Environ Dev Sustain (2011) 13:9931006 DOI 10.

1007/s10668-011-9301-0

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction to address urban low-cost housing crisis: an understanding by construction professionals
Mohammad Sharif Zami

Received: 24 June 2010 / Accepted: 21 March 2011 / Published online: 9 April 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Addressing urban housing crisis is an enormous challenge for most of the countries due to the increasing cost of the building material. Therefore, affordable alternative building material can make a breakthrough to the urban housing crisis. In the light of current success of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing, it is important to nd out the potential drivers that can help to adopt this building material. This paper aims to identify and highlight these drivers from the method of literature review and validates through a Delphi technique. Keywords Construction Drivers Earth Housing Professionals Stabilised Urban

1 Introduction Compressed stabilised earth blocks are becoming popular in various parts of the world with the introduction of sustainable construction concepts (Jayashinghe 2007). Although most of the developed countries do have well-structured and effective programmes to address the environmental sustainability through the use of energy efcient appropriate construction materials, stabilised earth is not widely used. More surprisingly, most of the construction professionals from developed and developing countries do not even know about the contemporary stabilised earth construction (Zami and Lee 2010a, 2010b). The unawareness about this building material amongst the construction professionals makes us aware that, there are inhibitors which make contemporary stabilised earth construction unpopular. But, it is evident from the literature review that experimental stabilised earth construction projects are a success in many developing (India, Sudan, South America, Southern and Northern Africa) and developed (Australia, Germany, Austria and France)
Readers should send their comments on this paper to [email protected] within 3 months of publication of this issue. M. S. Zami (&) Department of Architecture, College of Environmental Design, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), P. O. Box: 1802, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia e-mail: [email protected]

123

994

M. S. Zami

countries to address urban housing crisis (Adam and Agib 2001; Mubaiwa 2002; Zami and Lee 2008). Together with other forms of unbaked earthen construction, such as mud-brick, rammed earth has a long and continued history throughout many regions of the world. Major centres of rammed earth construction include North Africa, Australasia, and regions of North and South America, China and Europe, including France, Germany and Spain (Maniatidis and Walker 2003). In Devon (England), there are 40,000 cob buildings still in everyday use (Abey and Smallcombe 2007). Therefore, drivers need to be devised to make stabilised earth construction adoptable to the professionals and users. This paper aims to identify and highlight these potential drivers in the light of its use on site and performance of environmental sustainability. It is pertinent to analyse the drivers that potentially can help the adoption of this technology. A critical literature review method was adopted in this paper to investigate and identify the drivers and validated with the help of Delphi technique. The following section reviews the literature on drivers inuencing the adoption of earth construction to address urban low-cost housing crisis. First, a critical literature review method is adopted in this paper to investigate and identify the potential drivers inuencing the adoption of this building material to address urban low-cost housing crisis and second, the identied inhibitors is validated through a Delphi technique.

2 Contemporary technological innovation of stabilised earth construction Most of the drawbacks associated with earth houses can be overcome by suitable improvements in design and technology, such as soil stabilisation, appropriate architecture, and improvement in structural techniques (Lal 1995, p. 120). Therefore, the drawbacks found in several literatures relate to the experience of un-stabilised earth construction. Problems of earth wall erosion by rain and ood water, rodents making holes in the wall and oor, and poor performance during earthquakes can be solved by stabilising the earth (Zami 2010). Vernacular earthen houses located in seismic areas are at risk because of their inherent structural vulnerability. It is possible to provide reinforcement to earthen buildings in order to improve their structural performance and to prevent their collapse during earthquakes (Blondet and Aguilar 2007). Furthermore, it is important to take note that lack of durability and structural limitations of earth construction is the most frequently mentioned drawback of earth construction mentioned in the literature. According to Blondet and Aguilar (2007), most vernacular earthen houses are built without professional intervention and thus with poor construction quality. In addition, most present-day earthen houses are built without any structural reinforcement, with several storeys, thin walls, large windows and door openings, irregular plan and elevation congurations, these buildings are extremely vulnerable and suffer signicant damage or collapse during earthquakes (Blondet and Aguilar 2007). During the last three decades, researchers at the Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) have attempted to nd solutions for improving the seismic performance of earthen buildings. The principal alternative solutions of seismic reinforcement for these vulnerable buildings consist of internal cane mesh reinforcement, external wire mesh reinforcement and external polymer mesh reinforcement. According to Maini (2007), extensive research was carried out to develop cost-effective technology of reinforced masonry with hollow interlocking CSEBs. Vertical and horizontal reinforced concrete members supported the masonry so as to create a box type system which can resist disasters. As a result of the research, two types of blocks have been developedthe square hollow interlocking block suitable for a two storied building and

