The Thesis of Theseus - Arthur Trieu by Cambridge Design Research Studio

THE THESIS OF THESEUS NEGOTIATORY PRODUCTION OF RESILIENT HERITAGE IN THE KATHMANDU VALLEY

Ar thur Trieu Dar win College at657@cam.ac.uk Super visor : James Campbell May 27 th , 2016

A Design Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil in Architecture an Urban Design Examination, 2014 - 2016 Word Count: 15,445

Acknowledgments

Introduction

iii

People who have contributed their help to this paper are far too numerous and the following is just a humble attempt to name but a few. This essay would not have been possible without the support and encouragements of my supervisors, Ingrid SchrĂśder and James Campbell. My gratitude to Emily So for facilitating my introduction to Nepal, and to all the members of the EEFIT mission, from whom I learnt a lot. Thank you to Randolph Langenbach, Rohit Ranjitkar from the KVPT, Nadeem Ahmed from UN-Habita, Kai Weise from the DoA, Analies De Nijs and Stephanie Dens from KU Leuven,, Jeevan Tuladhar from Nepal Cornerstone, Hisila Manadhar from the KVDA for their generosity with their time. Sukha, Sangita and their familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s warm welcome made my stay in Bungamati much more enjoyable. My appreciation goes to Sabina, Lalita, Anil, Sabindra, Gaurab, Bikesh, Ganga, Shiva, Mina, Chandra and many others in Bungamati, Khokana and Lalitpur and most of all Manju for their invaluable help. Lastly, thank you again to all my coursemates for making this fun.

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.

Table of Contents

Introduction

-- List of Illustrations

-- List of Acronyms

-- The Thesis of Theseus

-- Introduction

-- On Heritage

-- On Site

-- On Craft

-- On Memory

-- On People

-- On Space

-- Conclusion

-- Bibliography

List of Illustrations

Introduction

Fig. 1. Public Space in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 2. The village of Lubhu in 2003 Source: Google Earth

Fig. 3. The village of Lubhu in 2016 Source: Google Earth

Fig. 4. The village of Satungal in 2003 Source: Google Earth

Fig. 5. The village of Satungal in 2014 Source: Google Earth

Fig. 6. Urban growth in the Kathmandu Valley in 1967 (left) and 2000 (right) Source: Thapa and Murayama (2009)

Fig. 7. Centre of Kathmandu in the 1920s Source: KVDA (2016)

Fig. 8. Centre of Kathmandu in 2016 Source: KVDA (2016)

Fig. 9. Bhaktapur Durbar Square, UNESCO World Heritage Site Photograph by author

Fig. 10. Patan Durbar Square, Lalitpur, UNESCO World Heritage Site Photograph by author

Fig. 11. Encroaching reinforced concrete construction in Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 12. Plan of Khokana & Bungamati | Scale: 1:10,000 Drawn by author

Fig. 13. Plan of Bungamati | Buildings’ Construction Methods | Scale: 1:5,000 Drawn by author

Fig. 14. Plan of Khokana | Buildings’ Construction Methods | Scale: 1:5,000 Drawn by author

Fig. 15. Urban Sprawl near Bungamati Photograph by author

vii

viii

On Heritage

Fig. 16. Urban Sprawl in Satdobato, Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 17. Urban Sprawl in Imadol, Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 18. Modern construction encroachment in Bungamati Photograph by author

Fig. 19. People rebuilding their houses using reinforced concrete construction in Bungaamti Photograph by author

Fig. 20. Plan of Bungamati | Buildings’ Damage | Scale: 1:5,000 Drawn by author

Fig. 21. Plan of Khokana | Buildings’ Damage | Scale: 1:5,000 Drawn by author

Fig. 22. A Street in Bungamati Photograph by author

Fig. 23. A Street in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 24. Typical section of traditional exterior façade | Scale: 1:50 Drawn by author

Fig. 25. Traditional house façade Photograph by author

Fig. 26. Dalan Photograph by author

Fig. 27. Chukū on exterior façade Photograph by author

Fig. 28. Chukū on interior beams Photograph by author

Fig. 29. Delaminated Brick Wall in Bungamati Photograph by author

Fig. 30. Brick Wall and Timber Floor Junction Photograph by author

Fig. 31. Brick Wall in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 32. Sequence of Brick Wall Failure Drawn by author

Fig. 33. Collapsed traditional houses next to reinforced concrete frame buildings in Bungamati Photograph by author

Fig. 34. Junction between a traditional brick house and a reinforced concrete frame buildings in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 35. Upper floor addition under construction in Bhaktapur Photograph by author

Fig. 36. Masonry’s and Timber’s Behaviours under Lateral Loads Drawn by author

Introduction

Fig. 37. Box-like Behaviour under Seismic Load generated by the Timber Skeleton Drawn by author

Fig. 38. Hımış, Turkey Source: Gülkan, P. and Langenbach, R., 2004. The Earthquake Resistance of Traditional Timber and Masonry Dwellings in Turkey. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C, Canada

Fig. 39. Gaiola Pombalina, Portugal Photo courtesy of Randolph Langenbach

Fig. 40. Dhajji-dewari, Kashmir Source: Khan, S., 2014. Building of a Disaster. [Online] Kashmir News. Available at: <http://www. kashmirnewz.com/f000124.html> [Accessed 15 January 2015]

Fig. 41. Gingerbread House, Haïti Source: Langenbach, R., Kelley, S., Sparks, P., Rowell, K., Hammer, M., Julien, O.J., 2010. Preserving Haiti’s Gingerbread Houses. World Monuments Fund, New York.

Fig. 42. Guṭhī House in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 43. Metal artisans in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 44. Weavers in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 45. Chowk in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 46. Chowk in Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 47. Lāchi in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 48. People washing clothes in a nāni in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 49. Plan of Bungamati | Caste Distribution | Scale: 1:5,000 Drawn by author

Fig. 50. Sattal used as a shop in Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 51. Pāṭī in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 52. Sattal in Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 53. Junction between two houses in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 54. Junction between two houses in Khokana Photograph by author

Fig. 55. Junction between two houses in Lalitpur Photograph by author

Fig. 56. Gathering in Bunga Baha Photograph by author

List of Acronyms

Introduction

ADPC

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

CBS

Central Bureau of Statistics

DoA

Department of Archaeology

DoUDBC

Department of Urban Development and Building Construction

EEFIT

Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team

ERRRP

Earthquake Programme

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GHI

GeoHazards International

GoN

Government of Nepal

ICIMOD

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

ICOMOS

International Council on Monuments and Sites

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

KRRC

Khokana Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Committee

KTFT

Kathmandu-Terai Fast Track

KVDA

Kathmandu Valley Development Authority

MHT

Main Himalayan Thrust

MoEST

Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

NDRRP

Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

NSET

National Society for Earthquake Technology

PMZ

Protected Monument Zone

Reinforced Concrete

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

USGS

United States Geological Survey

WCCD

World Commission on Culture and Development

WHC

World Heritage Committee

WTTC

World Travel and Tourism Council

Risk

Reduction

and

Recovery

Preparedness

Introduction: The Ship of Theseus

Introduction

While on my first visit to the Kathmandu Valley, accompanying the EEFIT team investigating the damage from the recent earthquake, one of the team members mentioned Trigger’s Broom. The day had been spent in traditional settlements and the conversation naturally revolved around conservation. Only Fools and Horses’ character Trigger had replaced his broom’s head and handle many times over the course of its life. Was it then the same broom? If one were to replace all the physical components of an object, would it remain the same object? This question’s oldest known iteration was posed in the first century by Plutarch (1683): “The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned (…) was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.”

Naturally, this thesis does not seek to resolve the two-millennia-old debate of the Ship of Theseus, but explores its implications in our contemporary context. Recent times have seen a growing concern for heritage

(Lowenthal, 1998, 1989),

with

people searching for new ways to experience connections with their pasts. Scholars have pointed to the future pressing issue of historical buildings, touching on issues of sustainability and durability

(Gil-Martín et al., 2012).

Kohler (1999)

suggests construction should focus on improving the existing building stock rather than expanding it. Concerned with the protection of architectural heritage,

On Heritage

the UNESCO World Heritage List has been ever-growing since its inception (Rakic, 2007).

These concerns about heritage are amplified by its exposure to natural

hazards. Worldwide population growth and urban growth are exposing an ever larger number of people to disaster risk, especially in developing countries (Gu et al., 2015).

The issue of the resilience of heritage in disasters has been an emerging

topic in recent years (Jigyasu et al., 2013). The earthquake that struck the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site on April 25th, 2015 led to renewed calls for safeguarding the Valley’s fragile heritage, driven by discourses of preservation of material, history and authenticity. But in a context of scarcity and relatively impoverished population, could heritage be more than a constraint? This thesis raises the question: Is there any role for heritage in rebuilding resilience in the post-disaster Kathmandu Valley and what is it? Exploring this subject, this thesis is divided into six sections, namely Heritage, Site, Craft, Memory, People and Space. On Heritage explores the contentiousness of heritage, especially the interpretation currently held by bodies such as UNESCO, as well as recent theoretical developments that centre on stakeholders’ involvement in the management of heritage, arguing that heritage is foremost a process of production. Analysing the larger body of contemporary conservation theories allows for a framing of their impact on heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, which is be described in On Site. It also details how urbanisation, conservation regulations and the earthquake threaten the Valley’s heritage. This thesis focuses more particularly on two traditional settlements: Bungamati and Khokana. Following on from there, On Craft highlights weaknesses of the Valley’s architectural heritage and the need to alter it. This alteration is affected by the close relationship between disasters and heritage. Effective resilience is primarily a matter of cultural perception and adaptation, as argued in On Memory. This entails that communities need to be involved in the measures that seek to build up resilience. On People further explores the challenges of such involvement, specifically in the diverse population of the Valley, but also the opportunities offered by existing community structures. The stratified aspect of the Valley’s population necessitates a pluralist approach to communities’ participation. But such stratification also expresses itself spatially, as described in On Space. The historical spatial organisation of traditional settlements and the requirement for multiple spaces of participation offer further opportunities to bring heritage and disaster mitigation together.

Introduction

Many terms throughout this essay will be transcribed in the indigenous language of the Valley, Newari, except when stated otherwise. Moreover, this thesis will deal with highly contentious terms such as heritage, authenticity, tradition, craft, vulnerability, culture, disaster, community, participation, resilience, etc, all of which have been extensively debated. The scope of this essay does not allow dwelling too long on defining those terms. However, it will aim to concisely clarify the interpretation and position taken on those concepts. Research for this thesis consists of observations made during site investigation as part of the Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT) between June, 13th and 21st, 2015, followed by two months of fieldwork between January and March 2016. During this time, I resided in the village of Bungamati, carrying further observations of building damage as well as interviews with the inhabitants of the settlements and various actors involved in planning the reconstruction. The argument is further informed by the broader body of literature touching on the subjects of heritage, disaster, resilience and community participation

On Heritages Local vs Global

On Heritage

The conservation discourse necessarily involves the contentious issue of what is being conserved. The object of conservation, whether it be a physical object, building, a place, or a practice, will be referred to as Heritage. In recent years, the term ‘heritage’ has become widely used to refer to anything that is being conserved. Establishing what heritage is remains a difficult task, with numerous attempts at definitions available, leading to a concept so broad that giving it a concise definition would be impossible (Brett, 1996; Harvey, 2001; Lowenthal, 1996; Muñoz-Viñas, 2004). Objects of conservation can refer to a vast range of different concepts, from

art paintings to monuments, from traditional craft to traditional rituals, festivities or gastronomy

(Muñoz-Viñas, 2004).

Nevertheless, this chapter will present current

debates revolving around the idea of heritage conservation and will argue why this concept is problematic. As an alternative, this chapter will put forward an approach that promotes at its core a plurality in conservation methods, and a multiplicity of heritages, in the reconstruction of heritage in the Kathmandu Valley.

“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” - Winston Churchill, 1943 (2004, p. 358)

On Heritage

WHAT? Attribution An old dominant definition of heritage favours its capacity to inform, educate through an objective record of history (Prott and O’Keefe, 1992), as a tool to connect and shed light on past events. This capacity is often seen as an intrinsic feature of any object of conservation, contained within its material fabric

(de la Torre, 2002; Harrison,

2010; Munjeri, 2004). However, a more recent understanding of heritage considers that

objects, places or practices are conserved for their capacity to carry values that are assigned to them by different actors who can be users, historians, architects, archaeologists, and others. Departing from an essentialist approach, there is no inherent value in heritage, but rather value is attributed to it through different perspectives (Harrison, 2010; Muñoz-Viñas, 2004; Poulios, 2010; Smith, 2006). F a b r i c at i o n A growing body of literature argues that these values with which heritage is imbued carry forward narratives that are not necessarily meant to inform impartially. Heritage relies on omissions, inventions, selections and interpretations of evidence in order to fulfil a narrative 1996).

Nora

(1989)

(Ashworth, 1994; Lowenthal, 1998; Tunbridge and Ashworth,

further argues that history is equally incomplete and selective.

Therefore heritage covers sets of values that are constructed over time, and there is an active bias in its fabrication

(Brett, 1993; Byrne, 1991; Lowenthal, 1998).

This bias is

naturally carried by the culture to which heritage belongs. An illustration of this concept is the re-use and re-interpretation of Rome’s monuments throughout history, with changes in meanings and physical alterations in order to support political agendas

(Boholm, 1997).

Heritage seeks to celebrate the past to respond

to present needs, and shape an ideal future (Ashworth, 1994; Lowenthal, 1996; Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996).

As a product of interpretation by involved actors (Schouten, 1995; Uzzell,

2006), it is devoid of impartiality. This entails that heritage, being actively fabricated,

is also malleable, and can only sustain itself if it is re-interpreted through time (Harvey, 2008; Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983; Lowenthal, 1998; Smith, 2006; Tunbridge, 1984).

On Heritage

WHEN? A

modern condition?

Many scholars argue that the supposed creation of the modern idea of heritage conservation arose as a necessity in the shaping of modern nation states in the 19th century

(Anderson, 1983; Bandarin and Oers, 2014a; Graburn, 2001; Winter, 2015)

and from the

Romantic movement, eager to stall the fast changes to cities and landscapes made possible by the Industrial Revolution 2010).

UNESCO adheres to this view

(Graham et al., 2000; Lowenthal, 1996; Poulios,

(Bandarin and Oers, 2014a),

which legitimises their

endeavours, as it necessarily implies discontinuity between past and present. This distinction between heritage and the culture that produces it, allows organisations like UNESCO to justify their right to manage heritage sites over that of local communities

(Poulios, 2010).

Ironically, this narrow view of the history

of heritage conservation can be considered a constructed narrative. Indeed, scholars such as Harvey

(2001)

or Poulios

heritage practices have and still exist

(2010)

highlight that earlier instances of

(Harvey, 2001; Poulios, 2010).

The example of the

guṭhīs in the Kathmandu Valley will be detailed later. A

human condition?

Through a process of collective memory, bound to select and omit Harrison, 2013),

cultures throughout history have always interpreted their past and

created their heritage according to the needs of their times 2008).

(Hall, 2005;

(Ashworth, 1994; Harvey,

What distinguishes the modern interpretation of heritage from previous

ones are improvements in technology that brought, among others, an increasing availability for printing, photography, increased literacy, and the digital era. These granted a higher ability to record and archive to a wider audience 1996; Harvey, 2008).

(Brett,

This democratisation led, on the one hand, to heritage becoming

increasingly associated with larger communities such as nations

(Hall, 2005; Harvey,

2008).

On the other hand, modernity became characterised by the production of archives, driven by what Nora

(1989)

calls the “veneration of the trace”, leading

heritage value to evolve from sites as places to a more materialist approach (Harvey, 2008).

This can be illustrated by the events that gave birth to the UNESCO

World Heritage Sites. In 1959, the Nubian Monuments in Egypt, threatened to be flooded by the construction of the Aswan High Dam, were re-located following an archival process that prioritised material over place (UNESCO, 2008, n.d.). With such an

On Heritage

understanding, heritage can no longer be considered a recent invention, but rather an inevitable human condition. In this context, current conservation movements are merely one interpretation of heritage within a much older continuum. Thus this thesis holds the view that heritage is foremost a social, human process, rather than a product to conserve (Harvey, 2001; Poulios, 2010).

