, in April 1991.The total toll on localhousing amounted to17,000 damaged units. Thefirst locally built examples ofimproved quinchademonstrated theirimproved resistance to theimpact of earthquakes andserved to convince many

8

Figure 11: Improved quincha building in Jepelacio ©Practical Action/Lucky Lowe




more people of the appropriate nature of this technology.

Project impactThe direct intervention in reconstruction activities by Practical Action and Cáritas ceased inMarch 1994 and had, by that time, resulted in 558 improved quincha houses being built in

the Alto Mayo province. There are also many thousands of improved quincha houses whichhave been built by men and women, independently of the project. The 1993 national censusestimated that quincha formed just 7% of the national housing stock but within the projectarea this figure rose to nearly 30%.

José Louis Mego As the projects focus moved from one neighbourhood to another and then to new townsand villages, ITDG had to develop new relations and adapt their ways of working to thechanging political climate and different social organisations. Practical Action’s SocialPromoter, José Louis Mego, was a critical success factor in ensuring a continuous,effective working relationship with people wherever the reconstruction work wasundertaken.

José Louis took time to live in the communities where he worked, learning their customsand dialect, as well as their skills and knowledge. He came to appreciate the exactnature of the constraints people faced in meeting the challenge of rebuilding their homesand lives. When the evidence of ongoing friendships is clear to see, it is not surprisingthat José Louis believes the most significant factor in engaging people in projectactivities is ‘to learn their way of life and get to know, respect and be welcomed into thehomes of people’.

José Louis’s academic training and experience as a sanitation technician mean he iswell qualified to advise people on health issues. His efforts to enhance people’sunderstanding of the projects aims and broader health matters, by regularly hosting alocal radio programme, not only served to keep people informed but also, by ensuringhis programmes were entertaining, engaged people in the project.

Working in a community liaison role is not always easy. José Louis often felt as thoughhe were everyone’s ‘handkerchief’ (shoulder to cry on!). He needed to be both creativeand flexible to respond to and cope with the diversity of needs and circumstances of thenumerous individuals concerned.

The accurate costing of self-build houses can be a little misleading unless people are able toput a monetary value on their own involvement; this is not often the case. However, acomparison cost of an improved quincha house and a brick house gives an indication of therelative prices of these two technologies. The estimated cost of a finished building (30m

2) of

improved quincha including doors, windows, floor, ceiling, external plaster and painting (at1996 prices) is 3,313 soles or US$1,299. The equivalent structure made of brick would cost

13,772 soles or US$5,400 – the need to contract skilled labour is a significant proportion ofthis cost.

In conclusionITDG was directly involved in the reconstruction of several hundred houses but there areseveral thousand more in the area which are made of improved quincha or a variation of it.Technology development continues. Practical Action’s intervention is not the only forcedriving technology change. People’s needs, knowledge and technical capacity, localresources, political and personal agendas are all factors promoting change and technologicaldevelopment.

Innovations in quincha technology are no exception; the ‘improved quincha’ housingpromoted by ITDG and partners, can be seen widely in Alto Mayo but it differs in design anddetailing, reflecting the materials, skills and individual priorities of the owners and builders.

9




In practical development projects it would be easy to imagine that the end product is themain goal: the end result needs to be a comfortable, affordable and safe house. However,the way in which you work towards that practical goal can have an important impact onpeople’s lives. ITDG’s staff and partners showed the need and ability for patience, flexibilityand perseverance: people and processes are complex. Practical Action seeks to ensure

control of the agenda remains with the community and to work in partnership, ensuringpeople understand the choices they are making and developing their long-term technologicalcapacity.

Reference and further reading• Mud Plasters and Renders Technical Brief, Practical Action

• Building with Bamboo: A Handbook by Jules J. A. Janssen, ITDG Publishing, 1995,ISBN 1 85339 203 0

• Los Planes de Preparación de Emergencia, Technical Brief, Practical Action Latin America

• Emergency Preparedness Plans Technical Brief, Practical Action Latin America• Risk Mapping, Technical Brief, Practical Action Latin America•

Terremotos en el Trópico húmedo. La gestión de los desastres del Alto Mayo, Practical Action Latin America• Estructuras Resistentes a Desastres Practical Action Latin America

Practical Action Latin AmericaCasilla Postal 18-0620Lima 18PeruTel: (+51) 1 4467324/4447055Fax: (+51) 1 4466621

• De terremotos, derrumbes e inundados. LA RED

Red de Estudios Sociales en Prevención de Desastres en América Latina (LA RED)http://www.desinventar.org/T • Affordable, Quake-Proof Adobe Housing in Peru, IDRC – International Development

Research Centre http://www.idrc.org.sg/en/ev-2689-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html • Volcanoes and earthquakes – Disaster Prevention in Latin America, IDRC – International

Development Research Centre http://www.idrc.org.sg/en/ev-2686-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

IDRC - International Development Research Centre P.O. Box 8500 Ottawa,OntarioCanada K1G 3H9

Tel: +1 613 236 6163Fax: +1 613 567 7748 The Canadian organisation IDRC (International Development Research Centre) CRDI(Centre de recherches pour le développement)

This technical brief is based on the booklet Earthquake Resistant Housing in Peru written byLucky Lowe and produced by ITDG (now Practical Action) 1997

10

http://www.desinventar.org/


http://www.idrc.org.sg/en/ev-2689-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html







Documents

earthquake_resistant_housing_peru.pdf