Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Sustainability assessment of Bhutanese vernacular wattle and daub houses

  • Technical paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The modern construction technologies mostly dependent on nonrenewable resources so impose grave challenge to the environment; thus, widespread concern can be found in terms of sustainability of modern construction materials. Earth technology is the ideal tool to tackle the global crisis of environmental degradation; however, such constructions are limited worldwide. Unlike other countries, Bhutan has a considerable fraction of wattle and daub houses. This study reports the construction technology of traditional wattle and daub houses in Bhutan and performs sustainability analysis. The conventional sustainability assessment framework is modified with three additional parameters. Furthermore, sustainability of brick and stone masonry constructions is compared with wattle and daub systems. The sum of findings highlights that wattle and daub houses are more sustainable solutions than other dominant structural forms in Bhutan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gautam D, Adhikari R, Jha P, Rupakhety R, Yadav M (2020) Windstorm vulnerability of residential buildings and infrastructures in south-central Nepal. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 198:104113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bayode O, Michael Y, Adedeji D (2017) Review of economic and environmental bene fi ts of earthen materials for housing in Africa. Front Archit Res 6(4):519–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhutan Swiss Intercooperatin, “Biennial report,” 2014.

  4. MoWHS, “Infrastructure Development in Bhutan - A journey through time,” Bhutan, 2015.

  5. Sajan KC, Gautam D (2021) Progress in sustainable structural engineering: a review. Innov Infrastruct Solut. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00419-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ministry of Works and Human Settlement Bhutan (2013) Bhutan Green Building Design Guidelines. Bhutan Green Build Des Guid, p 126

  7. Chettri N, Wangmo C, Passang S (2020) Quality control of concrete in bhutanese construction industry and the requirements of Indian standards. GNH J Constr Technol Manag, 1(1):23–34 [Online]. Available: http://www.cdb.gov.bt/uploads/downloads/Construction Journal Final.pdf.

  8. NEC RGOB (2012) National adaptation programme of action

  9. Al Waer H, Sibley M (2005) Building sustainability assessment methods: indicators, applications, limitations and development trends. Conf. Sustain. Build. South East Asia, no April, pp 11–13, [Online]. Available: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23506.pdf.

  10. Royal Government of Bhutan, “Bhutan Building Regulation,” 2018.

  11. Der Yu W, Cheng ST, Ho WC, Chang YH (2018) Measuring the sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle: a Taiwan Lesson. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aktas YD et al (2020) Outdoor thermal comfort and building energy use potential in different land-use areas in tropical cities: case of Kuala Lumpur. Atmosphere (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alnaser NW, Flanagan R, Alnaser WE (2008) Model for calculating the sustainable building index (SBI) in the kingdom of Bahrain. Energy Build 40(11):2037–2043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Asadi E, Shen Z, Zhou H, Salman A, Li Y (2020) Risk-informed multi-criteria decision framework for resilience, sustainability and energy analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Build Perform Simul 13(6):804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2020.1824016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ben-Alon L, Loftness V, Harries KA, Cochran Hameen E (2019) Integrating earthen building materials and methods into mainstream construction using environmental performance assessment and building policy. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science vol 323(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012139.

  16. Tomal M (2020) Moving towards a smarter housing market: the example of poland sustainability moving towards a smarter housing market: the example of Poland. no. January. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020683.

  17. Silvero F, Rodrigues F, Montelpare S (2020) Energy efficiency policies to face buildings’ climate change effects in Paraguay. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tomovska R, Radivojević A (2017) Tracing sustainable design strategies in the example of the traditional Ohrid house. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lidón de Miguel M, Vegas F, Mileto C, García-Soriano L (2021) Return to the native earth: historical analysis of foreign influences on traditional architecture in Burkina Faso. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Habibi S (2019) Design concepts for the integration of bamboo in contemporary vernacular architecture. Archit Eng Des Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2019.1656596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mazraeh HM, Pazhouhanfar M (2018) Effects of vernacular architecture structure on urban sustainability case study: Qeshm Island, Iran. Front Archit Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carlos JS (2016) Sustainability assessment of government school buildings in Portugal. Archit Sci Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2016.1167666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gautam D, Prajapati J, Paterno KV, Bhetwal KK, Neupane P (2016) Disaster resilient vernacular housing technology in Nepal. Geoenviron Disasters 3(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-016-0036-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bodach S, Lang W, Hamhaber J (2014) Climate responsive building design strategies of vernacular architecture in Nepal. Energy Build. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hamard E, Cazacliu B, Razakamanantsoa A, Morel J (2016) Cob, a vernacular earth construction process in the context of modern sustainable building. Build Environ 106:103–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Florides GA, Tassou SA, Kalogirou SA, Wrobel LC (2002) Measures used to lower building energy consumption and their cost effectiveness. Appl Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(02)00119-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Emmanuel R (2004) Estimating the environmental suitability of wall materials : preliminary results from Sri Lanka. Build Environ 39:1253–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mueller HS, Haist M, Moffatt JS, Vogel M (2017) Design, material properties and structural performance of sustainable concrete. Procedia Eng 171:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chettri N, Gautam D, Rupakhety R (2021) Seismic vulnerability of vernacular residential buildings in Bhutan. J Earthq Eng 26(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1868362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chettri N, Gautam D, Rupakhety R (2021) From Tship Chim to Pa Chim: Seismic vulnerability and strengthening of Bhutanese vernacular buildings. In: Rupakhety R, Gautam D (eds) Masonry construction in active seismic regions, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  31. RGoB, Population & housing census of bhutan. RGoB, 2017.