WHICH? What does this mean for conservation practitioners? Conservation projects remain torn with the dilemma of preserving the past while using new material to ensure that preservation. Current conservation practices and legal frameworks remain centred on assessable criteria, including cultural significance or historical evidence. At the core of this interpretation lies the concept of authenticity, a crucial element of the Venice Charter property of the material fabric

(Gazzola et al., 1964),

(Jones and Yarrow, 2013).

regarded as an inherent

However, the process of

heritage considered as a human condition and as a fabrication, questions the concept of ‘truthful authenticity’. D i ff e r e n t

e x p e rt i s e

From their inception, World Heritage Sites had to convey an authenticity of place, of material, of design, and/or of craft (Masuda, 2013; UNESCO, 1978). This faceted definition, to which international and national institutions adhere, arose from the impossibility to reconcile those different aspects, deriving from the wide array of trades involved in conservation. A curatorial archival approach would prioritise material fabric as authentic historical evidence, while a craftsman would consider the continuation of his trade as its authentic preservation (Jones and Yarrow, 2013). D i ff e r e n t

c u lt u r e

This is further challenged by its incompatibility with many cultural sites. The Ise Shrine, in Japan, undergoes complete reconstruction every twenty years, which often involves modifications in design and craft (Adams, 1998). In Djenné, Mali, people renew every spring the plaster of the mud walls of the Great Mosque (Bourgeois, 1987). In the Kathmandu Valley, destructive earthquakes gave rise to the practice of cyclical renewal exist

(DoA, 2007; UNESCO, 2015a).

(Poulios, 2010),

Many other interpretations of authenticity

illustrating the contentiousness of ‘material authenticity’. It has

since been redefined through the Nara document to encompass a broader range

On Heritage

of interpretations (ICOMOS et al., 1994). D i ff e r e n t

authenticities

However, authenticity has reached a definition so vague it has become insufficient (Kawan, 2013). The addition of integrity, as “a measure of the wholeness and intactness” of heritage, further added confusion

(Stovel, 2007, p. 24).

Tangible

and intangible heritage have been recognised as constantly evolving processes (Dudek and Blaise, 2010; Inaba, 2013; Tait and While, 2009; UNESCO, 2004), which renders the concept

of authenticity “deluded” “illusion”

(Kawan, 2013, p. 76)

(Lowenthal, 1985, p. 410).

and integrity

(UNESCO, 2015b)

and “fictitious”

(Muñoz-Viñas, 2004)

or an

Both UNESCO’s qualifying criteria of authenticity

can take on different meanings and degrees of

significance depending on who claims them

(Jones and Yarrow, 2013).

They therefore

require a judgement of value and can only be highly contentious, relative issues rather than absolutes (Lowenthal, 1994). The misconception of inherent ‘truths’ still is predominant in dominant, ‘mainstream’ conservation practices materialist paradigm

(Muñoz-Viñas, 2004)

(Poulios, 2010; Tait and While, 2009).

that remain within the old

However, this essay does not

argue for abandoning the concepts of authenticity and integrity, but embraces their contentiousness. Any discourse claiming these ideas highlights political power plays between different parties, each with their own agendas. It also implies that heritage conservation does not necessarily lead to mere material preservation. The malleability of heritage needs instead to be negotiated through an interaction of these different parties (Jones and Yarrow, 2013).

WHOSE? This interaction is crucial as heritage is shaped by the communities to which it belongs. Increasingly, scholars view heritage, framed within a subjective retelling of history, as the vehicle through which communities can shape their ideologies, culture, define their identity and distinguish themselves from others (Ashworth, 1994; Brett, 1996; Graburn, 2001; Hall, 2005; Harrison, 2010; Johnson, 2013; Uzzell, 2006; Winter, 2015). This entails

that a prerequisite to a durable, persistent heritage, is a sense of ownership (Lowenthal, 1998).

However, no society, culture or community is homogenous; rather

they are composed of variety of ‘communities of interest’ with different needs, agendas, and power (Bell and Newby, 1971; Byrne, 1991; Ray, 1999; Shucksmith, 2000; Tunbridge, 1984). The Newari caste society in the Kathmandu Valley is a telling example. And as

On Heritage

buildings can take on several meanings

(Tait and While, 2009),

there will always be

multiple perceptions of heritage (Ashworth, 1994; Harrison, 2010). U n i v e r s a l H e r i ta g e Recent years have seen the emergence of new heritage models 2014b; Joy, 2009),

(Bandarin and Oers,

that acknowledge this diversity, and the impossibility of a singular

framework. UNESCO’s conservation approach has evolved into a Values-Based Approach

(Poulios, 2010),

also named Value-Led Conservation

(Muñoz-Viñas, 2004),

that

fosters the involvement of stakeholders and taking into account the various values assigned to heritage. However, in practice, power remains mostly concentrated to conservation professionals, generally outsiders to local communities, who decide what heritage is, and who the relevant stakeholders are

(Poulios, 2010).

Through claims of universality, these outsiders like UNESCO perpetuate the dominance of Western heritage theories that still prioritise the material fabric of heritage as a non-renewable resource (Byrne, 1991; Layton, 1989; Poulios, 2010). Despite this powerful control, UNESCO retains solely an advisory role (Rakic, 2007) and leaves the responsibility of managing heritage to the “cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that which cares for it” 1994, p. 46).

(ICOMOS et al.,

This absence of accountability and ownership contrasts with the vast

influence the World Heritage ‘brand’ holds (Rakic, 2007). With such control, UNESCO remains obsessed with shaping a singular ‘official narrative’ (UNESCO, 2008). L o c a l H e r i ta g e Heritage operates at different scales, from the individual to the global scale. In this context, ownership, intellectual, cultural or legal, becomes a highly contested issue (Ashworth, 1994; Brett, 1996). In Djenné, many interest groups have emerged with conflicting views on heritage management

(Joy, 2009).

The question of whose

heritage is being preserved needs more attention than it receives at the moment (Hall, 2005; Tunbridge, 1984).

At its core, “heritage is specifically a local phenomenon”, bound to place (Ashworth, 1994, p. 19),

and communities tend to favour and identify with local constructs

rather than global ones. Indigenous minorities in North America and Australia demanded for “human skeletal remains (…) [to] be treated not as archaeological evidence but as remains of their dead relatives”

(Byrne, 1991, p. 231; Layton, 1989).

Heritage is perceived as either “too close, within reach, [or] too far” p. 72).

(Graburn, 2001,

This usually results in an incompatibility between local and universal values

On Heritage (Harrison, 2010; Nicholas et al., 2010; Rakic and Chambers, 2008).

UNESCO had been criticised for

its attempt at a “standardization of local culture through universal norms” (Kawan, 2013, p. 75), 232),

which has been called an “inappropriate ideology transfer” (Byrne, 1991, p.

as its failures to consider local social concerns demonstrate (Layton, 1989; Rakic

and Chambers, 2008).

WHY AND WHERE? Why? Despite being a constructed value, heritage remains tied to the multiplicity of cultural identities and communities to which it belongs. This is why dealing with heritage retains a critical role. Preserving/conserving heritage enables the perpetuation and production of the meanings attached to it. The very human condition of heritage makes engaging with it a political and ethical enterprise, one that should not be taken lightly (Ashworth, 1994; Brett, 1996; Harvey, 2001; Muñoz-Viñas, 2004; Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996).

The cultural diversity found globally makes it impossible to create a universal common conservation method. This essay argues for a shift in the approach to heritage, one that would remain consistent globally in its understanding of the processes that produce heritage. Today the confusion lies in the belief that conserving heritage allows for the preservation of culture, when in reality, local cultural communities, in all their diversity, should retain control of their heritage if it is to be preserved. It has been highlighted that assigning heritage value to a building distances it from its context and damages it and its social context (WCCD, 1995).

Bridging this distance between heritage and local communities becomes

a key endeavour. This does not necessarily entail giving up measures such as listing and heritage designation. But these measures need to be established by local communities, and act as initiators of social debates rather than restrictions. Where? This entails re-focusing the debate on stakeholders’ perceptions of heritage, particularly those of the “core community”

(Poulios, 2010, p. 176)

local heritage management that may not exist yet

within structures of

(Ashworth, 1994).

Such methods

naturally lead to locally-specific strategies and devolution into a multiplicity of heritages. This “heterogeneous” heritage promotes the unique, the particular,

On Heritage

and enhances local identity (Ashworth, 1994, p. 25). Thus the design proposal carried out in parallel with this thesis develops around a strategy not designed for Nepal, nor for the Kathmandu Valley, but for specific identity-places: Khokana and Bungamati. Such an approach does not necessarily differ from the ideals of the Nara Document of embracing diversity

(ICOMOS et al., 1994).

heritage conservation as a “negotiatory” (Hall, 2005, p. 5),

(Muñoz-Viñas, 2004),

But it would promote “discursive practice”

dealing with values contested by diverse interest groups through

compromise, debate, and negotiation. Maintaining such a practice would establish continuity between past and present.

On Heritage

Fig. 1. Public Space in Khokana

On Site Threats to Heritage

On Site

This thesis deals with a design intervention in the villages of Khokana and Bungamati. A broader perspective of their context needs to be laid out in order to understand the choice of these two particular villages and the wider implications of intervention. While the Kathmandu Valley as a whole is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the latter actually consists of seven Protected Monument Zones (PMZs) (DoA, 2007). However, this thesis will not limit its scope to UNESCOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sites, and will consider as heritage sites any place where traditions can be witnessed, be it physical buildings constructed using traditional methods, sites that hold spiritual meanings for local communities, spaces where recurring festivals take place, or places where centuries-old traditional crafts are being practised.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;I love art, and I love history; but it is living art and living history that I love.â&#x20AC;? - William Morris, 1882 (2012, p. 233)

On Site

TRADITION AND MODERNITY Traditional Set tlements The Kathmandu Valley comprises the three former city-states of Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur, which are now the principal urban centres in the Valley. Their historic centres are each designated PMZs (DoA, 2007). Outside of these cities, the fertility of the land led the economy to be mostly based on rice agriculture (Bjønness and Subba, 2008; Blair, 1983; Müller-Böker, 1988).

The Valley mostly consisted of

agricultural fields and farming villages, most of them found in the south-western part of the Valley, where the most fertile lands lie (Müller-Böker, 1988). Modern Settlements Nepal ended its relative isolation from foreign influences in the second half of the 20th century 2012).

(Chitrakar et al., 2014; Hutt, 1995; ICIMOD et al., 2007; Korn, 1976; M. Maharjan,

The ensuing modernisation made the Valley one of the “fastest growing

metropolitan regions in South Asia” (Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013, p. 2). The more attractive living standards, public services, employment, and education opportunities the Valley offers, in comparison to the rest of the country, and safety from the recent conflict (1996-2006), brought a large influx of migrants from outside the Valley. This triggered a rapid urbanisation mostly through uncontrolled suburban sprawl (Bajracharya, 2012; Chitrakar et al., 2014; ICIMOD et al., 2007; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013; Thapa et al., 2008; Thapa and Murayama, 2009).

Population increased from around 450,000 in 1961 to more than

2.5 million by 2011

(CBS, 2012; ICIMOD et al., 2007).

The urban area almost quadrupled

in the four decades before 2009 while agricultural fields are steadily being turned into suburbs and could disappear by as early as 2025

(Bjønness and Subba, 2008; Haack

and Rafter, 2006; ICIMOD et al., 2007; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013; Thapa and Murayama, 2009).

KHOKANA & BUNGAMATI U r b a n T h r e at Modern RC frame with brick infill buildings offer amenities and living standards that are seen as a welcome improvement from older buildings. Traditional houses are either replaced by newer structures, or people move to the suburbs. This ongoing sprawling and encroachment on the World Heritage Sites led the latter to be listed as World Heritage in Danger from 2003 to 2007 (DoA, 2007; ICIMOD et al., 2007;

On Site

Fig. 2. The village of Lubhu in 2003

Fig. 3. The village of Lubhu in 2016

Fig. 4. The village of Satungal in 2003

Fig. 5. The village of Satungal in 2014

Forests Agricultural Land Built-up area

Fig. 6. Urban growth in the Kathmandu Valley in 1967 (left) and 2000 (right)

Fig. 7. Centre of Kathmandu in the 1920s

Fig. 8. Centre of Kathmandu in 2016

On Site

Fig. 9. Bhaktapur Durbar Square, UNESCO World Heritage Site

Fig. 10. Patan Durbar Square, Lalitpur, UNESCO World Heritage Site

On Site

Fig. 11. Encroaching reinforced concrete construction in Lalitpur

On Site

M. Maharjan, 2012; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013).

keep growing 2011, 2009),

The metropolitan area is projected to steadily

(Duwal, 2013; Haack and Rafter, 2006; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013; Thapa and Murayama,

creating more pressure on city centres as most of the development

is projected to be residential

(Bjønness and Subba, 2008; Shrestha, 2013).

This expansive

encroaching urbanisation is also threatening to engulf surrounding traditional villages (Bajracharya, 2012). R u r a l T h r e at In the south-western fertile region, one can find the villages of Khokana and Bungamati. The former remains famous for its production of mustard oil 1976),

(Toffin,

and was on the Tentative List of World Heritage Site (UNESCO, 1996), while the

latter is a centre for woodcarving craft (Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013). Administratively, urban areas are governed by Municipalities or higher bodies 2013).

(GoN, 1999; Muzzini and Aparicio,

In 2014, Khokana and Bungamati were grouped into the newly created

Karyabinayak Municipality (Ghimire, 2014), effectively classifying them as urban. These settlements are located close to the main road leading south from the metropolis. Moreover, projects such as the Outer Ring Road and the Kathmandu Terai Fast Track highway are planned in close proximity to these villages (KTFT Road Project Office, 2015; KVDA, 2016; Shrestha, 2013).

closely following major arteries and Murayama, 2011, 2009),

As the urban expansion from the cities is

(Bjønness and Subba, 2008; Duwal, 2013; Thapa et al., 2008; Thapa

the site lies in the direct path of sprawling.

Many concrete structures have already replaced traditional buildings in these villages and urban sprawl is most likely going to transform these villages further in the near future, threatening their heritage. Relieving the city centres from increasing population pressure would require the development of public infrastructure and socio-economic opportunities at their fringes, a strategy embraced by authorities (Bajracharya, 2012; KVDA, 2016; Shrestha, 2013).

Satellite settlements such as Khokana and

Bungamati can thus contribute to curbing the current pattern of uncontrolled sprawling in the Valley. Such an approach acknowledges the need for the site’s inevitable transition from rural to urban, and seeks to tackle the threats to its heritage that accompany that transition.

On Site

1340

1380

1310

1300

70 13

1320 60 13

1330

1290

13 50

1340

1350

1370

1360

1280

70 12

20mm

100mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

1330

1340

1350

1360

1370

1350

1360

1310

1290

1270

0.5m

1320

1300

1260

1270

1280

1290

1350

1320

1330

1360

1340

1370

1360

1370

Khokana

1350

1330

1260

1340

1290

1280 1270

1260

1320

1270

1320

Bungamati0

10m

2.5m

10m

1320

1330

1340

1300

1290

25m

10m

50m

20m

1350

1360

1280

50 12

1260

1270

1260

1250

100m 1380

30m

150m

1360

Fig. 12. Plan of Khokana & Bungamati Scale: 1:10,000

50m

250m

100m

500m

On Site

1340

20mm

100mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.5m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

25m

10m

50m

20m

100m

10m

136

1350

10m

1380

1360

134

1320

1330

30m

150m

Construction Method: Traditional

50m

250m

100m

500m

Mixed Brick Masonry Reinforced Concrete & Brick Masonry

Fig. 13. Plan of Bungamati Buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Construction Methods Scale: 1:5,000

On Site

20mm

100mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.5m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

133 0

129 0

131 0

1320

133

10m

2.5m

25m

10m

50m

20m

100m

1320

130

129

1280

127

Construction Method:

10m

30m

150m

Traditional Mixed

50m

250m

100m

500m

Brick Masonry Reinforced Concrete & Brick Masonry

Fig. 14. Plan of Khokana Buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Construction Methods Scale: 1:5,000

On Site

CONSERVATION CONFLICTS I n s i d e W o r l d H e r i ta g e S i t e s Understanding the scale of urban growth’s repercussions on cultural heritage would require an overview of conservation practice in the Valley. Although the Department of Archaeology (DoA) remains the leading authority in heritage conservation in the country, this power over the PMZs is shared with many other organisations and institutions. National and local building bylaws can sometimes contradict each other

(Chapagain, 2008; DoA, 2007; GoN, 1999, 1956; M. Maharjan,

2012; S. Maharjan, 2012; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013).