123

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction

995

the rectangular hollow interlocking block suitable for a single story building. This technology has been used extensively in Gujarat for the rehabilitation after the 2001 earthquake with a 6-month technical assistance from Auroville Earth Institute and with this assistance the Catholic Relief Services built 2,698 houses and community centres in 39 villages (Maini 2007). According to Maini (2005), this technology has been approved by the Government of Gujarat (GSDMA) as a suitable construction method for the rehabilitation of the zones affected by the 2001 earthquake in Kutch district (Fig. 1), the Government of Iran (Housing Research Centre) as a suitable construction method for the rehabilitation of the zones affected by the 2003 earthquake of Bam (Fig. 2), the Government of Tamil Nadu, India (Relief and Rehabilitation) as a suitable construction method for the rehabilitation of the zones affected by the 2004 tsunami of Indonesia (Maini 2007). According to Minke (2006), earth as a building material has lost its credibility chiey because most modern houses with earth walls cannot withstand earthquakes and because earth is viewed a building material for the poor. In this context, it is worth mentioning that a census conducted by the Salvadoran government after the earthquake of 13 January 2001 (measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale) states that adobe houses were not worse affected than other types of construction (Minke 2006). Minke (2006) also explained about earthquakeresistant earth construction to address the low-cost housing crisis in Guatemala. A bambooreinforced panelled rammed earth wall technique was developed in 1978 as part of a research project by the BRL, and successfully implemented jointly with the Francisco Marroqun University (UFM) and the Centre for Appropriate Technology (CEMAT), both in Guatemala. In 1998, the BRL developed another reinforced rammed earth wall system that was utilised for a low-cost housing project built in cooperation with the University of Santiago de Chile in Alhue, Chile, in 2001. The examples of these earthquake-resistant earthen houses show that contemporary earth construction is durable enough to replace conventional brick and block construction to address the low-cost housing crisis even in the earthquake-prone localities. Therefore, natural disasterresistant contemporary earth construction is effectively solving the problems of natural disaster destructive to shelters all over the world in particular in India and South America.

Fig. 1 Houses built by the CRSGujarat, India. 2698 houses built in a year time, in 39 villages. Source Maini (2005)

123

996

M. S. Zami

Fig. 2 Houses built by the International Blue Crescent. BamIran. Source Maini (2005)

Structural limitation is one of the major drawbacks of earth construction highlighted in literature review. Related to this, Maini (2005) shows enough examples of buildings with large spans constructed of compressed stabilised earth blocks (CSEB) and the research and development seeks to optimise the structures by increasing the span of the roof, decreasing its thickness and creating new shapes. Note that all vaults and domes are built with compressed stabilised earth blocks, which are laid in free spanning mode (without formwork), which has been developed by the Auroville Earth Institute and this technique is a development of the Nubian technique (Maini 2005). Figure 3 shows a vault measuring a diameter of 7.9 m constructed out of CSEB and Fig. 4 shows a dome measuring 22.16 m of a temple constructed out of CSEB. Therefore, these examples support that contemporary stabilised earth construction is able to overcome the drawback of structural limitation.

Fig. 3 Dome of the Dhyanalingam temple, Coimbatore, 22. 16 m dia, 7.90 m rise, 570 tons. Built in 9 weeks. Source Maini (2005, p. 11)

123

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction

997

Fig. 4 Vault of Mirramukhi School at Auroville, CSEB. 10.35 m span, 2.25 m rise, 30 tons, built in 3 weeks. Source Maini (2005, p. 11)

3 State of art review on drivers that help adoption of earth construction The drivers that help to encourage the adoption of contemporary earth construction are identied through a critical review of the literature and summarised in Table 1. All the drivers identied in Table 1 lack empirical evidence and it would seem from a thorough review of the literature that sparse research to date has been undertaken to substantiate whether the drivers in Table 1 are real or mere speculation. It is questionable whether they are the authors perception and thus lack empirical data to substantiate the ndings. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a holistic understanding of the drivers that can help the widespread adoption of contemporary stabilised earth construction by professionals to address the urban low-cost housing crisis. It is important to note that Driver 2 in Table 1 is already explored in many countries of the world. Australia, New Zealand, USA (New Mexico), Zimbabwe, Germany and Spain has published the national standards and reference documents for earthen construction (Maniatidis and Walker 2003). Maniatidis and Walker (2003) also noted that at various times a number of other countries that have produced codes or national reference documents for earthen construction. According to Houben and Guillaud (1994), these include France, India, Tanzania, Mozambique, Morocco, Tunisia, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Turkey and Costa Rica. Many of these documents do not cover rammed earth. In recent times, CRATerre has led to the development of regional standards for pressed earth block construction (Maniatidis and Walker 2003).

4 Research methodology After a critical review of the existing literatures, it appears that there is a lack of structured research, to date, carried out to identify and understand the potential drivers of contemporary stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing. In addition, the drivers identied by different practitioners and researchers mentioned in the literature are generally written from their perception, and thus, there is a lack of empirical data and validation through the execution of a research methodological process. The critical review of

123

998 Table 1 The adoption drivers of contemporary earth construction Drivers (summarised from the literature review) Authors

M. S. Zami

1. Promotion of earth architecture Jagadish (2007, p. 2627), Morton Sparse structured research was carried out to identify these (2007, p. 377), Blondet and and construction by the drives. Therefore, it is authors Aguilar (2007, p. 9), Houben government, professional, all perception et al. (2007), Easton (1996, stakeholders through all public p. 19), Elizabeth (2005), Adams media. (2005), Baiche et al. (2008, p. 7) (a) Systematic campaigns among construction professionals. (b) Industry recognised marketability of earth construction. (c) Educational campaigns to reach awareness of the seismic risk, cultural transformations to adopt better construction techniques with earth. (d) Campaigns in favour of sustainable built environment and against global warming. 2. Setting a building code for earth Morton (2007, p. 377), Norton architecture and construction. (1997, p. 8), Eisenberg (2005), Minke (2006, p. 196), Baiche (a) Setting an industry recognised et al. (2008, p. 7). standard and quality control criteria. (b) In order to disseminate successfully tested earth construction techniques, guidelines should be developed. 3. Organising a training programme for professionals, builders, users, and all building stakeholders. (a) Training programmes amongst construction supervisors. (b) In order to disseminate successfully tested earth construction techniques, training courses should be offered. Jagadish (2007, p. 26), Houben 4. Introducing earth architecture et al. (2007, p. 39), Castells and and technology in university Laperal (2007, p. 100), Norton degree programmes and courses. (1997, p. 8), King (1996, p. 5) (a) An innovative approach in educational pedagogy for earthen architecture from all the relevant educational institutions. 5. Technological development and Jagadish (2007, p. 26), Baiche innovation of earth construction. et al. (2008, p. 7) (a) Setting quality control criteria of CSEB manufacturing machines. Source Author: 2009 Jagadish (2007, p. 26), Houben et al. (2007, p. 39), Minke (2006, p. 196).

123

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction

999

the literature permits the author to recognise and identify the existing up-to-date drivers mentioned by different researcher, in which it appeared that there is sparse structures research. The drivers found in the literature are written in the light of researchers experience and perception. Therefore, a well-structured research technique should be devised to validate the drivers identied from the literature review. A Delphi technique is chosen in this paper as an appropriate method to validate the drivers which effectively collect data from construction professionals and compare the list of drivers found in the existing literature. The Delphi research technique is chosen as the mode of data collection due to its ability to explore the drivers that help the widespread adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing. The Delphi technique can be used when there is incomplete knowledge of a problem or phenomena (Adler and Ziglio 1996; Delbeq et al. 1975). This technique can be applied to problems that do not lend themselves to precise analytical techniques but rather could benet from the subjective judgments of individuals on a collective basis (Adler and Ziglio 1996) and to focus their collective human intelligence on the problem at hand (Linstone and Turloff 1975). Also, the Delphi technique is used to investigate what does not yet exist (Czinkota and Ronkainen 1997; Halal, Kull, and Leffmann, 1997; Skulmoski and Hartman 2002). Therefore, for this research, the Delphi technique is chosen as a suitable research technique because the results will offer an informed look at the current and potential status of the drivers of stabilised earth construction to address the urban low-cost housing crisis in general. Based on the nature, attitudes and beliefs of a carefully selected group of expert respondents, the drivers will be captured. A substantial literature review in Sect. 2 found that the identied drivers suffer from lack of empirical data. Due to these lacking in the prescriptions made by different professionals and researchers in this area, the results of this Delphi technique will be relevant, provide clarication the drivers identied in the literature review. As there are a limited number of contemporary earth construction experts in the world, the most notable of these were contacted as expert panellists for this Delphi technique. A list of 34 participants (experts) was contacted from both the private and public sector that would appear to have the required knowledge and/or experience of the subject. Therefore, 34 letters were sent out inviting them to take part in this Delphi technique. A total of 14 individuals responded and agreed to participate, equating to a 41% response rate. Out of the 14 individuals, 7 were academician researchers, 1 was a practitioner, and 6 were practitioner researchers. During the second round of administering the Delphi technique, 3 academician researchers and 1 practitioner experts did not respond, which made a total of 10 participants. Delphi procedures tend to depend on the questions being asked, sample size and degree of consensus being reached (Rowe and Wright 1999). The panel size of 10 ts within the guidelines recommended for Delphi studies. Helmer and Dalkey used a panel of seven experts in their original Delphi experiment in 1953 (Helmer 1983). Linstone and Turoff (1975) suggest a panel size of anywhere from 10 to 50 participants. According to Andranovich (1995), if the group of experts is fairly homogeneous (sharing similar opinions) then 10 to 15 panellists will be enough and if there are diverse interests present among the experts, then the size of the group will need to be increased to ensure balance. For most community-oriented Delphi, 30 is about as large a group. Brief proles of the 14 experts whom participated in this Delphi interview technique is shown in Table 2. The number of rounds in the Delphi technique is variable and dependent upon the purpose of the research. Delbeq et al. (1975) suggest that a two or three iteration Delphi is sufcient for most research. If group consensus is desirable and the sample is heterogeneous, then three or more rounds may be required and if the goal is to understand nuances

123

1000 Table 2 Prole of the experts who participated in the Delphi technique No. Name Profession/designation and country Civil Engineer, Professor (Brazil) Architect/Landscape Architect, Professor in architecture. (United Kingdom) Engineer (Australia) Architect, Assistant Professor. (India) Chartered architect and consultant in architectural conservation and heritage management, Professor in architecture. (United Kingdom, Ghana) Professor of postgraduate Studies. (India) Architect, Senior Lecturer (United Kingdom) Experience (years) 30 40 Remarks

M. S. Zami

01 02

Expert A Expert B Expert C Expert D Expert E

Author of many published articles on contemporary earth construction. Designer of earth building for University of Malawi and has published a book on landscape architecture. Practitioner and researcher on contemporary stabilised earth construction. Specialised in civil engineering and earth construction. Worked in many African countries and has published many journal papers on vernacular architecture.

03 04 05

30 05 40?

06

Expert F

44

Organizer of International Symposium on earthen structures, 2007. A pioneer researcher in contemporary earthen architecture. Specialised in conservation and a researcher in un-stabilised earthen architecture. Supervised many PhD students in earth construction. Organiser of an international Symposium on earthen structures, 2007. A pioneer researcher in contemporary earth construction. Author of many published articles on contemporary earth construction.

07

Expert G

35

08

Expert H

Engineer, Associate Professor, researcher in contemporary earth construction. (India) Civil Engineer, researcher in contemporary earth construction. (Portugal) Architect, Visiting Professor (Austria) Lecturer, Earth Construction researcher (United Kingdom) Research Fellow, researcher in contemporary earth construction. (United Kingdom) Senior Lecturer, researcher in contemporary earth construction. (Sri Lanka) Architect, PhD researcher in earth construction. (Nigeria)

30

09

Expert I

06

10 11

Expert J Expert K Expert L

05 08

Earthen architecture practitioner and has constructed many earth structures. Researcher of stabilised earth construction.

12

12

Author of many articles and researcher.

13

Expert M

14

Author of many articles and contemporary earth construction researcher.

14

Expert N

15

Earth construction practitioner and researcher.

Source Author, 2008

123

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction

1001

(a goal in qualitative research) and if the sample is homogeneous, then fewer than three rounds may be sufcient to reach consensus, theoretical saturation, or uncover sufcient information (Skulmoski et al. 2007). For this research, only two rounds of the study were needed for the participants to reach a consensus.

5 Analysis and discussion of ndings from round one Delphi technique The Delphi technique adopted in this paper consists of two rounds of question whereby the second round question was constructed from question and feedback acquired from the previous round. The aim of the question in the rst round was to elicit the drivers that help the adoption of stabilised earth in the construction of urban low-cost housing. The second round of the Delphi technique conrms the summarised drivers in rank order acquired from the rst round which were presented to the experts for reconsideration and validation. 5.1 Drivers that help the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing All experts responded to the following question in the rst round: Question What are the drivers that you would suggest and can help adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing? Please explain and explore your suggestions. One experts (7%) response was inconclusive. Thirteen experts listed several drivers. Figure 5 shows the nature and percentages of responses from the experts. Twenty ve drivers that can help the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing are identied from the experts responses and listed according to their importance (rank). They are rstly grouped into the categories identied from the literature review (Sect. 3), and then this was check-listed against the number of times they were mentioned in this study. Table 3 shows the summarised list of drivers according to their importance (rank). It is important to note here that there is one additional driver apart from the ve drivers identied in the literature review identied in Delphi Round One and presented in Table 3. According to one of the experts, earthen materials are not suitable for all construction applications in developed countries. On a global scale, it is already the most widely used construction material in the world and so by denition is a popular choice. Earth as a material offers advantages and disadvantages and so could be used intelligently to suit certain applications, for example in medium rise ofce buildings to reduce peak cooling loads, in stores/archives/museums to regulate humidity without air conditioning. Another expert was concerned that earthen architecture should be taken more seriously; the technology should not be considered as low cost or for the urban mass or the urban poor but as an alternative for both the rich and the poor. This approach will help to overcome the

Fig. 5 According to most experts opinion, there are drivers that help the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing

123

1002

M. S. Zami

Table 3 Drivers that will help to adopt stabilised earth construction in urban low cost housing summarised from the Delphi Round Two Drivers help to adopt stabilised earth construction (summarised from the Delphi Round One) 1. Promoting earth architecture and construction by the government, professional and all stakeholders through all public media. (a) First and foremost support from competent civil engineering professional bodies, government organisations working towards promoting earthen constructionsthis will change the poor peoples image on earth. (b) To have a catalogue of successful examples, showing how the buildings were built, what they look like inside and out, how much they cost compared with conventional construction and very importantly how long such buildings have lastedwith pictures after 20 years. Including comments on the maintenance required. (c) If really aesthetically pleasing examples can be found, there must be lots scattered around the globe with good comments from the occupiers this could be a positive way of promoting the idea, rather than attempting to use a utopian vision. For example inhibiting notions need to be directly addressed such as burglary resistance. Can a thief break in with a small sledgehammer? As well as termite resistance. Such examples should be of the quality to make people feel that they would really like to have a house like that. Maybe show the whole buildings rst; and only after that reveal that it is made of SSBs and that it is x% cheaper than an identical one of conventional construction, with no drawbacks. (d) Build a number of successful, high-prole, high-status earth buildings. Develop skills and techniques and solve all problems through these builds. Demonstrate signicant understanding through research and peer reviewed publishing. Ultimately earth building will become fashionable, reliable and respected. It should then be relatively simple to apply the technique to a mass market. (e) Widespread publicity for well-designed projects. (f) A sustained programme of public education through the media. (g) Convince brick manufacturers to consider offering unred stabilised bricks as an alternative. 2. Technological development and innovation of earth construction. (a) Find some cheap solutions to strengthen earth constructions. (b) In the research of possible reinforcement techniques of these kinds of buildings, it is important to consider the use of compatible materials. These materials should be able to be produced in an industrial way. (c) Earth constructions need to be popular to show that buildings can be resistant and can protect life properly in earthquakes. (d) Show the consumers that earthen buildings can have the same level of comfort as normal buildings and have a higher degree of sustainability than the other options. (e) More dissemination of scientic and technical knowledge is vital (f) Professionals should devote more time to learn about the technology in their localities and develop the desire to improve these traditions to meet contemporary needs. (g) Professionals should identify the advantages of this technology within their locality and as well as the drawbacks. These drawbacks should be accepted as limitations. Number of experts

Ten (10)

Eight (08)

123

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction Table 3 continued Drivers help to adopt stabilised earth construction (summarised from the Delphi Round One) 3. Organising training programmes for professionals, builders, users and all building stakeholders. (a) Setting up of demonstration units in research labs, academic ofces, so that the general masses are aware and become familiar with the end product. (b) Thorough, earth-material based technical guidelines on the adoption and construction techniques using earth. (c) Every earthen building project requires training of artisans; this is because since the technique is not consistently in use, it is difcult to retain these artisans at the completion of one project. Thus, every new project entails regrouping of a few old hands and training new ones. Therefore, for the technology to be sustainable it requires consistency. One single government project or demonstration building is not enough to attain this consistency. (d) Regular workshops awareness and training programmes for architects and civil engineers in the manufacture and use of earth (stabilised or unstabilised) blocks. 4. Introducing earth architecture and technology in university degree programmes and courses. (a) Integration of earth construction in various curricula. (b) Investment in engineering and architecture courses. Young people have much more of an open mind. So, create courses about earth construction and introduce them in the university. (c) More awareness is necessary, for example, gradually including this technology in engineering curricula under sustainable construction. 5. Setting of building code for earth architecture and construction. (a) Codes of practice should be published soon. (b) Adopt technical standards for earth construction. 6. Organising conferences, publishing books and scientic articles on earth architecture. (a) Organise conferences about the use of earth construction in order to spread it. (b) In addition to the scientic publications, simpler books and articles are necessary to popularise the technology.

1003

Number of experts

Six (06)

Five (05)

Four (04)

Four (04)

Table 4 Drivers that help in the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing summarised and adopted from the Delphi technique Drivers that will help to adopt stabilised earth construction (summarised and adopted from the Delphi Round Two) 1. Promoting the earth architecture and construction by the government, professionals, and all stakeholders through all public media. 2. Technological development and the innovation of earth construction. 3. Organising training programmes for professionals, builders, users and all building stakeholders. 4. Introducing earth architecture and technology in university degree programmes and courses. 5. Setting a building code for earth architecture and construction. 6. Organising conferences, publishing books and scientic articles on earth architecture.

123

1004

M. S. Zami

prejudices of earth construction amongst all kind of people in society. Therefore, this Experts concern is also supported by the previous expert as they state; this technology should be introduced more to the upper strata of the society with architecturally pleasing houses. According to one of the expert, concentration on its use in rural areas where the cost benets of using earth construction technology are greater than in urban areas and the material is more aesthetically appropriate in a rural environment, in a soft, green landscape setting, rather than the hard landscape of the city. It is worth mentioning here that the drivers identied from round one did not differ from the drivers adopted in the literature review (Sect. 3) except an additional driver (number 6 in Table 3) was identied in this Delphi technique.

6 Analysis and discussion of the ndings of the Delphi second round Four experts did not participate in Round Two of the Delphi technique. Therefore, only 10 experts participated in this second round, and the same question was asked in this round. The following sub-section summarises and analyses the responses of the question of this second round. 6.1 Drivers that help the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing There were 25 drivers summarised and identied from the Delphi First Round interviews. These drivers inuencing the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing were organised in the list according to their importance (rank) and sent to the experts in the second round interviews for validation. No experts commented on this in the second round. Therefore, these drivers were agreed on unanimously. After careful consideration of the experts second round interviews, the drivers adopted are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 6 shows their importance (rank).

Fig. 6 Importance (rank) of the drivers that potentially helps the adoption of stabilised earth construction in urban low-cost housing

123

Drivers that help adopting stabilised earth construction

1005

7 Conclusions This paper has investigated and analysed the state-of-art review of literature of the drivers that help adopting contemporary earth construction in general and validated through Delphi technique. It was found that there is a lack of structured research, to date carried out to identify the drivers. Therefore, it was imperative to substantiate and validate the ndings of the literature review with the help of a structured research method. Delphi technique was used as an appropriate research method to substantiate and validate the drivers. Diversied drivers were stated by the experts in both rounds of the Delphi technique from which six drivers were summarised and identied. It is important to note that one additional driver was identied in the Delphi technique in addition to ve drivers identied in the literature review. Furthermore, according to experts in this study, promotion of contemporary stabilised earth construction through the public media got the highest priority to adopt this alternative building material to address urban low-cost housing crisis.

References
Abey, J., & Smallcombe, J. (2007). Cob in contemporary architecture. In International symposium on earthen structures, Indian institute of science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. Adam, E. A., & Agib, A. R. A. (2001). Compressed Stabilised Earth Block Manufacture in Sudan. Printed by Graphoprint for the United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization. France, Paris: UNESCO. Adams, C. (2005). The realities of specifying environmental building materials. In L. Elizabeth & C. Adams (Eds.), Alternative construction: contemporary natural building methods. New York, USA: Wiley. Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Andranovich, G. (1995). Developing community participation and consensus: The Delphi technique. In Partnerships in education and research, WREP 131. Los Angeles: Department of Political Science, California State University. C:\DocumentsandSettings\pzp005\My Documents\PhD Papers\The Delphi Interview 01.mht, June 23, 2008. Baiche, B., Osmani, M., Hadjri, K., & Chifunda, C. (2008). Attitude towards earth construction in the developing world: a case study from Zambia. In CIB W107 Construction in Developing World Countries International Symposium. Construction in Developing countries: Procurement, Ethics and Technology. January 1618, 2008, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. Blondet, M., & Aguilar, R. (2007). Seismic protection of earthen buildings. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. Castells, S. B., & Laperal, E. H. (2007). Spanish architects working on earth. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. Czinkota, M., & Ronkainen, I. A. (1997). International business and trade in the next decade: Report from a Delphi study. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 827844. Delbeq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, USA: Scott, Foresman and Company. Easton, D. (1996). The rammed earth house. White River Junction, Vermont, USA: Chelsea Publishing Company. Eisenberg, D. (2005). A new context for building codes and regulation. In L. Elizabeth & C. Adams (Eds.), Alternative construction: Contemporary natural building methods. New York, USA: Wiley. Elizabeth, L. (2005). The natural building movement. In L. Elizabeth & C. Adams (Eds.), Alternative construction: Contemporary natural building methods. New York, USA: Wiley. Hadjri, K., Osmani, M., Baiche, B., & Chifunda, C. (2007). Attitude towards earth building for Zambian housing provision. In Proceedings of the ICE Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 160, issue ES3. Helmer, O. (1983). Looking forward: A guide to futures research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Houben, H. et al. (2007). Innovative approaches in educational pedagogy for earthen architecture. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing.

123

1006

M. S. Zami

Houben, H., & Guillaud, H. (1994). Earth construction, a comprehensive guide. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications. Jagadish, K. S. (2007). Earth construction today: prospects and tasks. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. Jayashinghe, C. (2007). Characteristics of different masonry units manufactured with stabilized earth. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. King, B. (1996). Buildings of earth and straw: Structural design for rammed earth and straw-bale architecture. California, USA: Ecological Design Press. Lal, A. K. (1995). Handbook of low cost housing. New Delhi, India: New Age International Publishers. Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). Introduction in the Delphi method: Techniques and applications. In H. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.) London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Maini, S. (2005). Earthen architecture for sustainable habitat and compressed stabilised earth block technology. In Progrmmae of the city on heritage lecture on clay architecture and building techniques by compressed earth, high commission of Ryadh City development. India: The Auroville Earth Institute, Auroville Building Centre. Maini, S. (2007). Earthen architecture and stabilised earth techniques in Auroville, India. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. Maniatidis, V., & Walker, P. (2003). A review of rammed earth construction for DTi partners in innovation project Developing Rammed Earth for UK Housing. United Kingdom: Natural Building Technology Group, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath. Minke, G. (2006). Building with earth, design and technology of a sustainable architecture. Basel, Berlin, Boston: Birkhauser Publishers for Architecture. Morton, T. (2007). Towards the development of contemporary Earth Construction in the UK: Drivers and benets of Earth Masonry as a Sustainable Mainstream Construction Technique. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 2224 August. India: Interline Publishing. Mubaiwa, A. (2002). Earth as an alternative building material for affordable and comfortable housing in Zimbabwe: Undergraduate Dissertation. Department of Architecture, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Norton, J. (1997). Building with earth: A handbook (2nd ed.). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353375. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T. and Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6. Zami, M. S. (2010). Understanding the factors that inuence the adoption of stabilised earth by construction professionals to address the Zimbabwe urban low cost housing crisis. PhD thesis submitted to University of Salford, United Kingdom. Zami, M. S., & Lee, A. (2008). Constraints of earth construction Zimbabwesome possible solutions. In The 8th International Postgraduate Research Conference. June 2627, 2008, Czech Republic: The Czech Technical University of Prague (CVUT). Zami, M. S., & Lee, A. (2010). Inuence of contemporary earthen architecture on environmental sustainability in the United Kingdom. In CIB World Congress 2010. May 10th13th, Salford Quays, United Kingdom: The Lowry. Zami, M. S., & Lee, A. (2010). Inhibitors inuencing the adoption of contemporary earth construction in the United Kingdomstate of the art review. In CIB World Congress 2010. May 10th13th, Salford Quays, United Kingdom: The Lowry.

123