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



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





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!



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



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





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.



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



only after mixing my first batch of plaster did I begin to realize my own agency in

creating a sustainable future.



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



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.



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





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.



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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





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





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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







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



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





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



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



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



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



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



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



“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



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



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.



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



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





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





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



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.



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

http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/

http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/news-one-staff/arne-duncan-katrina-was-best-thing-to-happen-to-education-in-new-orleans/


http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/





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 .

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Mutter,+J&fullauthor=Mutter,%20J.%20C.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=PHY



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Archibong,+B&fullauthor=Archibong,%20B.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=PHY

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Pi,+D&fullauthor=Pi,%20D.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=PHY


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Archibong,+B&fullauthor=Archibong,%20B.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=PHY

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Pi,+D&fullauthor=Pi,%20D.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=PHY





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?

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________



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



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



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?

______________________________________________________________________



______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

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.

Documents

Perma.relief: From Destruction Grows Sustainability