The World Heritage Site designation

remains perceived as a powerful brand

(Hall, 2001; Hall and Piggin, 2002; Poria et al., 2011;

Rakic, 2007),

allowing UNESCO to retain a large influence

having trained many members of the DoA

(S. Maharjan, 2012; Tiwari, 2009),

(Chapagain, 2008).

Detailing the complex

and overlapping relationships between the various managing institutions would be too cumbersome for the scope of this thesis. However, it must be noted that multiple conflicts have emerged with the PMZs’ residents. Income from tourism incentivises authorities to direct most funding aid towards preserving public monuments. Moreover, house owners are legally responsible to maintain private heritage while abiding to authorities’ conflicting bylaws. But conservation rules also conflict with locals’ desire for modern amenities (such as water tanks, solar panels, etc). Furthermore, the rarefaction of traditional construction and craftsmen greatly increases maintenance expenses (Chapagain, 2008; Hutt, 1995; Maharjan, 2014; M. Maharjan, 2012; S. Maharjan, 2012; WTTC, 2015).

The high economic cost of maintaining or reconstructing traditional houses, the restrictive regulations, as well as the complexity of obtaining approval, make the infringement of regulations, the demolition and reconstruction of houses rather than their renovation, or moving to the suburbs more attractive to local residents, and give them little incentives to conserve heritage, unless they convert their houses for tourism-oriented purposes rather than personal uses

(ICIMOD et al., 2007;

Maharjan, 2014; M. Maharjan, 2012).

O u t s i d e W o r l d H e r i ta g e S i t e s Authorities’ focused efforts on the handful of designated PMZs’ monuments rather than on broader heritage leave little attention for other traditional settlements, which translates into a lack of funding for local authorities (Chapagain, 2008; Muzzini and

On Site

Fig. 15. Urban Sprawl near Bungamati

Fig. 16. Urban Sprawl in Satdobato, Lalitpur

Fig. 17. Urban Sprawl in Imadol, Lalitpur

On Site

Aparicio, 2013; Tiwari, 2013).

House owners freely alter historic buildings or substitute

them for RC buildings without any monitoring from local government, or move outside the historical core in search of modern facilities (Bhatta, 2009). This gradual replacement, which also occurs in Bungamati and Khokana, highlight local authorities’ lack of capacity to protect their architectural heritage. Heritage protection in UNESCO’s current form would therefore not be desirable for private heritage owners, nor would the opposite be desirable for the subsistence of heritage. These contrasting approaches of restriction and disinterest have shown to be both ineffective, adding yet another threat to heritage.

EARTHQUAKES T h e S e i s m i c T h r e at Urban growth and ineffective conservation policies have now been over-shadowed by last year’s events. The 2015 Gorkha earthquake, of a moment magnitude of (Mw) 7.8, and its multiple aftershocks are estimated to have caused more than 8,800 deaths and 22,000 injuries in the country. More than 530,000 buildings were “fully damaged” and more than 280,000 were “partially damaged” al., 2016; GoN, 2015; NDRRP, 2015; Romão et al., 2015; USGS, 2015a, 2015b).

(Elliott et

About 8 million people

were affected, and $7 billion are estimated to be needed to recover, including more than $3 billion for housing and more than $200 million for cultural heritage. It must be noted that the government’s definition of cultural heritage prioritises public monuments and does not include heritage residential buildings (GoN, 2015). T h e G r e at e r T h r e at Historic buildings performed overwhelmingly worse than modern RC ones, which only accounted for 3% of damaged buildings (GoN, 2015; Romão et al., 2015), and damage was greater in rural settlements such as Khokana and Bungamati. Many house owners may choose to rebuild their homes using modern materials as they would perceive them as safer. Traditional construction techniques now face the danger of either being substituted altogether by RC buildings, only leaving a possibility for a veneer of traditional materials on the front façade 2015),

(Romão et al.,

a method that authorities have approved in the past (M. Maharjan, 2012; Muzzini and

Aparicio, 2013).

The government stated private heritage within villages will be the responsibility

On Site

of local communities

(GoN, 2015).

The damage to traditional houses has revived

Khokana and Bungamatiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; awareness of the vulnerability of their traditions, generating new movements to preserve their heritage. However, the lack of recognition from higher authorities and the poor seismic behaviour of traditional buildings may further accentuate the risk of loss of heritage construction techniques, craft and buildings.

Fig. 18. Modern construction encroachment in Bungamati

Fig. 19. People rebuilding their houses using reinforced concrete construction in Bungaamti

On Site

1340

20mm

100mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.5m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

25m

10m

50m

20m

100m

10m

136

1350

10m

1380

1360

134

1320

1330

30m

150m

Damage: Heavy

50m

250m

100m

500m

Severe Slight None

Fig. 20. Plan of Bungamati Buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Damage Scale: 1:5,000

On Site

20mm

100mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.5m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

133 0

129 0

131 0

1320

133

10m

2.5m

25m

10m

50m

20m

100m

1320

130

129

1280

127

Damage:

10m

30m

150m

Heavy Severe

50m

250m

100m

500m

Slight None

Fig. 21. Plan of Khokana Buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Damage Scale: 1:5,000

On Site

Fig. 22. A Street in Bungamati

On Site

Fig. 23. A Street in Khokana

On Craft Heritage and Earthquake Resilience

On Craft

The heritage of Khokana and Bungamati will be facing changes in coming years. The architectural heritage of the Valley is mainly issued from the culture that thrived there over the past centuries, the Newari culture. Although populations have migrated to the Valley over centuries, they mostly adopted the local architectures (Hutt, 1995).

For the majority of buildings, the Newari style has subsisted relatively

unchanged since the early Malla period (from 13th century). Its construction techniques and building details all derive from those found in houses (chen). The latter hardly differ between urban and rural settlements and their characteristics remain fairly consistent throughout the Valley (Beckh, 2006; Bonapace and Sestini, 2003; Korn, 1976; Toffin, 1982).

The following chapter will describe their defining elements and

response to earthquakes, before expanding on the preservation approach taken by the proposal.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Heritage must feel durable, yet pliable. It is more vital to reshape than just to preserve.â&#x20AC;? - Lowenthal (1996, p. 171)

On Craft

NEWA CHEN Because of their agricultural economy, the Newari kept their settlements compact, with houses built adjoining each other, and on higher grounds, known as tars (Blair, 1983; Korn, 1976; Shrestha, 2012; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956). Traditionally, a Newari house comprises three storey and distinguishes itself by its brick façades, its ornamented timber doors and windows, and its overhanging timber roofs. Each house is relatively small in plan, and a central spine wall, parallel to the front façade, divides each floor into two rooms (D’Ayala, 2003). The structural vertical elements of the house, including the foundations, consist of brick walls, generally between 450mm and 750mm thick. They consist of two wythes of fired or un-fired bricks, with an infill of un-fired bricks or rubble in between them. Mud mortar is the traditional binding agent, although cement is now more widely used. Walls are rarely found to be joined together, but are simply butt jointed (Beckh, 2006; Bonapace and Sestini, 2003; Korn, 1976). The structural horizontal elements, as well as the roofs, are made of timber, locally known as śāl (shorea robusta), issued from the Terai region, in the south of Nepal (Bonapace and Sestini, 2003; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013). At each floor level, one or two wall plates are laid into the brick walls. Closely spaced floor joists (dhalin) locked onto the wall plates by timber pegs (chukū), span between the façades and the spine wall (Beckh, 2006; D’Ayala, 2006, 2003), and run through the thickness of the walls, becoming a characteristic feature of the façade. The roofs’ ridge beams are usually supported by king posts. Rafters meet the walls in a similar way to that of the floor joists while the overhanging eaves, protecting against the heavy rains of the monsoon, are supported by angled timber struts (tunala) sitting on a brick or timber cornice. Wooden planks or flat tiles cover the rafters and are covered with a layer of mud, onto which roof tiles (djingati) are placed (Beckh, 2006; Bonapace and Sestini, 2003; D’Ayala, 2003; Tiwari, 2009). In the upper floors, the spine brick wall is often replaced by timber frames, known as dalan. This dalan can also be used on the front façade at the ground level, supporting the masonry façade above (D’Ayala, 2003), and can sometimes be infilled with brick. The introduction of modern construction methods has brought structural alterations. In many instances, timber floors have been replaced with RC slabs, and pitched roofs, with flat concrete ones. Cement mortar is also increasingly

On Craft

Roof tiles Djingati Rafter

Mud

Timber Strut Tunala

Timber Wall Plate

Timber Cornice

Timber Peg Chukū

Window Frame Timber Tie

Floor Joist Dhalin

Internal Wythe Fired brick or un-�ired brick (kaci apa)

External Wythe Fired Brick (Ma Apa)

Fig. 24. Typical section of traditional exterior façade Scale: 1:50

In�ill kaci apa or rubble

20mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.5m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

100mm

On Craft

Fig. 25. Traditional house façade

Fig. 26. Dalan

Fig. 27. Chukū on exterior façade

On Craft

Fig. 28. ChukĹŤ on interior beams

On Craft

being used instead of mud mortar, and clay roof tiles are substituted for corrugated metal sheets (D’Ayala, 2003; Marahatta and Pokharel, 2014).

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR Seismic Vulnerability The very poor seismic performance of traditional buildings can be explained by several weaknesses. An essential requirement for seismic resistance is the ability of a building to have a box behaviour under seismic stress. This is achieved when a building’s structural elements are connected to form a single structural unit

(Cardoso et al., 2003; Ortega et al., 2014; Varum et al., 2015).

In contrast, unconnected walls

in Newari houses behave independently during a seismic shock illustrated by the numerous out-of-plane failures observed et al., 2015).

(Beckh, 2006),

(Romão et al., 2015; Varum

Their untied wythes make the walls highly prone to delamination,

bulging and eventually buckling. The brick material can also be weathered and weakened by the lack of protection from damp rising from the foundations, or by efflorescence induced by the use of cement mortar

(Beckh, 2006; D’Ayala, 2003).

Moreover, the heterogeneous growth of urban blocks, with houses built at different times and with different materials (D’Ayala, 2003), results in compact sets of buildings with different deformation properties, which induces hammering during an earthquake

(Cóias e Silva et al., 2001; Jankowski and Mahmoud, 2015; Naserkhaki et al., 2012; Ortega

et al., 2014; Varum et al., 2015).

Structural vulnerability is further amplified by the heavy

weight of the mud-covered roofs, exacerbated by modern upper floors additions. Many houses use their ground floors for commercial purposes, resulting in larger openings or the use of dalans. This insufficient mass at ground level can lead to soft-storey failures (Beckh, 2006; D’Ayala, 2003; JICA and GoN, 2002). Seismic Resilience Newari architecture seems adapted to the heavy rains of the monsoon and the harsh sun of the dry season, but also suggests an adaptation to seismic risk. The symmetry and regularity of façade, the low number of storeys, and the orthogonal plan are typical features of earthquake resilient construction. Also, bricks walls become thinner in the upper floors, where the masonry spine wall is replaced by a timber frame. This load reduction contributes to lowering vulnerability. But it is the timber joinery details that show greatest potential for seismic resilience, showing resistance to lateral loads in their assembly. Timber floor joists acting

On Craft

Fig. 29. Delaminated Brick Wall in Bungamati

Built

Fig. 32. Sequence of Brick Wall Failure

Fig. 30. Brick Wall and Timber Floor Junction

Bulging

Fig. 31. Brick Wall in Khokana

Buckling

On Craft

as tie beams bind the vertical load-bearing elements together, and can absorb seismic shocks by acting as diaphragms, enabling box behaviour and restraining out-of-plane failure. Moreover, the wall plates, joined together through the floor joists, assist in tying the two wythes of the brick walls, as well as prevent the spreading of cracks. Unfortunately, pairs of wall plates are often reduced to one single plate. Walls are also strengthened by the windows and doors that usually consist of two frames tied together on either face of the walls. The traditionally small size of openings also allow for wider masonry walls between openings, with higher shear resistance. But opening sizes have grown over the centuries, rendering the walls more vulnerable (Barbisan and Laner, 1995; Beckh, 2006; Bonapace and Sestini, 2003; D’Ayala, 2006, 2003; Korn, 1976; Ortega et al., 2014; Romão et al., 2015; Varum et al., 2015).

CONSERVATION APPROACH Nepal sits on a geological fault named the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT). While return periods of seismic events are uncertain et al., 2012; Sakai et al., 2015),

(Avouac et al., 2001; Bilham, 2004; Paudyal

historical records have shown that recurrence intervals

can be as short as 50-70 years (Bilham, 2004). The 2015 earthquake has long been conjectured to be overdue (Bilham, 2004; Elliott et al., 2016; Galetzka et al., 2015; Pandey et al., 1995). More importantly, a portion of the MHT did not rupture during the recent shocks and can lead to another major quake within years or decades 2016; Anon., 2016; Elliott et al., 2016).

people, buildings do”

(Agence France-Presse,

As the old saying goes, “[earthquakes] don’t kill

(Cross, 2015).

Any proposed new structure would almost

certainly experience another large seismic shock. P r e s e r v at i o n

A lt e r at i o n

While the lack of maintenance and inappropriate alterations greatly compromised the seismic performance of traditional buildings (D’Ayala, 2003; Romão et al., 2015; Varum et al., 2015),

building damage from previous earthquakes sheds more insights in their

seismic vulnerability. The 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake, of magnitude (Mw) 8.0, destroyed 20% and severely damaged 40% of the Valley’s building stock (D’Ayala, 2003; Dunn et al., 1939; Pandey and Molnar, 1988),

at a time when most construction remained

traditional. Moreover, most earlier earthquakes are known to have been greatly destructive

(Chaulagain et al., 2014; Chitrakar and Pandey, 1986; NSET and GHI, 1998; Pandey et al., 1999,

1995; Sakai et al., 2015).

This would indicate that the resilient features of Newari houses were most likely

On Craft

not sufficient to counteract its weaknesses, especially during high magnitude earthquakes. Past reconstructions made use of the materials and technology available at the time, which preserved vulnerable aspects. This is no longer the case, and a broader set of technology, knowledge and materials can be utilised to adapt traditional construction techniques to increase their seismic. The proposed buildings thus alter but also emulate the local construction methods. Indeed, it is essential to rationally assess the appropriateness of traditional methods, by avoiding discarding them as unsuitable, but also by abstaining from romantically assuming they can cope with large scale hazards (Schilderman, 2004; Twigg, 2004). R e pa i r

Reconstruction

As stated earlier, the main weaknesses lie in the masonry load-bearing walls and foundations. Conversations with local owners of damaged traditional buildings highlighted concerns regarding the state of the foundations and a reluctance to rebuild their houses on a weak and vulnerable base. The need to improve them would incur too high a cost in case of repair. Reconstruction would achieve more secure buildings, rather than attempting to reinforce inherently weak structures. The project thus argues for the complete demolition and reconstruction of traditional structures. This naturally raises the dilemma of whether to reconstruct heritage or accept loss.

GROUND MOTION Shaky Concrete Analysing how the geology of the Valley affected buildings’ response to the earthquake provides more insights into what strategy would be appropriate. The low extent of damage to RC buildings does not necessarily verify their sound seismic design

(Dombrowsky, 1995).

Due to the uncontrolled urbanisation, as much

as 90% of the RC building stock of the Valley is non-engineered. Buildings are in most cases built by their owners or masons with insufficient knowledge in seismic design, exposing a large portion of the Valley’s population to seismic risk. Predictions of damage to the Valley’s building stock ranged from 20% to 60%, while estimations of casualties ranged from 18,000 to 40,000 deaths

(Chaulagain et

al., 2012; D’Ayala, 2003; JICA and GoN, 2002; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013; NSET and GHI, 1998),

well above

the outcome of the 2015 earthquakes (Galetzka et al., 2015).