  32. Traditional Architecture Guidelines, “Traditional Architecture Guidelines.”

  33. Chettri N, Thinley J, Koirala GS (2019) The comparative study on vernacular Dwellings in Bhutan. United Int J Res Technol 01(02):42–47

    Google Scholar 

  34. Earthquake Resistant Training Mannual Bhutan (2013) Earthquake resistant Construction Training Mannual. EarthquakeTraining Mannual

  35. 2009–2011 World Bank, RGoB & UN, Scanned by CamScanner. 2016.

  36. Pacheco-torgal F, Jalali S (2012) Earth construction : lessons from the past for future eco-efficient construction. Constr Build Mater 29:512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lagaros ND (2007) Life-cycle cost analysis of design practices for RC framed structures. Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):425–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9038-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Asare KAB, Ruikar KD, Zanni M, Soetanto R (2020) “BIM-based LCA and energy analysis for optimised sustainable building design in Ghana. SN Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03682-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Elhakeem A, Hegazy T (2012) Building asset management with deficiency tracking and integrated life cycle optimisation. Struct Infrastruct Eng 8(8):729–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732471003777071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ministry of Works and Human Settlement Bhutan, “Bhutan Schedule of Rates 2021,” Thimphu, 2021. https://www.nsb.gov.bt/.

  41. Ministry of Works and Human Settlement, “Labour and Material Coefficient 2021,” Thimphu, 2021. https://www.nsb.gov.bt/.

  42. Müller HS, Haist M, Vogel M (2014) Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete and concrete structures considering their environmental impact, performance and lifetime. Constr Build Mater 67(PART C):321–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lisa van der Zanden M (2018) Assessment of the seismic performance and sustainability of the Kath-Kuni building style in the Indian Himalaya. TU Delft, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sanya T (2012) Sustainable architecture evaluation method in an African context: transgressing discipline boundaries with a systems approach. Sustain Sci 7(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0137-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dipendra Gautam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey form

*Required-Questionaries to Manufacturers/factories/suppliers

  1. 1.

    Organization /Company's Name; *

  2. 2.

    Name of Owner; *

  3. 3.

    Product Manufactured;(types of bricks/dimension) *

  4. 4.

    Dzongkhag; *

  5. 5.

    Exact location (Gewog/ village/Thromde/.)

  6. 6.

    Machinery used for Manufacturing;( mixing/Molding /heating /.) *

  7. 7.

    Mode of Operation (Electricity/fuel/.); *

  8. 8.

    Average amount paid for Electricity or fuel in a month; *

  9. 9.

    Rate per units of electricity;

  10. 10.

    Average Number of bricks manufactured in a month; *

  11. 11.

    List of Raw material used; *

  12. 12.

    Place from where raw material is extracted; (exact location); *

  13. 13.

    Estimated duration of service life(guarantee) of bricks; *

  14. 14.

    Average transportation charges per truck to bring Raw materials to factory site from place of extraction; *

  15. 15.

    Average Number of Labor working daily to running factory site; *

  16. 16.

    Labor charges per day (Wages)

*Required-Questionaries to local people (both rural and urban)

  1. 1.

    Name of House Owner

  2. 2.

    Building type -Mark only one oval.

Residential building

Commercial building

Residential cum

Commercial office building:

Other (specify):

  1. 3.

    Age of Building:(or Year when it was built)

  2. 4.

    What was the total Cost for the complete construction of building?

  3. 5.

    Dimensions of building: {Plinth Area} *

  4. 6.

    Number of rooms; (Would be grateful if you could provide us the Numbers of rooms in each floor): *

  5. 7.

    Floor type:

  6. 8.

    Maximum Room Size:

  7. 9.

    Height of room: *

  8. 10.

    Part of a building that needed frequent Maintenance and Repair; *

  9. 11.

    Amount of money spend for Maintenance / repairs in a year; *

  10. 12.

    Do you have hands- on experience of construction? *

  11. 13.

    Do you prefer to live in same housing typology? *

  12. 14.

    Did your construction activities cause damage to environment? *

  13. 15.

    Which type of building materials do you prefer a. concrete, b. Bricks, c. Earth products*.

  14. 16.

    Rate the previous answer in 50%, 75% and 100%*

  15. 17.

    Do you recycle any building materials, if so rate in same range in previous question? *

  16. 18.

    Rate the sustainability parameters of headings for level of importance based on a scale of 1–5 which is known as Likert Scale, where 1 is ‘least important,’ 2 ‘fairly important,’ 3 ‘important,’ 4 ‘very important,’ and 5 ‘extremely important’*.

*Required-Questionaries to field expertise (based on qualification – 1. academic qualification, 2. professional qualification and 3. number of years in work experience)

  1. 1.

    Name and option you fall from listed personnel above (1,2 & 3) *.

  2. 2.

    Rate the sustainability parameters of headings for level of importance based on a scale of 1–5 which is known as Likert Scale, where 1 is ‘least important,’ 2 ‘fairly important,’ 3 ‘important,’ 4 ‘very important,’ and 5 ‘extremely important’*.

  3. 3.

    Number of working experiences? *

  4. 4.

    Which material is socially and culturally preferred? *

  5. 5.

    Rate the sustainability parameters of headings in 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% based on their importance*.

  6. 6.

    Rate in scale of previous question the level of research undertaken in Bhutan*.

  7. 7.

    Express your opinion on building materials and its associated research*.

  8. 8.

    Which type of materials is easy to construct, rate in above scale*.

  9. 9.

    Which type of materials is durable, rate in above scale*.

  10. 10.

    Which type of materials is effective to recycle, rate in above scale*.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chettri, N., Gautam, D., Chikermane, S. et al. Sustainability assessment of Bhutanese vernacular wattle and daub houses. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 6, 210 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00576-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00576-z

Keywords

Navigation