La tierra arrasada: objeto de desecho

The general quality of construction in these areas was also too poor and unable to resist even moderate tremors (Focus Group Discussions 2014; Peiris et al. 2008). Figure 5.9 depicts the cross section of a typical wall. Stones of irregular size and shallow foundation using weak materials were the contributing factors towards poor quality construction. Most of these structures collapsed or were intensely damaged in areas of ground shaking. Brick masonry buildings performed better (Haseeb et al. 2011).

136

40 Figure 5.9 Cross section of a typical structure; round stones in walls with mud or weak

cement mortar, shallow foundation, and weak mortar in foundation were used. (Haseeb et al. 2011, p. 172)

Most of the housing stock in these areas had developed as a result of incremental housing. People mostly lived in a joint family system; rooms were added as sons were married. So the new unit had no structural connection or tie with the previous structure. With the passage of time there has been a change in the construction typology as well. In rural areas, there has been linear addition of mostly pukka structures (consisting of stone and in some cases concrete blocks) along with old kacha houses. So there used to be separate horizontal structures in rural areas, kacha alongside pakka

(Figure 5.10). The structure on the right is a pukka structure made with

concrete blocks and CGI sheet roof, whereas a kacha structure (on the left) made with stone, mud and flat roof with heavy wooden rafters of irregular size is added. These two structures have no proper joints between them (no joint is possible with engineering point of view). No doubt the quality of kacha houses was very poor, but the quality of the pukka structures was not much better either. Contrary to their name, the so called pukka houses could not prove themselves to be pukka (strong) against the earthquake and came down as readily as kacha structures.

137

41 Figure 5.10 kacha (left) and pakka (right) structures side by side in rural Bagh.

(Source: Author fieldwork)

In urban areas the situation was different. Due to the scarcity of land the development tended to be vertical i.e. addition of storeys on top of the existing stone structures. In many cases a cement concrete block storey was added on top of the old stone house and then the third cement concrete block or brick storey was added on top of the second storey. In some areas of the old city, for example the most congested Madina Market, even four storey high buildings were constructed in this manner. There was no frame structure in these buildings to give strength, so the original single storey structure was unable to bear such a load and crumbled under its own weight when the earthquake hit. Though considered to be pukka, these buildings collapsed as easily as kacha houses because these were loadbearing structures which had a variety of construction types and construction materials used in them (Figure 5.11).

138

42 Figure 5.11 A pukka building in urban Bagh, mixed construction material (stones and bricks) is used in the same wall (picture above); destroyed pukka construction in urban Muzaffarabad, mixed construction material such as bricks and concrete blocks can be noticed in red circles (picture below). (Source: SERRA)

Camerio (1997, p. 167-168) also found that there were concentrated losses of multi-family housing in dense urban areas of Mexico City, Loma Prieta, and Kobe.

One of the old residents of Muzaffarabad city observed:

“Then there was incremental housing e.g. the father had constructed the house forty years ago; he constructed another three room storey on the old building when his first son married. When the second son married, he added the third storey……….Now what happened that the houses got overloaded and due to the first jolt the third storey came down on the second storey and the second on the first one. There are many buildings in Muzaffarabad city

139

which sank fully into the ground due to the load”. (Key Informant-9;

Muzaffarabad)

As was the case in rural areas, the construction typology had undergone a lot of change in urban areas since 1970s and there has been a switch to more modern construction materials due to improved road infrastructure and market access, especially near urban areas. The material used in these buildings was usually of poor quality; local low quality sand which had silt and clay, low quality aggregate, cheap steel and low quality cement (Ali 2007). Locally made cement concrete blocks, often of very low quality and of small size e.g. 6”x6”x12” were used in walls. These blocks were not reinforced and hardly any curing was done so they had very low PSI strength so they quickly developed cracks during the earthquake resulting in collapse of buildings (Pieris et al. 2008). People made all sorts of compromises on quality to reduce cost. There was also a lack of workmanship. Most of the engineers had no idea of seismic standards and masons were ignorant about the basics of concrete structures (EERI 2006; Halvorson 2010; Kazmi et al. 2012; Naeem 2008; Naeem et al. 2007; Rossetto et al. 2009). Some houses did have RCC frame structures but they had many defects, for example fewer steel bars were used than necessary, there were wider spaces between steel rings to save cost, and the walls had no joints or connection with columns and beams thus providing no “lateral force-resisting system” (EERI 2006, p. 5).

140

The widespread damage to building stock indicates structural design weaknesses in the construction that could not withstand the seismic shock (ERRA 2007). According to Ali (2007, p. 17) a ‘complex dynamism’ existed in these areas before the earthquake where 'modernization' and ‘deterioration’ occurred simultaneously resulting in extremely poor quality houses which were severely damaged by the earthquake. With changing times people started to make modern buildings using cement and steel but the required engineering standards, materials quality, and workmanship were not used so the quality of the these buildings was not up to the standard which ultimately deteriorated the quality of the building stock. Figure 5.13 illustrates these weaknesses in different parts of these buildings.