On Craft

Shaky Ground The comparatively low damage emphasises the crucial role of ground motion. Ground shaking is defined by its frequency, or its inverse, its period. Any material has a fundamental frequency at which it vibrates. If it experiences shaking similar period to its fundamental period, resonance will occur, amplifying acceleration. Low frequencies affect flexible materials (such as soft soils) and tall buildings, while high frequencies affect rigid materials (such as bedrock) and short buildings. A building built on soil with a similar fundamental period to its own, risks resonance. Therefore the fundamental period of a building should differ from that of the ground it sits on (Arnold, 2013; Hyndman and Hyndman, 2011; Paudyal et al., 2012). The Kathmandu Valley was formed through lacustrine sedimentary deposits and is thus mainly constituted of soft soils, i.e. sand, silt, gravel and clay, that can reach a thickness of more than 500m et al., 2015; Shrestha et al., 1999; Subedi et al., 2013).

of the lacustrine sediments

(NSET and GHI, 1998; Paudyal et al., 2012; Sakai

The high wave amplification capacity

(Chaulagain et al., 2014; NSET and GHI, 1998),

and the source

characteristics of the Gorkha earthquake, led to the resonance within the basin of the long 4s period shaking, while most of the high frequency waves were dampened and remained minimal. Low-rise, rigid RC structures, while deemed vulnerable, were left unscathed by low frequency shaking

(Galetzka et al., 2015).

contrast, the more flexible, loosely constructed traditional houses were much more sensitive to that vibration. Rigid Rebuild Dombrowsky

(1995, p. 253)

and Schenk

(2015, p. 75)

emphasise that knowledge

gathered from past events to inform decisions affecting the future has limitations, as this knowledge remains epistemically uncertain. But while the soil of the Valley is complex and heterogeneous, with a stiffer top layer that can resonate with high frequencies while deeper layers resonate with low ones (Paudyal et al., 2012), the recent earthquake and the depth of soft soils indicate that mostly long period shaking would be amplified. It would be reasonable to assume that a future earthquake would have similar characteristics (NSET and GHI, 1998). Furthermore, tools providing a reliable assessment of traditional buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; safety currently do not exist

(Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ayala, 2006).

And so, while the project does not support

a complete abandonment of Newari traditional construction methods in the

On Craft

reconstruction process, it does propose their alteration to improve on their potential seismic resilience. The soft soils of the Valley would dictate a stiffening of these structures. RC construction and masonry, being readily available and locally produced, become a necessary addition to the traditional craft to achieve that goal.

DURABILITY & RENEWAL D u r a b l e H e r i ta g e One concern with the use of RC relates to the consideration for the longevity of building materials in the preservation of heritage buildings. Stone, timber and other natural materials have historically proven their overwhelming long durability (Gil-MartĂn et al., 2012; Peris Mora, 2007; Reddy, 2004).

potentially last for hundreds of years

Steel, when properly protected, can

(Rourke et al., 2007).

In contrast, concreteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

present manufacturing process makes it susceptible to cracking (Mehta and Burrows, 2001),

incurring water penetration and corrosion of the reinforcing steel, causing

further cracking, spalling, and loss of strength 2012).

(Samples and Ramirez, 1999; Shi et al.,

Consequently, concrete generally has an estimated lifespan of less than

a hundred years, and reinforced concrete is expected to last even less (Peris Mora, 2007).

But the use of non-durable materials is supported by the local conditions

within the Valley. R e n e w e d H e r i ta g e The Valley is rich in clay soils, and remained covered in forests until the early 20th century

(Bonapace and Sestini, 2003),

thus providing the materials with which the local

architecture developed. However, these local materials are also vulnerable to the heavy rains and high humidity of the monsoon, which weather bricks, the mud mortar bonding them, and can induce rotting in timber. In these environmental conditions, most materials are perishable, and conservation practices adapted accordingly. There exists a long record of historic inscriptions detailing the maintenance, restoration or reconstruction of valued buildings, a tradition that most likely spread to lesser buildings. The Changu Narayan temple, near Bhaktapur has been rebuilt several times over the course of its existence. This cyclical renewal was an integral part of the local practice of conserving buildings. It often involved additions, alterations, demolitions, reconstructions and changes in materials, with no concern for material authenticity, as its focus was directed

On Craft

more towards maintaining use (Agrawal, 2015; Amatya, 1983; Banerjee, 1970; Bonapace and Sestini, 2003; Chapagain, 2013; Tiwari, 2013, 2009).

While this continuous succession of renewals is

recognised as crucial in shaping and maintaining the heritage of the Valley for centuries until today, recent conservation regulations largely ignore it, forbidding demolition within the PMZs (GoN, 1956) and prioritising material authenticity (Chapagain, 2013; DoA, 2007; WHC, 1997).

In this situation, governmental policies directly clash with

the local conservation tradition, considering them a threat to heritage

(Chapagain,

2013).

P e r i s h a b l e H e r i ta g e Durability beyond several decades would thus be difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the price of śāl timber, an essential material in providing seismic resilience in traditional construction, has risen to become unaffordable

(Romão et al., 2015)

materials’ prices inflation can be exacerbated after a disaster

(Lyons, 2009).

and The

project therefore does not seek to ensure longevity, but embraces perishability. However, the Newari conservation tradition was carried out in the past by social structures known as guṭhīs, which have gradually lost their capacity to undertake this task. The preservation of heritage in Khokana and Bungamati needs to revive this social construct. While architectural heritage may suffer loss, the revival of cyclical renewal not only preserves a local tradition, but can also ensure the maintenance of an improved construction craft that would remain aware of seismic risk, and preserve a seismic culture.

On Craft

Fig. 33. Collapsed traditional houses next to reinforced concrete frame buildings in Bungamati

On Craft

Fig. 34. Junction between a traditional brick house and a reinforced concrete frame buildings in Khokana

On Craft

Fig. 35. Upper floor addition construction in Bhaktapur

under

On Memory Seismic Culture and Resilience

On Memory

The seismic events of 2015 are but another episode in Nepal’s long history of regular destructive earthquakes (D’Ayala, 2006, 2003; Galetzka et al., 2015; Marahatta and Pokharel, 2014). The earthquake of 1988 renewed seismic risk awareness with the release of

seismic design guidelines in the National Building Code (Chaulagain et al., 2012; D’Ayala, 2003; DoUDBC, 1994a),

with consideration for traditional construction

(DoUDBC, 1994b).

Seismic retrofitting has been performed on historic monuments in the Valley by the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust (KVPT)

(Beckh, 2006; Pande, 2015),

involving

steel bolts to strengthen timber joints and steel wall ties in masonry walls to bond their two wythes. These retrofits have assisted restored buildings to perform 1. Conversation with Rohit Ranjitkar, director of the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust 2. Conversation with Sabindra Shrestha, architect from Bungamati, working at NSET

satisfactorily in the recent earthquake1. Also, the National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET) has been training masons over the past years in earthquakeresistant construction2 and raising risk awareness (Gyawali, 2013; Laursen, 2015; NSET and ADPC, 2005; Petal et al., 2008; UNDP et al., 2013; UNDP and ERRRP, 2009).

But authorities are facing the challenge of enforcing guidelines

(D’Ayala, 2003),

and risk awareness was not present at the community level

(Laursen, 2015).

Building codes, far from being the solution, can set up high standards that poor communities may not be able to afford (Davidson et al., 2007; Lyons, 2009; Schilderman, 2004), but remain one tool in reducing risk (Petal et al., 2008). The ineffectiveness of building codes highlights that risk preparedness stems not from regulations, but mainly from culture.

“[If] you are silencing the voices of the past [then] you are damaging the future.” - Neil Gaiman, 2013

On Memory

DISASTERS SHAPE ARCHITECTURE Newari architecture, while distinctly different, is reminiscent of numerous examples of traditional construction. Timber has been often used to increase the seismic resilience of masonry structures (Bankoff, 2015; Varum et al., 2015). Its capacity for deformation in the elastic range allows it to undergo the tension forces inflicted by earthquakes and dissipate seismic energy. Traditional structures worldwide coupling timber and masonry displayed high resilience in the face of earthquakes, where concrete buildings failed (Fig. 38-41) al., 2010; Mumtaz et al., 2008; Schacher and Ali, 2009).

(Bankoff, 2015; Langenbach, 2013; Langenbach et

The use of timber frames as a skeleton

binds the masonry elements of the building together, enables box-behaviour, and prevent the spreading of cracks, while masonry’s cracking under deformation creates friction and damping

(Cardoso et al., 2003; D’Ayala, 2003; Langenbach, 2007; Ortega et al.,

2014).

E m e r g i n g S e i s m i c C u lt u r e These precedents’ good performance and widespread use, while occurring under conditions much different to those of the Kathmandu Valley, illustrate the cultural dimension of disasters. Historically, disasters acted as agents of change triggering learning processes within a continuous social evolution, and pushing communities to accommodate the risk (Bankoff et al., 2015; Kempe and Rohr, 2003; Mauelshagen, 2009, 2007; Twigg, 2004).

In the wake of an earthquake, vulnerable structural models

are discarded, while resilient ones are adapted and improved, and new models appear

(D’Ayala, 2006; Ortega et al., 2014; Varum et al., 2015).

It is through this process that

seismic cultures are formed (Bankoff, 2015; Ferrigni et al., 2005). For a resilient seismic culture to take shape, disasters need to recur not only periodically

(Bankoff, 2015; Bankoff et al., 2015; Schenk, 2015),

but frequently enough for

builders to understand how buildings may be improved

(Ferrigni et al., 2005).

The

seismic history of the Kathmandu Valley is characterised with a very active micro-seismicity interrupted by large earthquakes. Between 1985 and 1992, around 1,200 micro-seismic events were recorded

(Pandey et al., 1999, 1995).

Newari

architecture may well have been shaped to accommodate this micro-seismicity, but did not adapt to larger seismic events due to their longer return period. W e a k e n e d S e i s m i c C u lt u r e Seismic cultures tend to weaken over time when the frequency of earthquakes is

On Memory

Static Load

Bending

Buckling

Shearing

Torsion

Fig. 36. Masonry’s and Timber’s Behaviours under Lateral Loads

Unreinforced Masonry under Seismic Load

Timbered Masonry under Seismic Load

Fig. 37. Box-like Behaviour under Seismic Load generated by the Timber Skeleton

Fig. 38. Hımış, Turkey Good Performance in 1999

Fig. 39. Gaiola Pombalina, Portugal

Fig. 40. Dhajji-dewari, Kashmir Good performance in 2005

Fig. 41. Gingerbread House, Haïti Good Performance in 2010

On Memory

too low (Bankoff, 2015; Ferrigni et al., 2005; Mumtaz et al., 2008; Schilderman, 2004). This implies that merely changing construction methods does not make them durably resilient. A telling example is the timbered masonry in the gaiola pombalina in Lisboa and the casa baraccata in Calabria, both implemented following disastrous earthquakes in 1755 and 1783 respectively, that gradually lost built quality and disappeared from collective memory (Cardoso et al., 2004; Cóias e Silva et al., 2001; Dipasquale et al., 2014; Jacques et al., 2001; Ramos and Lourenço, 2003; Tobriner, 1983).

The Newari seismic culture is similarly weakened, with inappropriate application, lack of maintenance and inappropriate alterations. Also, the increased value of timber due to deforestation and the rarefaction of traditional craftsmen reduced the use of timber in traditional buildings, rendering them more vulnerable (Banjade et al., 2011; Hutt, 1995; Kanel et al., 2012; Maharjan, 2012; Romão et al., 2015; Shrestha, 2001).

Finally, the

introduction of reinforced concrete and the predilection for modern buildings for their improved living standards reinforce the disappearance of traditional buildings (Bankoff, 2015).

DISASTERS SHAPE SOCIETY Vulnerability is often only associated with the built environment

(Petal et al., 2008),

but the frequent recurrence of disasters can have a deep influence on the social structure of affected populations. Indeed, there exist instances of community organisations that formed to cope with natural hazards (Bankoff, 2015; Mauelshagen, 2007; Schenk, 2015; Twigg, 2004).

Emerging Risk Communities Recurrent storm tides and floods on the German North Sea coast shaped the law of the land and social organisations around the management of dikes. Through an oral dike law, ownership of land threatened by flooding required its landowner to maintain a part of the dike. Failure to do so resulted in losing the land and sometimes death sentences. Observance of the Dike Law was ensured by dike associations, formed by affected landowners, that elected supervisors (Deichgräfe) to inspect the dikes’ condition. In some cases, dike maintenance was financed through taxes levied on members and revenue from communally owned land (Gemeinland). This coping mechanism endured from the Middle Ages well into the 20th century (Mauelshagen, 2009, 2007; Soens, 2013). In a similar way, the Newari centuries-old tradition of community associations

On Memory

Fig. 42. GuášhÄŤ House in Khokana The metal bowls on the ground serve as clues to the feast going on inside.

On Memory

(guṭhī) trusts provided for a wide range of services, including the undertaking of the cyclical renewal of community buildings. Guṭhīs sustained themselves through contributions from members and the revenue from unalienable lands that were endowed to them, often in perpetuity, granting them large power and influence in a mostly agrarian economy (Amatya, 1983; Banerjee, 1970; DoA, 2007; Pradhananga, 2011; Pradhananga et al., 2010; Shrestha, 2012a; Tiwari, 2013, 2009; Toffin, 2005; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956).

Just as cyclical renewal, guṭhīs may have been a coping mechanism dealing with seismic risk. Weakened Risk Communities Several processes played a part in the gradual disappearance of these community associations. On the German coast, the professionalization of dike labour, technical improvements to dike construction, the nationalisation of dikes and the abolition of the Gemeinland greatly diminished communities’ ability to finance the management of dikes. Similarly, the introduction of a ceiling on land ownership in 1964, the nationalisation of most guṭhīs in 1976, with their responsibilities falling to the Guṭhī Sansthan, and the receding of agricultural lands through urbanisation, undermined remaining private guṭhīs‘ capacity to financially sustain themselves

(Amatya, 2015; GoN, 1976, 1964; Shrestha, 2012b; Tiwari, 2009).

The Guṭhī Sansthan

retains ownership of many heritage buildings and the responsibility to conserve them (DoA, 2007; ICIMOD et al., 2007; Maharjan, 2012; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013). But, lacking funds (Toffin, 2005)

and plagued by issues such as the illegal occupation of its properties

without rent

(Adhikari, 2014),

it has essentially become a defunct institution3. The

decline of guṭhīs has been associated with the degradation of built heritage (Amatya, 1983),

rendering it more vulnerable to earthquakes. In both cases, central powers’

3. Conversation with Kai Weise, architect at the Department of Archaeology, Government of Nepal

policies sought to diminish the local power generated by these community associations4

(Mauelshagen, 2007).

This does not mean the nationalisation of guṭhīs

is responsible for the earthquake damage in heritage sites. But it played a part, the extent of which can be debated. Equally, the efficiency of a centralised dike management remains a contested issue (Mauelshagen, 2007).

CULTURES SHAPE DISASTERS Hazard

and

Disaster

The previous examples illustrate how cultures play a role in shaping disasters just as much as they are a result of them. This recent understanding in disaster

4. Conversation with Kai Weise

On Memory

research considers resilience and vulnerability as social processes that build over time in a given society, prior and following natural hazards, and driven not only by the latter, but also determined by socio-economic, cultural and political factors. Cultural belief that disasters cannot be avoided, remains widespread, even in Nepal (Laursen, 2015). But people in Khokana and Bungamati have displayed an understanding of the importance of sound construction in reducing risk. Scholars now acknowledge societies’ responsibility in turning natural hazards into disasters

(Bankoff, 2015, 2004; Bankoff et al., 2015; Cannon, 2008; Cannon et al., 2014; Kempe and

Rohr, 2003; Kreps, 1995; Laursen, 2015; Lyons, 2009; Mauelshagen, 2009; Schilderman, 2004; Skerratt, 2013; Twigg, 2004).

Therefore, while natural hazards are unavoidable, disasters can be

prevented. Reconstruction and recovery measures will determine communities’ resilience or vulnerability, and shape the conditions that may or may not lead to the next disaster. Entitlement Soens

and

(2013)

Vulnerability

identifies three different processes: direct, market and extra

entitlement failures, through which communities’ vulnerability can increase. These respectively stem from a lack of manpower, from a lack of resources, or from institutional frameworks that prevent communities from controlling their vulnerability. The communities of Khokana and Bungamati did not suffer a heavy death toll, meaning labour would not be lacking, and issues surrounding local and national institutions are explored in a separate essay. Within a mainly self build tradition

(Shrestha, 2013),

the main challenge communities will face is

scarcity of resources, due to lack of income and capacity to purchase those resources. Increasingly, it is accepted that most post-disaster reconstruction projects’ focused efforts on providing housing leads to a lack of funding towards economic development and compromises it

(Freeman, 2004; Lyons, 2009).

Within poor

communities, such as those in Nepal, priority is given to immediate short-term issues over long-term disaster prevention. Their vulnerability stems from their inability to afford adequate protection. Facilitating communities’ adaptation to disaster risk mitigation requires more than a technological response 2007),

and needs to improve their livelihoods

(Mauelshagen,

(Cannon, 2008; Laursen, 2015; Lyons, 2009;

Schilderman, 2004; Twigg, 2004).

D e v e lo p m e n t

and

Growth

With this in mind, the proposed rehabilitation of the settlements would act as a development and growth strategy to control their transition to an urban

On Memory

environment. New settlements between the villages of Khokana and Bungamati seek to relocate parts of their populations to reduce the vulnerable density of existing settlements and tackle the relentless urban growth affecting the Valley. Within this growth, new economic opportunities will be provided to adapt to the disappearance of the agrarian economy. Economic diversification can be an effective coping mechanism in reducing vulnerability, making local economies less sensitive to shocks

(Twigg, 2004; Vermeire et al., 2008).

Such development would

be more sustainable by building on local resources and skills 2010; Vanclay, 2011),

(Ray, 1999; Shucksmith,

by supporting local crafts such as woodcarving and mustard oil

production, Khokana having unique surviving examples of wooden manual oil presses (Bhattarai, 2014). Communities Therefore, preventing future disasters involves establishing a risk community. This would need maintaining the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s risk awareness and partly handing them control of risk mitigation. The latter would be facilitated by fostering economic development. Moreover, maintaining a seismic culture alive would deal with heritage values such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;identity, memory, history and traditionâ&#x20AC;? (Bankoff, 2015, p. 67).

Producing an anti-seismic heritage can help increase the resilience of

a community, following a tradition of adaptation after disasters. The key element to disaster risk reduction, development and heritage conservation thus becomes the involvement of communities.

On Memory

Fig. 43. Metal artisans in Khokana

Fig. 44. Weavers in Khokana

On People Communities and Participation

On People

It has been established that involving communities is essential in heritage management. Equally, disaster risk reduction can be facilitated if a sense of ownership from communities and local knowledge are reinforced. Development theory reaches similar conclusions, and acknowledges the important role of local people in sustainable development. The proposed implementation therefore holds the participation of local communities at its heart. While participation would be initially induced by external forces, it aims to durably sustain the active involvement of local actors in the design, construction and maintenance of their built environment, but also its economic development. Such participation entails several challenges, which the following chapter seeks to clarify to explore how participation may facilitate a resilient reconstruction of heritage.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Restoration is about people. (â&#x20AC;Ś) It is a celebration of process and of interaction.â&#x20AC;? - Maclean (1995)

On People

BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION Indeed, the immediate resource available for risk mitigation is the people themselves, and Disaster Risk Reduction research and practice have evolved to prioritise their participation in order to consider their perceptions. Participatory practices have gained momentum in recent decades but have come to encapsulate many forms, ranging from mere consultation to the devolution of decision-making powers. Post-disaster reconstruction schemes using participation have shown to be successful and sustainable for several reasons (Bankoff et al., 2015; Bollin et al., 2003; Cannon et al., 2014b; Cornwall and Pratt, 2010; Davidson et al., 2007; Kyamusugulwa, 2013; Lyons, 2009; Petal et al., 2008; Twigg, 2004).

As many scholars in disaster research, such as Bankoff, Cannon, KrĂźger and Schipper (2015), point out, concepts such as community, resilience, culture, local knowledge, or disaster, are constructed terms, and are understood mostly from the perspective of outsiders involved in the implementation of post-disaster schemes. However, intended beneficiaries may have differing priorities. Lyons (2009),

Davidson et al.

(2007)

and Schilderman

(2004)

have between them studied

numerous cases of post-disaster reconstruction schemes throughout the world. These include reconstruction in Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami, the postearthquake situations in Colombia in 1999, in El Salvador in 2001, in Turkey in 1999 and 2000, in Maharastra in 1993, in Peru in 1990, etc. Findings highlight that a lack of participation has led past projects to inappropriate solutions and a lack of a sense of local ownership that often results in poor acceptance or rejection of the schemes, or alterations which retain structural vulnerabilities. Seeking involvement from locals ensures their needs are acknowledged to ease aspects such as relocations, produce higher levels of satisfaction and avoid risky alterations (Bankoff et al., 2015; Bollin et al., 2003; Cannon et al., 2014b; Davidson et al., 2007; Lyons, 2009; Schilderman, 2004; Shucksmith, 2010; Turner, 1972; Twigg, 2004).

This can result in a diversity of

solutions, where people do not necessarily opt for housing but prioritise incomegenerating spaces (Davidson et al., 2007). Improved building techniques developed by outsiders have little effect as people do not feel an ownership of these methods. In contrast, as noted by Lyons (2009) in his study of owner-driven programmes in Sri Lanka, participation reveals more insights into the strengths and weaknesses of local knowledge and enables locals to better understand their seismic culture and reshape it accordingly. It improves their livelihoods by training them with new skills which can be passed

On People

on to other members of the communities, facilitating the normalisation of safer building practices. Their training allows them to safely build their own houses and closely control construction quality. Combined with collective purchase of materials, these measures contribute to reducing costs (Bankoff, 2015; Bollin et al., 2003; Davidson et al., 2007; Kyamusugulwa, 2013; Lyons, 2009; Petal et al., 2008; Schilderman, 2004; Twigg, 2004).

Participation is driven by an ideal of self-determinism, understood as governance systems that provide for those governed (Etzioni, 1996). Top-down approaches tend to hinder community cohesiveness and create dependency 2009; Schilderman, 2004).

(Freeman, 2004; Lyons,

An increasing number of scholars are valuing participation

for its transformative power in empowering locals to take on responsibility in shaping strategies that affect them and negotiate with authorities, strengthening the sense of community and fostering democratic processes Kyamusugulwa, 2013; Lyons, 2009; Turner, 1972; Twigg, 2004; Vanclay, 2011).

(Davidson et al., 2007;

Recent development

theory is increasingly encouraging it, promoting reliance on local resources, skills and knowledge, local control, ownership and self determinism, and a retention of benefits locally

(Margarian, 2011; Millar, 2014; Murdoch, 2000; Ray, 1999; Shucksmith, 2000; Vanclay,

2011; Vermeire et al., 2008).

A large drawback of participatory approaches is how time-consuming they can be. This discourages central governments and international organisations, who often revert to centrally-driven implementations. But reduced participation can have detrimental consequences on social cohesion by eroding collective help and action and perpetuating dependency and vulnerability (Davidson et al., 2007; Lyons, 2009; Petal et al., 2008; Schilderman, 2004).

DEMOGRAPHIC S Prior to further delving into how participation may be applied in Bungamati and Khokana, this section analyses how the specificities of their local populations affect the proposal. The 2011 census recorded 125 caste/ethnic groups and 123 different languages in Nepal

(CBS, 2012).

Although various other groups have

migrated to the Valley, the Newari ethnic group has for centuries formed the most ancient population indigenous to the Valley (Bajracharya, 2012; Blair, 1983; Hutt, 1995; Korn, 1976; Müller-Böker, 1988; Toffin, 1982; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956).

heritage is associated with their culture.

Thus most of the Valley’s

On People

Castes The Newari society has been centuries stratified through a caste (jat) system, which strictly regulates hierarchical relationships between members of different jats, some being considered pure or impure, or higher and lower Müller-Böker, 1988; Pradhan, 2012; Shrestha, 2012; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956).

(Gurung, 2000;

While Khokana is

predominantly inhabited by one caste, the Jyapu, several castes can be found in Bungamati (Gurung, 2000; Müller-Böker, 1988). Gurung (2000) provides an in-depth study of the different social strata in the village. Religion is also a criterion of distinction, Khokana being mainly inhabited by Hindus, while Bungamati has a mostly Buddhist population. D i v e r s i f i c at i o n The caste system is officially abolished in Nepal (GoN, 1962; Pradhan, 2012). But identity through ethnicity and caste still plays a major role, often leading to stigmatisation (Hachhethu, 2003; Pradhan, 2011; Shrestha, 2012),

Constitution

(Associated Press, 2015).

as demonstrated by the protests to the new

As of 2011, 5,966 people of 13 different ethnic

groups resided in Bungamati and 4,927 of 8 groups in Khokana. Newari people amounted to 63% of Bungamati’s population and 89.5% in Khokana’s (CBS, 2012). This census highlights the changing trends in the region’s demographics. Due to the influx of migrants from outside the Valley, the Newari no longer are the predominant group in the Valley

(Shrestha, 1999).

Over 64% of the Kathmandu’s

inhabitants between 1981 and 1991 were migrants, most of them internal migrants (ICIMOD et al., 2007). Numerous different ethnic identities are now forming an increasingly multicultural population within the Valley (Chitrakar et al., 2014; Dangol, 2010). Khokana and Bungamati will inevitably witness more diversity in the future. Mobile

and

Urban

The Valley’s population is also more transient, moving in and out of the Valley for education, employment, medical or familial purposes. Economic development, increased social mobility and access to higher education have contributed in reducing inequalities between ethnicities and castes

(Gutschow and Kreutzmann, 2002;

ICIMOD et al., 2007; Subedi, 2011).

The country is also transitioning from a rural to mixed economy. While the manufacturing sector is now declining, the growing services sector accounts for 47% of Nepal’s GDP (ICIMOD et al., 2007; Muzzini and Aparicio, 2013; Thapa et al., 2008). Emerging professions, such as school teacher or taxi drivers, which are not dependent

On People

on castes, or growing trades such as that of meat, have empowered people belonging to lower castes such as the ‘butchers’ caste (Müller-Böker, 1988).

COMMUNITY Myth Working within such a diverse community raises several issues. This essay is conscious of the underlying institutional culture that promotes ‘community work’ and participation as the right thing to do. Many scholars warn that the ideals of ‘community’ and ‘participation’ have become vague, romantic visions, that are most of the time defined and imposed by outsiders to those they are meaning to help, and used as excuses or justifications for carrying out their own agendas. This myth of ‘community’, rarely questioned, holds faith in a singular, united collective of locals (Bankoff et al., 2015; Cannon, 2008; Cannon et al., 2014b; Davidson et al., 2007; de Beer, 2012; Etzioni, 1996; Twigg, 2004).

Reality Outsiders would often make the mistake of seeking this ideal, which is one of the main criticisms towards the concept of participation. This essay has consciously used the plural term ‘communities’ rather than the singular ‘community’. The preceding overview of the Valley’s population sought to highlight that communities are far from homogeneous, consisting of various interest groups with varying vulnerabilities and capacities to act. As many scholars note, people can belong to multiple communities based on age, gender, ethnicity, caste, class, religion, etc, that shape complex power relations, making communities fluid and evolving rather than static. Hence outsiders’ naïve belief in a unified ‘community’ ignores or fails to explore internal divisions and tensions and oftentimes exacerbates them, leaving communities without any concrete decision-making power

(Bankoff

et al., 2015; Cannon, 2008; Cannon et al., 2014a, 2014b; de Beer, 2012; Etzioni, 1996; Gaventa, 2006; High and Nemes, 2007; Kyamusugulwa, 2013; Petal et al., 2008; Shucksmith, 2000; Skerratt, 2013; Twigg, 2004; Vermeire et al., 2008).

This naturally does not reject individualism, but recognises the ‘responsive communitarian’ perspective that associating oneself to groups is part of the human condition. It is essential to maintain a balance between individuals and the various communities they attach themselves to

(Etzioni, 1996; Ray, 1999),

to avoid

On People

a ‘tyranny’ of the group, that coerces people into prioritising the collective good over their individual benefits (Kyamusugulwa, 2013). Inequality These power relations determine inequalities and marginalisation within communities. At one end of a spectrum, participatory approaches can meet resistance from powerful groups as they may challenge and disturb existing privileges by empowering marginalised groups. At the other end, ‘élites’ may have the power to be over represented in participatory schemes, leading to a capture of funds and assistance by those élites (Cannon, 2008; Cannon et al., 2014b; High and Nemes, 2007; Kyamusugulwa, 2013; Shucksmith, 2000; Twigg, 2004; Vermeire et al., 2008).

EXCLUSION Outsiders These issues widely affect participatory schemes in Nepal. Participation has become a popular term, with many NGOs and government bodies throughout Nepal claiming using it. In reality their methods varied greatly and were mostly captured by educated élites. Some maintained communities’ dependence on development practitioners while others reinforced power divisions

(Pratt, 2001).

Equally, NSET’s risk awareness programmes were driven by donors who imposed constraints that reduced contributions from communities, leading to failure to raise risk awareness (Laursen, 2015). D i s c r i m i n at i o n Pradhan’s

(2012)

study of “local collective action programs” in Nepal showed

that improved lifestyles and broadened perspectives raise people’s aspirations, which in turn increase their willingness to participate in community schemes. This re-iterates the importance of improving livelihoods. But, independent of these factors, gender, caste and/or ethnic exclusion remains a serious impediment to participation, driven by ‘élite resistance’

(Bennett, 2005; Pradhan, 2012; Pratt, 2001).

Similarly, heritage discourses risk leading to talks of ethnic exclusion

(Brett, 1996).

For example, residents of the historic centre of Bhaktapur, one of the major cities in the Valley, are keeping properties in the hands of Newari people (Maharjan, 2012). Participation needs to ensure all vulnerable people within increasingly more

On People

multicultural communities can be reached. One hope from this situation is an unintended consequence of population displacement after the earthquake. Many inhabitants of Khokana and Bungamati who have lost their homes are currently living in shelters. This brought them to have greater interaction with their larger community. Furthermore, the dire situation incentivised women in Khokana to mobilise and organise community action (Shrestha, 2015). The Stranger Mobilising communities therefore has its limitations. While it aims to reduce dependence, communities do not exist in isolation and their participation cannot be effective without recognition and support from higher authorities such as the state

(Bollin et al., 2003; Cannon, 2008; Cornwall and Coelho, 2006; Davidson et al., 2007; Margarian, 2011;

Shucksmith, 2010; Twigg, 2004; Vanclay, 2011; Vermeire et al., 2008).

Communities may often not

be aware of their own in-built vulnerabilities while an external perspective can identify and challenge them

(Bankoff et al., 2015; Cannon, 2008).

Moreover, outsiders can

provide needed connections with experts and specialists across all fields

(Lyons,

2009; Petal et al., 2008).

Outsiders are increasingly seen as potential catalysts for change, keeping people’s needs in mind, rather than implementing authorities 2007; Shucksmith, 2010; Twigg, 2004; Vanclay, 2011),

(High and Nemes,

who can facilitate participation but also

intervene as arbiters in debates and conflicts between communities

(Cornwall and

Coelho, 2006). This rights-based approach was invoked in Nepal, where marginalised

groups have called on the government to defend their rights against exclusion from larger groups (Pratt, 2001). Nonetheless, the diversity of interests found among communities needs to be channelled.

COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANISATIONS As previously discussed, the disappearance of traditional Community BasedOrganisations and the increased role of the state can lead to an increase in vulnerability. A current trend in participation is the consideration for CommunityBased Organisations as adequate ‘entrance points’ to communities, for their capacity to drive self-organisation to reduce vulnerability and to mobilise and represent various communities’ interests (Cannon, 2008; Davidson et al., 2007; Hudon and Seibel, 2007; Schilderman, 2004; Twigg, 2004).

On People

Guṭhī Guṭhīs are one of the most significant features of Newari culture. Despite their gradual extinction, many of them remain and continue carrying various social and religious duties. Guṭhīs traditionally were involved in philanthropic activities, helping the vulnerable with housing, education, employment, etc, and providing economic assistance to their members in a form of social welfare. They can be built around kinship, caste, or on a voluntary basis. Caste-bound guṭhīs are usually death associations (sī guṭhī) that assist members’ families with cremation, and are those still found in Khokana and Bungamati. These associations highlight the character of Newari society, fragmented into social units in which cooperation is expected from members. Voluntary guṭhīs often include members of different castes, in which case territory becomes a much more prevalent bonding factor (Müller-Böker, 1988; Shrestha, 2012; Toffin, 2005; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956).

This tradition of community associations lives on in the emergence of new forms of democratic association in younger generations (Dangol, 2010; Toffin, 2005). From the strong cohesion in the largest jat in Bungamati, that of the Jyapu (Gurung, 2000), has emerged the Maharjan Samaj, that maintains funeral duties, but also provides other social services such as giving access to its members to information about disaster relief and seismic construction, offering training in new income generating activities, and acting as a vehicle to carry out their members’ demands5. C o o p e r at i v e s

5. Conversation members of Maharjan Samaj

with the

Other forms of organisations have developed, increasingly involving members of other ethnic groups

(von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956).

The Savings and Credit

Cooperatives found in Bungamati and Khokana provide microfinance services to their community, combating poverty by giving access to capital to low-income populations (Bharadwaj, 2012; Bollin et al., 2003; Rankin and Shakya, 2007; Tariq, 2012). Bungamati’s Amarapur Cooperative mainly provides banking services6. On the other hand, nine cooperatives can be found in Khokana. One of such, the Khona Deya

6. Conversation with members of the Amarapur Cooperative

cooperative, made of around 500 members, utilises their members’ savings to provide them with business loans, generating profit through interest rates7. This financing method creates a sense of local ownership that encourage a more effective management of funds

(Acharya and Acharya, 2006; Bennett et al., 1996; Gingrich, 2004;

Hudon and Seibel, 2007), enabling cooperatives to create economic opportunities within

their community.

7. Conversation with Shiva Ram Maharjan and Ganga Ram Maharjan, committee members of the Khona Deya Cooperative

On People

A lt e r i n g T r a d i t i o n Thus guṭhīs and cooperatives hail from a long tradition of community organisations (Bharadwaj, 2012; Poudel and Mamoru, 2015; Pradhan, 2012) that can be catalysed upon to encourage participation. They can also foster democratic processes as 8. Conversation with Shiva Ram Maharjan

cooperatives’ committees are elected every three years8

(Bharadwaj, 2012; Hudon and

Seibel, 2007). Moreover, organisations such as Savings and Credit Cooperatives can

act as effective economic coping mechanisms (Twigg, 2004). However, it is necessary to remain aware of their limitations. Guṭhīs’ past reliance on land endowments is no longer applicable, limiting their scope of action (Toffin, 2005).

They also contribute to maintain the traditional stratification of Newari

society and its exclusionary processes

(Müller-Böker, 1988).

Some people may not

be able to acquire membership of a guṭhī as they cannot afford the entrance fee (Gurung, 2000), an aspect that also affects cooperatives. Therefore outsiders need to

retain an arbitrating role to manage potential conflicts and exclusions.

INCLUSIVITY Pluralism This thesis understands that participation and community-based approaches may not be effective in every situation, but may be appropriate in this location due to the local tradition of community-based organisations. Participation helps clarify and identify the different existing communities and their relations between one another

(Bollin et al., 2003; Twigg, 2004).

But appropriate participation needs to

acknowledge that communities may have varying interests and vulnerabilities, and would be affected in different ways (Cannon, 2008; Shucksmith, 2000). This would require a pluralist approach in order to involve all actors. Although the heritage of the Valley is mainly Newari, this thesis is concerned with a wider range of communities. Such pluralism can facilitate a democratic process, as it maintains a balance of power between different groups

(Etzioni, 1996).

It is in

between these diverse communities that processes of building resilience and negotiatory conservation need to occur. Inclusivity This theoretical development is still fairly recent, and little knowledge exists on how

On People

to build plural collective capacity fairly while avoiding exclusion, as community building is still rarely practiced

(Bankoff et al., 2015; Davidson et al., 2007; Kyamusugulwa, 2013;

Lyons, 2009; Shucksmith, 2000). A pluralist strategy risks further fragmenting communities.

This raises the challenge of shaping a diverse collection of communities that can adhere to a wider community, in which a deliberative democracy can perform (Ray, 1999).

Recent scholarship is arguing for a focus on how to integrate all actors

in a multi-level governance system

(Cornwall and Coelho, 2006; Davidson et al., 2007; High and

Nemes, 2007; Murdoch, 2000; Shucksmith, 2010; Vanclay, 2011; Vermeire et al., 2008),

to enable co-

management, a sharing of power between communities and the state 2012).

(de Beer,

On People

On Space Communal Space and Land Tenure

On Space

Heritage management, building disaster resilience and effective economic development all require support at many levels of governance. It may be harmful to focus too much attention at specific levels, be it local, national or global

(Gaventa, 2006).

Most successful disaster risk management schemes relied

on an interaction between governments and local communities. Nevertheless, impacts from disaster are very much tied to the local specificities of a place (Maskrey, 2011).

While a separate essay discusses various levels of governance, this

chapter concerns itself with how participation would architecturally shape the space at the local level. In community engagement, making spaces available for that engagement to occur in a democratic manner plays a critical role for a more inclusive approach (Cornwall and Coelho, 2006; Gaventa, 2006).

â&#x20AC;&#x153;participation as freedom is not only the right to participate effectively in a given space, but the right to define and to shape that spaceâ&#x20AC;? - Gaventa (2006, p. 26)

On Space

CL AIMING SPACES S i n g l e S pa c e Habermas

(1974, p. 49)

formulated a conception of public space that would be

accessible to all, where people can debate issues to shape a “public opinion”. In this space, private interests and inequalities would be suspended, and would provide a neutral ground for public discussion. However, as Lefebvre (1974) argued, space embodies social relationships, and is used to exert power, dominance. People bring with them their social power relations in this space, which dictate what can be expressed. Participatory spaces can thus exclude, or push people to follow the opinions of the dominating group Gaventa, 2006).

(Cornwall, 2002; Cornwall and Coelho, 2006;

The ideal of a singular public arena remains just an ideal, and does

not respond to social inequalities, nor does it prevent capture and domination by élites, and can even worsen them (Fraser, 1990; Gaventa, 2006). M u lt i p l e S pa c e s These risks of exclusion threaten fair representation. Gaventa (2006) distinguishes three sets of spaces of power: closed, invited and claimed/created spaces. The first one remains the most exclusive and the second allows for degrees of involvement that remain regulated by a stronger group. It is in the last one that disempowered groups within stratified societies have usually found comfort in withdrawing. These “subaltern counterpublics” allow them to deliberate their own specific interests, and strengthen their position within the wider community (Cornwall and Coelho, 2006; Fraser, 1990, p. 67; Gaventa, 2006).

Fair representation in participation

therefore requires institutions to allow community groups to claim their own spaces. A pluralist approach would translate into a plurality of spaces of participation. These would allow for discussions around a wider set of issues, and expressions of people’s own personal identities, in response to exclusion from a majority. This multiplicity of spaces would act in direct competition to the wider public space, but also shape it. It remains crucial to foster interactions between different communities that each have their own safe spaces, to drive deliberations on what the common good might be (Fraser, 1990; Gaventa, 2006). However, even in these safe spaces, processes of exclusion can occur, and these spaces need to be embedded within a framework that can hold them

On Space

Fig. 45. Chowk in Khokana

Fig. 46. Chowk in Lalitpur

On Space

accountable

(Fraser, 1990).

Furthermore, offering these spaces is not enough, and

consciousness needs to be built up to make people aware of their need to defend their own interests (Gaventa, 2006). The question remains on where these spaces might occur. Some argue that it is in the everyday spaces that people are most accustomed to, and supported by their community associations, that they find the comfort to build up their power (Gaventa, 2006).

THE NEWARI URBAN PL AN The close relationship between power and space very much transpires in the formation of traditional Newari settlements. While at first glance, the Newari town or village may seem to be a spontaneous maze, it is in fact composed of highly structured and hierarchical spaces. Due to the small spaces of the Newari house, its inhabitants spent a lot of their time outdoors

(Korn, 1976),

meaning the public

realm had an important role in people’s lives. Chowk Houses are generally grouped to form urban blocks, arranged around a courtyard (chowk). Common ancestry usually connects the inhabitants of a same block (D’Ayala, 2003; Korn, 1976; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956). While the space is communal, it is not entirely public, and its inhabitants can regulate who may enter the chowk. Indeed, the chowk caters for most of its surrounding residents’ daily routine (Korn, 1976).

During site visits, a wide range of activities were observed, from making

rice wine to laundry, or simply to converse with each other. Through the spatial arrangement, these spaces foster “solidarity springing from common residence” (von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956, p. 26).

Ṭol D’Ayala

(2003)

identifies two different clustering processes: the courtyard and

the line of houses. These two probably work in tandem to form neighbourhoods (ṭol) (Korn, 1976; von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956). Members of a same caste usually inhabit the same ṭol (Levy, 1990; Müller-Böker, 1988, p.; Shrestha, 2012), but several castes can mix within the same ṭol, although they generally have similar ranks. People’s identities are thus closely tied to place

(von Fürer-Haimendorf, 1956).

Hence Bungamati consists of

several territories defined by caste. Ṭols in Khokana may not be defined by caste,

On Space

Fig. 47. Lāchi in Khokana

Fig. 48. People washing clothes in a nāni in Khokana

On Space

as mostly one caste lives in the settlement, but still shape sub-communities within the village. However, caste spatial segregation in Newari settlements has gradually been fading out in the past decades

(Shrestha, 2012).

Ṭols also include

public squares (lāchi or nāni). Complementing chowks, these squares provide the space for further activities, such as markets or religious practices, or for meetings, for the a larger community (Korn, 1976). Mandala Scholars have affiliated Newari towns’ plan to a mandala, a circle embodying the local conception of the universe (Levy, 1990; Müller-Böker, 1988; Shrestha, 2012), although this has been questioned by Korn

(1976),

who proposes that settlements grew

from the merging of several smaller entities. Khokana certainly displays a level of planning, while several caste-based settlements aggregated into a larger village in Bungamati. This disparity can be explained by their differing mono-caste and multi-caste populations. However, all settlements comprise a religious central square around which the hierarchy of castes is spatially organised, with higher castes living close to the central square, and lower ones living at the edges of the settlement Müller-Böker, 1988; Shrestha, 2012).

(Levy, 1990;

Hence the main temple square of Bungamati, Bunga

Baha, is mainly inhabited by members of the Shakya priest caste, with the high caste of Brahmacharya living nearby. Castes such as the Maharjan, Khadgi or Mali live further away. S p r aw l , T r a d i t i o n

and

P a rt i c i pat i o n

Scholars such as Chitrakar, Baker and Guaralda

(2016)

have criticised how The

Valleys’ mainly residential and uncontrolled nature of urban sprawl leaves little attention to public spaces and communities. In the majority of the sprawl, the disregard for public spaces leads to a loss of a sense of community Subba, 2008; Chitrakar et al., 2016, 2014; Shrestha, 2013).

(Bjønness and

Building on existing traditional models

of urban planning counteracts the current degradation of public space. Not only is the traditional urban plan one of the defining features of historic settlements, it also provides for stronger community interaction. Newari society’s spatial dimension can be utilised to shape an urban growth strategy that offers more space for communities to thrive. The design proposal does not replicate the exclusionary hierarchical formation of the traditional settlement, but retains those aspects that provide a plurality of spaces that can be claimed by the existing multitude of communities.

On Space

1340

20mm

100mm

50mm

250mm

0.1m

0.5m

0.2m

0.5m

2.5m

134

1320

1330

2.5m

25m

10m

50m

20m

100m

10m

136

1350

10m

1380

1360

Caste:

30m

150m

Bramhacharya Shakya Shrestha

50m

250m

100m

500m

Tuladhar Mali Jyapu Khadgi Desar

Fig. 49. Plan of Bungamati Caste Distribution Scale: 1:5,000

On Space

NEWARI MEETING SPACES Dharmaśālā Newari culture also offers a typology of community spaces. Communal meeting spaces, commonly known as resthouses (dharmaśālā), are found throughout South Asia and form part of an important religious practice of providing free accommodation to pilgrims, travellers, or migrant workers brought in for the harvest

(Blair, 1983; Hutt, 1995; Korn, 1976).

Dharmaśālās come in many forms, the most

basic of which is the pāṭī (Nepali) or phale or phalachā (Newari), which may be freestanding or leaning onto another building. Another form, the maṇḍapa (Nepali) or maḍu (Newari), offers the same functions but is also designed to serve as a community meeting hall. Although its original purpose is unknown, the largest iteration of this typology, known as chapaṭ (Nepali) or chapārha (Newari), is thought to have acted as a meeting space as well. Upper floors are often added to a pāṭī or a maṇḍapa, the resulting structure being called a sattal

(Blair,

1983; Hutt, 1995; Korn, 1976).

Pāṭī The sheer number of these buildings pinpoints to their importance in Newari culture. The pāṭī is by far the most widespread form, found near almost every religious site, at road intersections, as well as along trails outside settlements (Hutt, 1995; Korn, 1976).

But its striking feature is that it provides for a broader set of

functions than those it was built for. They have been used naturally as resting and meeting places, but also for social gatherings for their surrounding communities, laundry spaces, or barns

(Korn, 1976).

While on fieldwork, some pāṭīs have also

been observed as shops or storage spaces for building materials collected from collapses. This typology of buildings, which local communities are accustomed to adapt to any use they find suitable for it, offers an opportunity to create new spaces of participation. While these structures were built to accommodate a small number of people, the design approach emulates and re-interprets their form and structure to adapt them to a new set of purposes that can crystallise the democratic process of deliberative participation.

On Space

Fig. 50. Sattal used as a shop in Lalitpur

Fig. 52. Sattal in Lalitpur

Fig. 51.

Pāṭī in Khokana

On Space

OWNERSHIP Dharmaśālās were usually donated by wealthy individuals for use by the public and, as they were considered religious buildings in their own right (Blair, 1983), were traditionally maintained by guṭhīs (Korn, 1976). This touches on how ownership can affect community-based reconstruction and participatory management. Indeed, the crucial element of spaces of participation is that they can only truly be claimed once the participants are involved in shaping them (Gaventa, 2006). Land

tenure

One issue to be resolved in the aftermath of population displacement to shelters in Khokana and Bungamati is the lack of land tenure evidence9 (KRRC, 2016). Land tenure insecurity tends to increase vulnerability, as people would be more willing to invest in durable risk mitigation in properties where their tenure is secure (Reale and Handmer, 2011).

However, this essay would argue for a step further.

Community-base action, as well as seismic resilience, can be reinforced by establishing a collective ownership of the settlements. Indeed, individual titling has led to the practice of houses being built independently from each other, increasing seismic vulnerability (D’Ayala, 2003). There is no certainty as to which type of land tenure facilitates resilience the most, and it very much depends on local circumstances

(Reale and Handmer, 2011).

However, Ostrom

(1990)

provides numerous

examples of durable and efficient community-managed resources. Studies of the example of Scotland’s land reform, where land estates are communally owned, shed more light on this issue. This collective ownership proved to be able to drive development that would retain benefits within local communities (Hoffman, 2013). Community land trusts have also shown to be proactive in reducing vulnerabilities and to value the communities’ wishes (Skerratt, 2013). The support of government authorities is naturally needed to facilitate collective ownership, as well as intervene in conflicts and exclusion processes that may arise between community groups Handmer, 2011).

(Fitzpatrick, 2005; Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al., 1999; Reale and

The example of Scotland’s land reform is a good illustration of state-

supported collective ownership (Hoffman, 2013; Shucksmith, 2010; Skerratt, 2013). Tradition

and

Tenure

Collective ownership can thus build up communities’ social capital and enhance their ability to adapt. However, Harvey

(2011)

notes that community ownership

9. Conversation with a member of the Khokana Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Committee

On Space

Fig. 53. Junction between two houses in Khokana. The house on the right replaced a portion of the older, larger house, the remains of which appear on the left.

Fig. 54. Junction between two houses in Khokana

Fig. 55. Junction between two houses in Lalitpur. A later addition of a partition wall meets the front faรงade at a window.

On Space

would not be effective beyond a certain scale. Therefore, the design proposes the establishment of a land trust to manage the communally owned settlement, equivalent to a ṭol. Within the latter, small cooperatives can each take ownership of an urban block, centred on a chowk. An adapted version of the dharmaśālā, placed within the chowk, would act as a claimed/created space of participation for the surrounding residents, who can lease volumes within the surrounding buildings. While substantive representation of communities would be a sensible goal, the still existing stratification of the local society will inevitably lead to descriptive representation

(Mansbridge, 2000).

But social relations may eventually evolve away

from caste and ethnicity segregation, as the boundaries of castes’ territories have already started to blur in Bungamati for example. Collective land tenure could become a common denominator that retains the association between identity and place. This common stake in the ownership of the settlement can also incentivise the various communities to participate and interact with each other, in spaces emulating the traditional public squares (nāni and lāchi), in inclusive spaces inspired by the dharmaśālās, bonding the wider community together. While the proposed model moves away from traditional individual home ownership, communal ownership would not be a striking new feature, in a context with the rich tradition of guṭhīs and cooperatives. The remaining oil mills in Khokana that produce traditional mustard oil are able to survive financially by spreading economic losses among the several hundred members of the cooperatives managing them10 (Bhattarai, 2014).

CREATING SPACES The spatial dimension of participation and of the social structure of the local communities highlights how architecture can intervene and shape social interactions that can facilitate building up more resilient communities. The proposed design adapts existing traditional models to offer spaces that can facilitate and encourage community participation. One needs to remain conscious of the scale at which such participatory strategies are effective. This would imply zoning the new settlements into neighbourhoods and establishing a ceiling on ownership of developable land on the land trusts. Setting a maximum growth for these neighbourhoods could ensure they retain manageable sizes for their community-based organisations.

10. Conversation with workers at the Gabu Jyaasha Oil Mill

On Space

Fig. 56. Gathering in Bunga Baha Through a film projection, people in Bungamati are attempting to raise awareness about heritage loss

Conclusion The Ships of Theseus

Conclusion

In Plutarch’s (1683) dilemma: “one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same”, the argument of this thesis would contend that ‘sameness’ is not the relevant factor. What matters most is the emergence of an irreconcilable disagreement. This plurality of perceptions needs to be embraced rather than resolved. This thesis sought to bring forward recent theories of heritage conservation that would deal with such plurality through methods similar to Muñoz-Viñas’

(2004)

concept of “negotiatory conservation”.

Furthermore, heritage, understood as a process of fabrication, is foremost produced rather than preserved. What role can such heritage take in building resilience in the Kathmandu Valley following the 2015 earthquake? Such an understanding of heritage offers wider opportunities in dealing with the weaknesses of the architectural heritage of the Kathmandu Valley. It was shown that a certain distance has emerged over the past decades between the management of heritage and the people that inhabit it. This weakened the local seismic culture, which increased people’s vulnerability. Maintaining the local tradition of cyclical renewal of buildings becomes essential in not only preserving traditional social structures and practices, but in culturally entrenching resilient and durable construction practices and risk awareness among communities. A crucial requirement for this approach to be effective is the involvement of those communities in the design, construction, management and maintenance of their heritage settlements. The proposed pluralist approach tackles the diversity and stratification of local communities. Here again, heritage can facilitate this process, as traditional settlements’ urban structure was shaped by their society’s stratification, offering opportunities for

Conclusion

people to claim spaces of participation. The existence of traditional buildings with functions that included accommodating community meetings further enhances this social process. The spatial dimension of community participation reveals the role heritage and architects can take in shaping an urban environment that enables these processes. With heritage understood as a process of production, architecture becomes a facilitator of that process. Heritage therefore can have a driving role in bringing resilience in the reconstruction of settlements in the Kathmandu Valley. This involves making local communities key actors, and carefully selecting those aspects of heritage (such as community associations and urban structures) that contribute to higher levels of resilience, while accepting loss of those that would be detrimental (such as the caste system or structural weaknesses in the traditional construction system). This also implies new ways of valuing heritage, going beyond architectural, artistic or historical significance, and assessing it based on its ability to bring people together. As mentioned earlier, such an approach can only be successful if it is supported by a wider framework involving national and local governments, as well as international organisations already established in the Valley, such as UNESCO or UN-Habitat. Achieving this would require further exploration in new legislation regarding heritage, building control, governance, forest management and land tenure, that integrates the participation of affected communities. Further research would also be needed to gather information regarding soil composition and methods of improving the seismic behaviour of traditional construction. Fieldwork in Khokana and Bungamati revealed a wide variety of views on what materials or structural strategy to employ in the reconstruction of these heritage settlements. But the discourse seems to have been mainly captured by organisations and groups defending the view of developing heritage as a tourism resource. This capture risks silencing other opinions and voices within the communities. While the disaster remains recent, concerns remain regarding the absence of concrete measures and strategies that tackle the vast challenge of implementing reconstruction, almost a year after the first seismic shock. Also, beyond consultation, almost no participatory schemes have been observed during the fieldwork period, and people were mostly left to their own devices. Oxfamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scheme, providing income and equipment to women in Bungamati to enable them to clear the rubble from their collapsed houses is a welcomed initiative.

Conclusion

Finally, the proposed â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;negotiatoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; production of resilient heritage in the Kathmandu Valley aims to inform other approaches to heritage. Bringing together recent developments in heritage theory and research on disaster risk mitigation and community participation may help bridge the gap between the theoretical heritage approach of involving local stakeholders and a heritage conservation practice that remains dominated by a reduced ĂŠlite.

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION Gil-Martín, L.M., González-López, M.J., Grindlay, A., Segura-Naya, A., Aschheim, M.A., HernándezMontes, E., 2012. Toward the Production of Future Heritage structures: Considering Durability in Building Performance and Sustainability – A philosophical and Historical overview. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 1, 269–273. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.02.001 Gu, D., Gerland, P., Pelletier, F., Cohen, B., 2015. Risks of Exposure and Vulnerability to Natural Disasters at the City Level: A Global Overview (Technical Paper No. 2015/02). United Nations, New York. Jigyasu, R., Murthy, M., Boccardi, G., Marrion, C., Douglas, D., King, J., O’Brien, G., Dolcemascolo, G., Kim, Y., Albrito, P., Osihn, M., 2013. Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks (Report). United Nations, India. Kohler, N., 1999. The relevance of Green Building Challenge: an observer’s perspective. Build. Res. Inf. 27, 309–320. doi:10.1080/096132199369426 Lowenthal, D., 1998. Fabricating Heritage. Hist. Mem. 10, 5–24. Lowenthal, D., 1989. Material Preservation and Its Alternatives. Perspecta 25, 67–77. doi:10.2307/1567139 Plutarch, 1683. Theseus, in: John Dryden (Tran.), The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Rakic, T., 2007. World Heritage: Issues and debates. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 55, 209–219.

Bibliography

ON HERITAGES Adams, C., 1998. Japan’s Ise Shrine and Its Thirteen-Hundred-Year-Old Reconstruction Tradition. J. Archit. Educ. 1984- 52, 49–60. Anderson, B., 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso. Ashworth, G.J., 1994. From History to Heritage - From Heritage to Identity: In search of concepts and models, in: Ashworth, G.J., Larkham, P.J. (Eds.), Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture, and Identity in the New Europe. Routledge, London; New York, pp. 13–30. Bandarin, F., Oers, R. van, 2014a. Urban Conservation: Short History of a Modern Idea, in: The Historic Urban Landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, pp. 1–36. Bandarin, F., Oers, R. van, 2014b. The Historic Urban Landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. Bell, C., Newby, H., 1971. Community studies: an introduction to the sociology of the local community, Studies in sociology. G. Allen & Unwin, London. Boholm, A., 1997. Reinvented Histories: Medieval Rome as Memorial Landscape. Cult. Geogr. 4, 247–272. doi:10.1177/147447409700400301 Bourgeois, J.-L., 1987. The History of the Great Mosques of Djenné. Afr. Arts 20, 54–92. doi:10.2307/3336477 Brett, D., 1996. The Construction of Heritage. Cork University Press, Cork, Ireland. Brett, D., 1993. The Construction of Heritage, in: O’Connor, B., Cronin, M.G. (Eds.), Tourism in Ireland: A Critical Analysis. Cork University Press, Cork, Ireland, pp. 183–202. Byrne, D., 1991. Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management. Hist. Anthropol. 5, 269–276. doi:10.1080/02757206.1991.9960815 Churchill, W.S., 2004. Never Give In! The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches. Hachette Books, New York. de la Torre, M. (Ed.), 2002. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA. DoA, 2007. Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site: Integrated Management Framework. Dudek, I., Blaise, J.-Y., 2010. Understanding Changes in Architecture Heritage, in: International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications. Presented at the IVAPP 2010, INSTICC, Angers, France. doi:10.978.989.674.027.6 Gazzola, P., Bassegoda-Nonell, J., Benavente, L., Boskovic, D., Daifuku, H., de Vrieze, P.L., Langberg, H., Matteucci, M., Merlet, J., Marini, C.F., Pane, R., Pavel, S.C.J., Philippot, P., Pimentel, V., Plenderleith, H., Redig de Campos, D., Sonnier, J., Sorlin, F., Stikas, E., Tripp, G., Zachwatovicz, J., Zbiss, M.S., 1964. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Graburn, N., H.H., 2001. Learning to Consume: What is Heritage and When is it Traditional?, in: AlSayyad, N. (Ed.), Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism. Routledge, London, pp. 68–89. Graham, B.J., Ashworth, G.J., Tunbridge, J.E., 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy. Arnold, London. Hall, S., 2005. Whose Heritage? Unsettling “The Heritage”, Re-imagining the Post-nation, in: Littler, J., Naidoo, R. (Eds.), The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of “Race.” Psychology Press, pp. 23–35. Harrison, R., 2013. Forgetting to remember, remembering to forget: late modern heritage practices, sustainability and the “crisis” of accumulation of the past. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 19, 579–595. doi:1 0.1080/13527258.2012.678371

Bibliography

Harrison, R., 2010. What is heritage?, in: Harrison, R. (Ed.), Understanding the Politics of Heritage. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 5–42. Harvey, D.C., 2008. The History of Heritage, in: Graham, B.J., Howard, P. (Eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Ashgate, Burlington, VT, pp. 19–36. Harvey, D.C., 2001. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 7, 319–338. doi:10.1080/13581650120105534 Hobsbawm, E.J., Ranger, T.O. (Eds.), 1983. The invention of tradition, Past and present publications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ICOMOS, ICCROM, UNESCO, 1994. The Nara Document on Authenticity. Inaba, N., 2013. Issues on authenticity and integrity in the heritage discussion: Analyzing the experiences in Japan bridging tangible and intangible heritage, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 65–72. Johnson, N., 2013. Space, Memory, Identity, in: Cloke, P.J., Crang, P., Goodwin, M. (Eds.), Introducing Human Geographies. Routledge, Oxford, pp. 509–525. Jones, S., Yarrow, T., 2013. Crafting authenticity: An ethnography of conservation practice. J. Mater. Cult. 18, 3–26. doi:10.1177/1359183512474383 Joy, C., 2009. “Enchanting Town of Mud”: Djenné, a World Heritage Site in Mali, in: de Jong, F., Rowlands, M. (Eds.), Reclaiming Heritage: Alternative Imaginaries of Memory in West Africa. Left Coast Press Inc, Walnut Creek, California, pp. 145–159. Kawan, S.S., 2013. Heritage in all, heritage for all: Integrity overrides authenticity, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 73–82. Layton, R., 1989. Introduction: Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, in: Layton, R. (Ed.), Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, One World Archaeology. Unwin Hyman, London; Boston, pp. 1–21. Lowenthal, D., 1998. Fabricating Heritage. Hist. Mem. 10, 5–24. Lowenthal, D., 1996. Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Free Press, New York. Lowenthal, D., 1994. Changing criteria of authenticity, in: Larsen, K.E., Jokilehto, J. (Eds.), Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention: Proceedings. Presented at the Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Nara, Japan, pp. 121–135. Lowenthal, D., 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Masuda, K., 2013. The Nara document on authenticity and the World Heritage Site of Kathmandu Valley: The concept of authenticity in the context of the conservation of fragile material heritage, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 57–64. Munjeri, D., 2004. Tangible and Intangible Heritage: from difference to convergence. Mus. Int. 56, 12–20. doi:10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00453.x Muñoz-Viñas, S., 2004. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Routledge, Oxford ; Burlington, MA. Nicholas, G., Bell, C., Coombe, R.J., Welch, J., Noble, B., Anderson, J., Bannister, K., Watkins, J., 2010. Intellectual Property Issues in Heritage Management - Part 2: Legal Dimensions, Ethical Considerations, and Collaborative Research Practices. J. Herit. Manag. 3, 117–147. Nora, P., 1989. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations 7–24. doi:10.2307/2928520 Poulios, I., 2010. Moving Beyond a Values-Based Approach to Heritage Conservation. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 12, 170–185. doi:10.1179/175355210X12792909186539

Bibliography

Prott, L.V., O’Keefe, P.J., 1992. “Cultural Heritage” or “Cultural Property”? Int. J. Cult. Prop. 1, 307–320. doi:10.1017/S094073919200033X Rakic, T., 2007. World Heritage: Issues and debates. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 55, 209–219. Rakic, T., Chambers, D., 2008. World Heritage: Exploring the Tension Between the National and the “Universal.” J. Herit. Tour. 2, 145–155. doi:10.2167/jht056.0 Ray, C., 1999. Towards a Meta-Framework of Endogenous Development: Repertoires, Paths, Democracy and Rights. Sociol. Rural. 39, 522–537. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00122 Schouten, F.F.J., 1995. Heritage as Historical Reality, in: Herbert, D.T. (Ed.), Heritage, Tourism and Society. Mansell, London. Shucksmith, M., 2000. Endogenous Development, Social Capital and Social Inclusion: perspectives from leader in the UK. Sociol. Rural. 40, 208–218. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00143 Smith, L., 2006. Uses of heritage. Routledge, London. Stovel, H., 2007. Effective use of authenticity and integrity as World Heritage qualifying conditions. City Time 2, 21–36. Tait, M., While, A., 2009. Ontology and the Conservation of Built Heritage. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 27, 721–737. doi:10.1068/d11008 Tunbridge, J.E., 1984. Whose Heritage to Conserve? Cross-Cultural Reflections on Political Dominance and Urban Heritage Conservation. Can. Geogr. 28, 171–180. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.1984. tb00783.x Tunbridge, J.E., Ashworth, G.J., 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Belhaven Press, Chichester; New York. UNESCO, 2015a. Revisiting Kathmandu: safeguarding living urban heritage: Proceeding of an International Symposium, Kathmandu Valley, 25-29 November 2013. UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO, 2015b. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, 2008. World Heritage: Information Kit. UNESCO, 2004. Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, 1978. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, n.d. The Rescue of Nubian Monuments and Sites [WWW Document]. UNESCO World Herit. Conv. URL http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/173/ (accessed 11.28.15). Uzzell, D.L., 2006. Interpreting our Heritage: a Theoretical Interpretation, in: Smith, L. (Ed.), Cultural Heritage: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. Routledge, London; New York. WCCD, 1995. Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development. UNESCO. Winter, T., 2015. Heritage and Nationalism: an unbreachable couple? Inst. Cult. Soc. Occas. Pap. Ser. 3.

Bibliography

ON SITE Bajracharya, R., 2012. The study on the spatial transformation of traditional towns. A Case of Lubhu, Kathmandu, Nepal. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Bhatta, K.D., 2009. Urban heritage conservation and sustainable community development: A case study of historic town Thimi,Nepal. SCITECH Nepal J. Sci. Tech. Stud. 11, 7–23. Bjønness, H.C., Subba, M., 2008. Urban Sprawl. A Necessary Evil? Towards a framework for research on urban containment for Kathmandu Valley, Nepal., in: Urban Growth without Sprawl. Presented at the 44th ISOCARP Congress, Dalian, China. Blair, K.D., 1983. 4 Villages: Architecture in Nepal. Craft & Folk Art Museum. CBS, 2012. National Population and Housing Census 2011. Chapagain, N.K., 2008. Heritage Conservation in Nepal: Policies, Stakeholders and Challenges. Presented at the Third Annual Himalayan Policy Research Conference, Madison, Wisconsin. Chitrakar, R.M., Baker, D., Guaralda, M., 2014. Urban Growth in the Kathmandu Valley: The transformation of public space, in: Bravo, L. (Ed.), School of Civil Engineering & Built Environment; School of Design; Creative Industries Faculty; Science & Engineering Faculty. Presented at the Past Present and Future of Public Space – International Conference on Art, Architecture and Urban Design, Bologna, Italy. DoA, 2007. Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site: Integrated Management Framework. Duwal, S., 2013. Modelling Urban Growth in Kathmandu Valley. University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. Elliott, J.R., Jolivet, R., González, P.J., Avouac, J.-P., Hollingsworth, J., Searle, M.P., Stevens, V.L., 2016. Himalayan megathrust geometry and relation to topography revealed by the Gorkha earthquake. Nat. Geosci. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1038/ngeo2623 Ghimire, S., 2014. Govt creates 61 new municipalities. República. GoN, 2015. Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster Needs Assessment. GoN, 1999. Local Self Governance Act 2055 (1999). GoN, 1956. Ancient Monument Preservation Act 2013 (1956 A.D.). Haack, B.N., Rafter, A., 2006. Urban growth analysis and modeling in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Habitat Int., Solid Waste Management as if People MatterSolid Waste Management as if People Matter 30, 1056–1065. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.12.001 Hall, C.M., 2001. World Heritage and Tourism. Tour. Recreat. Res. 26, 1–3. doi:10.1080/02508281.2 001.11081170 Hall, C.M., Piggin, R., 2002. World Heritage Sites: Managing the Brand, in: Fyall, A., Garrod, B., Leask, A. (Eds.), Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 203–19. Hutt, M., 1995. Nepal. A Guide to the Art and Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley. Shambhala, Boston, Boston. ICIMOD, MoEST, UNEP, 2007. Kathmandu Valley Environment Outlook. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Korn, W., 1976. The Traditional Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley, Bibliotheca Himalayica. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu. KTFT Road Project Office, 2015. Kathmandu-Terai/Madhesh Fast Track Road Project. Environmental Impact Assessment. Final Report. KVDA, 2016. Vision 2035 and Beyond: 20 Years Strategic Development Master Plan (2015 - 2035) for Kathmandu Valley. Maharjan, M., 2014. Is World Heritage a Right or a Liability to People?: A Case Study of Kathmandu

Bibliography Valley World Heritage Site of Nepal. Presented at the The Right to [World] Heritage, IAWHP e.V., BTU, Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany, pp. 340–349.

Maharjan, M., 2012. Conflict in World Heritage Sites of Kathmandu Valley: A Case Study on the Conservation of Private Houses in Three Durbar Squares. Nepal Tour. Dev. Rev. 2, 87–104. Maharjan, S., 2012. Impacts of tourism in World Heritage Site: a Case of Bhaktapur Durbar Square, Nepal. The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Morris, W., Morris, M., 2012. The History of Pattern-designing. A Lecture in Support of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Building, 1882, in: The Collected Works of William Morris: With Introductions by His Daughter May Morris - Vol. 22: Hopes and Fears for Art; Lectures on Art and Industry, The Collected Works of William Morris: With Introductions by His Daughter May Morris. Cambridge University Press, p. 206-. Müller-Böker, U., 1988. Spatial Organization of a Caste Society: The Example of the Newar in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 8, 23–31. doi:10.2307/3673403 Muzzini, E., Aparicio, G., 2013. Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal: An Initial Assessment. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C. NDRRP, 2015. Nepal Disaster Risk Reduction Portal [WWW Document]. Nepal Disaster Risk Reduct. Portal Gov. Nepal. URL http://drrportal.gov.np/ (accessed 1.23.16). Poria, Y., Reichel, A., Cohen, R., 2011. World Heritage Site - Is It an Effective Brand Name? A Case Study of a Religious Heritage Site. J. Travel Res. 50, 482–495. doi:10.1177/0047287510379158 Rakic, T., 2007. World Heritage: Issues and debates. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 55, 209–219. Romão, X., Paupério, E., Menon, A., 2015. Traditional Construction in High Seismic Zones: A losing Battle? The Case of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake, in: Correia, M.R., Lourenço, P.B., Varum, H. (Eds.), Seismic Retrofitting: Learning from Vernacular Architecture. CRC Press, S.l., pp. 93–99. Shrestha, B.K., 2013. Implementing the proposed outer ring road in Kathmandu Valley. J. Manag. Dev. Stud. 25, 23–38. Thapa, R.B., Murayama, Y., 2011. Urban growth modeling of Kathmandu metropolitan region, Nepal. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 35, 25–34. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.07.005 Thapa, R.B., Murayama, Y., 2009. Examining spatiotemporal urbanization patterns in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Remote sensing and spatial metrics approaches. Remote Sens. 1, 534–556. doi:10.3390/rs1030534 Thapa, R.B., Murayama, Y., Ale, S., 2008. Kathmandu. Cities 25, 45–57. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2007.10.001 Tiwari, S.R., 2013. Revisiting Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site: Community participation in heritage affairs, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 189–196. Tiwari, S.R., 2009. Material Authenticity in Tradition of Conservation in Nepal. Presented at the Thunder International Conference, Kathmandu. Toffin, G., 1976. La presse à huile Néwar de la vallée de Kathmandou (Népal): analyse technologique et socio-économique. J. Agric. Trop. Bot. Appliquée 23, 183–204. doi:10.3406/jatba.1976.3248 UNESCO, 1996. Khokana, the vernacular village and its mustard-oil seed industrial heritage [WWW Document]. UNESCO World Herit. Cent. URL http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/844/ (accessed 1.28.16). USGS, 2015a. M7.8 - 36km E of Khudi, Nepal [WWW Document]. USGS Sci. Chang. World. URL http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926#general_region (accessed 8.5.15). USGS, 2015b. M7.3 - 19km SE of Kodari, Nepal [WWW Document]. USGS Sci. Chang. World. URL http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002ejl#general_region (accessed 8.5.15). WTTC, 2015. Travel & Tourism - Economic Impact 2015: Nepal.

Bibliography

ON CRAF T Agence France-Presse, 2016. Strain on Nepal faultline risks another earthquake in Kathmandu, study finds. The Guardian. Agrawal, S., 2015. Built Four Times Over. ECS Nepal. Amatya, S., 1983. A Brief note on Strategy of His Majesty’s Governement on Heritage Conservation. Anc. Nepal 33–36. Anon., 2016. Scientists pinpoint unbroken section of Nepal fault line and show why Himalayas keep growing [WWW Document]. Univ. Oxf. URL http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-12-scientistspinpoint-unbroken-section-nepal-fault-line-and-show-why-himalayas-keep (accessed 1.23.16). Arnold, C., 2013. Earthquake Effects on Buildings, in: FEMA (Ed.), Designing For Earthquakes A Manual For Architects, Risk Management Series. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp. 4-1-4–27. Avouac, J.-P., Bollinger, L., Lavé, J., Cattin, R., Flouzat, M., 2001. Le cycle sismique en Himalaya. Comptes Rendus Académie Sci. - Ser. IIA - Earth Planet. Sci. 333, 513–529. doi:10.1016/S12518050(01)01573-7 Banerjee, N.R., 1970. Inscriptional Evidence on the Preservation of Monuments in Nepal. Anc. Nepal 13, 50–68. Barbisan, U., Laner, F., 1995. Wooden Floors: Parts of Historical Antiseismic Building Systems. Ann. Geofis. XXXVIII, 775–784. Beckh, M., 2006. Traditional Construction Techniques of the Newars at the Itum Baha Monastery in Kathmandu, in: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Construction History. Presented at the Second International Congress on Construction History, Short Run Press, Queen’s College, Cambridge, UK, pp. 325–339. Bilham, R., 2004. Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann. Geophys. 47. doi:10.4401/ag-3338 Blair, K.D., 1983. 4 Villages: Architecture in Nepal. Craft & Folk Art Museum. Bonapace, C., Sestini, V., 2003. Traditional Materials and Construction Technologies used in the Kathmandu Valley. UNESCO, Paris. Cardoso, R., Lopes, M., Bento, R., D’Ayala, D., 2003. Historic, Braced Frame Timber Buildings with Masonry Infill (’Pombalino’ Buildings). World Hous. Encycl. Chapagain, N.K., 2013. Traditions, materiality and community engagements with heritage: Rethinking authenticity in living heritage sites in Nepal, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 109–119. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Spacone, E., Varum, H., 2014. Earthquake Loss Estimation for the Kathmandu Valley. Presented at the Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Spacone, E., Varum, H., 2012. Reflection on the seismic vulnerability associated to common RC buildings in Nepal. Presented at the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal. Chitrakar, G.R., Pandey, M.R., 1986. Historical Earthquakes of Nepal. Bull. Geol. Soc. Nepal 4, 7–8. Cóias e Silva, V., Lourenço, P.B., Ramos, L.F., Mesquita, C.G., 2001. Accounting for the “Block Effect” in Structural Interventions in Lisbon’s old “Pombaline” Downtown Buildings. Hist. Constr. 943– 952. Cross, R., 2015. Nepal earthquake: a disaster that shows quakes don’t kill people, buildings do. The Guardian. D’Ayala, D., 2006. Seismic Vulnerability and Conservation Strategies for Lalitpur Minor Heritage, in:

Bibliography Hardy, M., Cancino, C., Ostergren, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Getty Seismic Adobe Project 2006 Colloquium: Getty Center. Presented at the Getty Seismic Adobe Project 2006 Colloquium, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA, pp. 120–134.

D’Ayala, D., 2003. A summary of the report Seismic vulnerability of historic buildings in Lalitpur, Nepal. Earthq. Hazard Cent. Newsl. 7. DoA, 2007. Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site: Integrated Management Framework. Dombrowsky, W.R., 1995. Again and Again: Is Disaster What We Call “Disaster”? Some Conceptual Notes on Conceptualizing the Object of Disaster Sociology. Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 13, 241–254. Dunn, J.A., Auden, J.B., Ghosh, A.M.N., Wadia, D.N., 1939. The Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of 1934, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. Elliott, J.R., Jolivet, R., González, P.J., Avouac, J.-P., Hollingsworth, J., Searle, M.P., Stevens, V.L., 2016. Himalayan megathrust geometry and relation to topography revealed by the Gorkha earthquake. Nat. Geosci. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1038/ngeo2623 Galetzka, J., Melgar, D., Genrich, J.F., Geng, J., Owen, S., Lindsey, E.O., Xu, X., Bock, Y., Avouac, J.P., Adhikari, L.B., Upreti, B.N., Pratt-Sitaula, B., Bhattarai, T.N., Sitaula, B.P., Moore, A., Hudnut, K.W., Szeliga, W., Normandeau, J., Fend, M., Flouzat, M., Bollinger, L., Shrestha, P., Koirala, B., Gautam, U., Bhatterai, M., Gupta, R., Kandel, T., Timsina, C., Sapkota, S.N., Rajaure, S., Maharjan, N., 2015. Slip pulse and resonance of Kathmandu basin during the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal imaged with geodesy. Science aac6383. doi:10.1126/science. aac6383 Gil-Martín, L.M., González-López, M.J., Grindlay, A., Segura-Naya, A., Aschheim, M.A., HernándezMontes, E., 2012. Toward the Production of Future Heritage structures: Considering Durability in Building Performance and Sustainability – A philosophical and Historical overview. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 1, 269–273. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.02.001 GoN, 1956. Ancient Monument Preservation Act 2013 (1956 A.D.). Hutt, M., 1995. Nepal. A Guide to the Art and Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley. Shambhala, Boston, Boston. Hyndman, D.W., Hyndman, D.W., 2011. Natural hazards and disasters, 3rd ed. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, Australia. Jankowski, R., Mahmoud, S., 2015. Earthquake-Induced Structural Pounding, GeoPlanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences. Springer International Publishing, Cham. JICA, GoN, 2002. The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley, Kingdom of Nepal. Korn, W., 1976. The Traditional Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley, Bibliotheca Himalayica. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu. Lowenthal, D., 1996. Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Free Press, New York. Lyons, M., 2009. Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction. World Dev. 37, 385–398. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.006 Marahatta, P.S., Pokharel, J.R., 2014. Resilience Building against Earthquakes in Traditional Settlements of Kathmandu Valley. MUHON J. Archit. Landsc. Archit. Des. Environ. 32–38. Mehta, P.K., Burrows, R.W., 2001. Building Durable Structures in the 21st Century. Concr. Int. 23, 57–63. Muzzini, E., Aparicio, G., 2013. Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal: An Initial Assessment. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C. Naserkhaki, S., Aziz, F.N.A.A., Pourmohammad, H., 2012. Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 11, 343–358. doi:10.1007/s11803-012-0126-0

Bibliography

NSET, GHI, 1998. The Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Action Plan. Ortega, J., Vasconcelos, G., Correia, M., 2014. An Overview of Seismic Strengthening Techniques traditionally applied in vernacular Architecture, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Masonry Conference. Presented at the 9th International Masonry Conference, Guimarães, Portugal. Pandey, M.R., Molnar, P., 1988. The Distribution of Intentisty of the Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of 15 January 1934 and Bounds of the Extent of the Rupture Zone. J. Nepal Geol. Soc. 5, 22–44. Pandey, M.R., Tandukar, R.P., Avouac, J.P., Lavé, J., Massot, J.P., 1995. Interseismic strain accumulation on the Himalayan crustal ramp (Nepal). Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 751–754. doi:10.1029/94GL02971 Pandey, M.R., Tandukar, R.P., Avouac, J.-P., Vergne, J., Héritier, T., 1999. Seismotectonics of Nepal Himalayas from a local seismic network. J. Asian Earth Sci. 17, 703–712. doi:10.1016/S13679120(99)00034-6 Paudyal, Y.R., Yatabe, R., Bhandary, N.P., Dahal, R.K., 2012. A study of local amplification effect of soil layers on ground motion in the Kathmandu Valley using microtremor analysis. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 11, 257–268. doi:10.1007/s11803-012-0115-3 Peris Mora, E., 2007. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials. Build. Environ. 42, 1329–1334. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.004 Reddy, B.V.V., 2004. Sustainable Building Technologies. Curr. Sci. 87, 899–907. Romão, X., Paupério, E., Menon, A., 2015. Traditional Construction in High Seismic Zones: A losing Battle? The Case of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake, in: Correia, M.R., Lourenço, P.B., Varum, H. (Eds.), Seismic Retrofitting: Learning from Vernacular Architecture. CRC Press, S.l., pp. 93–99. Rourke, D., Larson, J., Allen, D., Crawford, M., deSouza, K., Elhajj, N., Greenlee, G., Rolih, G., Usami, A., Wellinghof, J., 2007. Technical Note on Cold-Formed Steel Construction. Sakai, T., Gajurel, A.P., Tabata, H., 2015. Seismites in the Pleistocene succession and recurrence period of large earthquakes in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Geoenvironmental Disasters 2. doi:10.1186/s40677-015-0033-6 Samples, L.M., Ramirez, J.A., 1999. Methods of Corrosion Protection and Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks Reinforced with Epoxy-coated Bars - Phase I. Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering. Schenk, G.J., 2015. “Learning from History”? - Chances, problems and limits of learning from historical natural disasters, in: Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., Schipper, E.L.F. (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 72–87. Schilderman, T., 2004. Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction: experiences with community-based approaches. Build. Res. Inf. 32, 414–426. doi:10.1080/0961321042000250979 Shi, X., Xie, N., Fortune, K., Gong, J., 2012. Durability of steel reinforced concrete in chloride environments: An overview. Constr. Build. Mater. 30, 125–138. doi:10.1016/j. conbuildmat.2011.12.038 Shrestha, B.G., 2012. The Significance of Newar Culture and Society, in: The Sacred Town of Sankhu: The Anthropology of Newar Ritual, Religion and Society in Nepal. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 21–41. Shrestha, O.M., Koirala, A., Hanisch, J., Busch, K., Kerntke, M., Jäger, S., 1999. A geo-environmental map for the sustainable development of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. GeoJournal 49, 165– 172. doi:10.1023/A:1007076813975 Subedi, M., Sharma, K., Upadhayay, B., Poudel, R.K., Khadka, P., 2013. Soil Liquefaction Potential in Kathmandu Valley. Int. J. Landslide Environ. 1, 91–92. Tiwari, S.R., 2013. Revisiting Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site: Community participation in heritage affairs, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at

Bibliography the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 189–196.

Tiwari, S.R., 2009. Material Authenticity in Tradition of Conservation in Nepal. Presented at the Thunder International Conference, Kathmandu. Toffin, G., 1982. La Notion de ville dans une société asiatique traditionnelle: l’exemple des Néwar de la vallée de Kathmandou. L’Homme 22, 101–111. Twigg, J., 2004. Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming. Overseas Development Institute, London. Varum, H., Rodrigues, H., Lourenço, P.B., Vasconcelos, G., 2015. Seismic Behaviour of Vernacular Architecture, in: Correia, M.R., Lourenço, P.B., Varum, H. (Eds.), Seismic Retrofitting: Learning from Vernacular Architecture. CRC Press, S.l., p. 262. von Fürer-Haimendorf, C., 1956. Elements of Newar Social Structure. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. 86, 15–38. doi:10.2307/2843991 WHC, 1997. