MÉRITOS DOCUMENTOS JUSTIFICATIVOS III.– OTROS MÉRITOS

As mentioned earlier, the research looks at issues concerning various approaches to the resilience and the potential for adaptation through the use of local building materials within small-scale construction projects in the global South. Thus it identifies the role of locally available materials and traditional building practices in relation to the empowerment of local communities, as an area for further investigation. It aims to rethink the idea of what is local, in relation to building materials, in a given context. The use of locally available materials and traditional building practices is directly associated with the current narrative and concept of sustainability. The literature suggests that once we acknowledge the socially contested nature of environmental design and sustainable architecture, we may begin to engage in a very different dialogue about sustainability (Guy & Marvin, 2001). Current debates around the environment and sustainability suggest that they both constitute sites of conflicting interpretations, and that they are contested terrains shaped by the often conflicting political, social, economic and commercial interests and strategies of different actors and stakeholders, such as architects, designers, developers and planners, institutions, the construction industry and so on. These actors interpret and define the nature of the environmental problems and the solutions available to us differently, in order to suit their own agendas, or to suit their own conflicting convictions. The literature contends that it is necessary to acknowledge the plurality and diversity of approaches to sustainable architectures, and environmental design, relate directly to the different locations, technologies these architectures may incorporate, materials they are constructed from, aesthetics, and so on. Therefore, sustainability is about exploring, (re)interpreting and coping with the diversity of local conditions, cultures and natures, not about the setting and application of universal goals. We cannot solve the environmental problems simply through the application of technologies. The sustainable solutions to our issues cannot be defined in

42

a reductively materialistic manner – buildings and technologies; they need to be shaped and framed within the diversity and plurality of the cultures and natures at hand. Sustainability cannot be a universal set of goals or best practice rules; it is an ongoing process, which responds to the plurality of social, economic and physical contexts. It is therefore time and place specific.

What’s more, the literature argues that to truly be sustainable we need to make development, land-use, and resource decisions that are reversible, and that this can only be achieved by design. The concept of sustainability entails and is enabled by more socially responsible and less resource-intensive forms of development. Sustainable design embraces all aspects of human settlement including the dwelling, livelihoods and local markets, culture, social interactions and organisation, economy, climatic conditions, biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as the environment and natural resources. In order to have a positive impact on local communities and contribute towards enhancing their resilience and potential for adaptation, truly sustainable design has to consider all the above aspects simultaneously and as an integrated system that they are, not just as a series of individual issues. At the same time sustainable design has to be a process-driven and collaborative activity in order to enable local communities to become more resilient. The literature argues that, initiatives which exclude community or user participation often encourage a culture of dependency among beneficiaries, who come to rely on charity as a means of survival rather than having an active role in their own future. What’s more, these initiatives’ attention to livelihoods is sporadic when designing for people and communities in the developing countries, which consequently leads to the displacement of communities. On the other hand, initiatives whose work consolidates incrementally, in pace with the beneficiaries’ energies, needs, capacities, existing skills, aspirations, and budgets, enhance resilience of individuals and communities; in this case the local communities are both the recipients and agents of change, and not passive recipients of knowledge. The literature reinforces the idea that, in order to create greater resilience and sustainability, reconstruction must be more participatory and adopt a more holistic approach combining the rebuilding of houses with that of livelihoods and local markets. Therefore, it calls for an anthropocentric and holistic approach, which prioritises the importance of livelihoods strategies within community development and reconstruction schemes over construction. Thus, another area for further investigation is identified, one which looks at the practice of architecture within design and build community projects undertaken by NGOs in the global South,

43

and how this practice may be informed by employing an anthropological, and anthropocentric, and holistic approach. Such projects, which foster participatory processes in order to recognise and enable the local everyday practices, material cultures and social relations, focus not only on the practical business of constructing buildings but also on the strategic aim of improving livelihoods and building all kinds of assets. On this account, and as mentioned earlier in the thesis (see 1.2 Research Aims and Objectives), the research investigates, how the syncretism of the ethnographic method and the practice of architecture within design and build community projects undertaken by NGOs in the global South, enables solutions, which can contribute to longer-term sustainable adaptation in this context.

As already stated, this research draws attention to the people’s strengths, that is indigenous knowledge, local skills, locally available resources, such as building materials and traditional building practices, and how these can be used to reduce people’s vulnerability. The literature reinforces the idea that since culture forms an aspect of sustainability, we need to protect cultural heritage, which also includes the vernacular building practices, in order to enable social and economic sustainability. The sustainable character of vernacular architecture has been emphasised by scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds in recent years, due to its appropriateness and ecological friendliness in responding to a multitude of environmental challenges. Most of the recent studies though focus only on the positive aspects of vernacular traditions, and tend to assume the inherent sustainability of vernacular architecture as an entire, undifferentiated category, due to the good environmental performance of a specific tradition. Yet the literature suggests that in order to determine how sustainable a vernacular tradition may be, it is not enough to consider its environmental performance, but rather it is necessary to look at the dynamic interrelation of the social, political and economic aspects of the specific vernacular tradition in specific cultural and historical contexts and at the way in which this is influenced by human agency and practice. This may constitute a fundamental area for further investigation, in relation to specific vernacular architectures.

In addition, vernacular building practices cannot be considered static or an undifferentiated category, as they are always in a state of flux and continuous improvement, according to the changing climatic conditions, local biodiversity and ecosystems, globalisation patterns, etc. They have developed, and are still being

44

developed, as a direct response to the various climatic conditions in different parts of the world, and embody traditional local knowledge and existing coping practices. As stated earlier in the chapter, central governments often adopt globalised approaches to reconstruction, such as building technologies and standards, instead of making use of traditional materials and technologies, on the grounds that formal testing may not have been carried out and for which standards may not exist. Yet, current literature suggests that there are a number of initiatives, which have been developing improved vernacular techniques derived from physical knowledge based on first hand involvement, experimentation and observation. These initiatives have reverted to using improved vernacular technologies and construction, and tend to offer the cheaper solutions and build on local skills. What’s more, it is also argued that the best use of local skills and materials is achieved if improved vernacular building methodologies are implemented in combination with capacity building. Hence, one fundamental area, which needs further exploration, is to rethink the idea of what is local, and vernacular, in a given context, and how to help imbue culture and the spirit of a people into the built environment. Therefore, this research considers the traditional building practices as a conceptual device, pathway or framework which would need to be contested in specific local contexts within community-driven construction initiatives.

Moreover, the production of space and the built artefact, well as that of environmental design strategies constitutes elite practices as they demand the control of resources at different scales, and are interlocked in both local and international power relations and transactions. Hence, the role of the architects, who are involved in the production of the built artefact such as construction projects aiming to empower local communities and enhance their resilience and capacity for adaptation in the global South, is another area for further investigation. The way we perceive space could question and influence the role, limits and principles of architectural practice, education, and research, as well as concurrently address social and material needs within a community-driven development context. The literature contends that we need to consider space and social processes as an integrated system that they are, not as individual categories, this same logic may be applied to culture and sustainable architecture, local climate and sustainability, and so on and so forth. By doing so, that is by looking at these phenomena as ‘wholes’, may we be able suggest the ways to better organizational procedures for our societies and environment.

45

Finally, some themes have emerged from the fieldwork, which do not fit nicely into the above literature. This calls for reading further literature but it may also be an original critique of the literature. As I state in Chapter 3, which sets out the research methodology, the combination of an ethnographic approach and architectural praxis produces a unique kind of knowledge. Chapter 3 outlines the research questions which are directly relevant to the fieldwork, as well as the basis of the research methodology and why an ethnographic approach is chosen. The overall theoretical framework is mainly concerned with exploring specific earth building techniques in rural Ghana and other developing countries.

47

Chapter 3