44 Figure 5.13 Structural performance of pre-2005 earthquake buildings. (Ali, 2007, p. 16)

The foundations were constructed as free standing structures (without the use of steel bars and rafts) and did not hold the building together as monolithic structures which could provide protection against extensive rocking or shaking or soil deformation in case of earthquake. The walls had a heavy dead load, there was lack of continuous reinforcement of steel columns and beams and low width to height ratio (rooms were too big) so

141

wall structures cracked, separated from main structures or overturned as a result of ground shaking. The roofs were too heavy (either heavy mud roofs or heavy RCC slabs) which had no proper joints with walls and readily collapsed due to ground shaking. As compared to traditional houses and

kacha houses the new buildings had much bigger windows and doors and

there were no RCC bands at lintel level which made walls weaker.

In order to understand the reasons behind faulty construction, I asked 31 Key Informants and house owners to suggest likely causes of poor quality construction. They identified “ignorance of the seismic hazard”, “poverty”, and “lack of building control” as three most probable reasons of faulty quality. They were asked to rank these reasons: 68% ranked “ignorance” as number one, 16% identified “lack of control” as number one, and 16% identified “poverty” as number one cause of faulty construction (Figure 5.14).

45 Figure 5.14 Reasons reported for faulty construction (based on semi-structured interviews) showing ranking of the reasons of faulty construction. (Source: Author fieldwork)

This issue was discussed in Focus Group discussions also. The Focus Group discussion held in Bagh identified ‘Ignorance of the seismic hazard’ as

number one reason and ‘Poverty’ as the third. Focus group discussions held

in Danna and Muzaffarabad identified ‘Ignorance of the seismic hazard’ as the second and ‘Lack of building control’ as the third most likely reason.

Ignorance of seismic hazard

Lack of building control

Poverty 68% 16% 16% 26% 39% 26% 32% 42% 1 2 3 Ranking

142

Poor quality construction was not particular to private buildings only; even the government buildings were of very poor quality. More than 3,000 educational buildings (95% of the total schools and colleges) collapsed killing around 19,000 students (Bilham 2010; EERI 2006; NDMA 2009). Many government officials or members of their family died in government built houses and offices. The official accommodation of the Deputy Commissioner (the highest ranking government functionary in the District) was no exception too. The Deputy Commissioner House of three Districts (Muzaffarabad, Bagh and Poonch) collapsed instantly. I was working as Deputy Commissioner Muzaffarabad at the time of the earthquake; my official house came down within first few seconds of the earthquake. My family and I were inside the house as it collapsed and we were lucky to dig ourselves out of the rubble. The daughter of the Deputy Commissioner Poonch and two young children and a wife of the Commissioner Muzaffarabad were killed in the government houses.

However despite experiencing such a big devastation, most of the people still do not consider that faulty construction had much role in this destruction. The quantitative data that I collected through survey questionnaires during fieldwork substantiate this assertion. The respondents were asked to identify reasons of damage (in order of priority) to their property. They could identify up to six reasons. The findings of this question are presented in Figure 5.15. Overall a majority of respondents (61%) believed that the intensity of the earthquake was responsible for the damage. Only 17% identified construction related reasons. Another noticeable thing in this graph is the difference in perception between urban and rural areas. 74% of the urban respondents thought that the earthquake intensity was responsible for the damage and 23% pointed out construction related reasons. Whereas 48% of the rural respondents identified earthquake intensity and 35% identified the construction related reasons. One possible explanation could be the construction typology. In urban areas the number of pukka houses was quite high (94% in urban Muzaffarabad and 80% in urban Bagh), whereas in rural areas the number of pukka houses was relatively lower (rural Muzaffarabad 52% and rural Bagh 58%). Despite being of poor quality, the pukka houses

143

did give the owners the feeling that their houses were safe and had no quality issue and it was not the poor quality of the building but the intensity of the earthquake responsible for the damage to the building. Whereas, people living in kacha houses in rural areas already knew about the poor quality of these houses so this type of construction did give people a perception of being strong and reliable. So the rightly pointed out the reason of damage to their buildings.

46 Figure 5.15 Reasons of damage to housing stock (Source: Author fieldwork)

Another explanation emerged during my second period of fieldwork when I discussed these findings with key informants. Some of the key informants who had worked in the housing reconstruction programme at very responsible positions correlated this difference in perception to the housing reconstruction programme. They were of the opinion that in rural areas the Assistance and Inspection Teams (AITs), who were responsible for the implementation of the housing reconstruction programme, were given the task of sensitizing the house owners about the earthquake hazard, faults with their damaged buildings, and how to do seismic resistant construction. House owners were given training in these things as well. These teams inspected the construction progress at three different stages, identified the

144

faults, and suggested remedial measures. The rural areas’ people learnt a lot about seismic hazard and construction faults during this exercise so it was due to this training that they were able to identify other reasons of damage apart from earthquake intensity. Whereas, in urban areas there were no Assistance and Inspection Teams so the urban areas’ people have a different perception which is heavily focused on earthquake intensity and gives less importance to other reasons. These key informants found the perception of urban resident particularly worrying because they thought that it meant that even nine years after the earthquake and suffering so much damage the urban residents had not learnt from the horrific experience and were still as vulnerable to seismic hazard as they were before the earthquake.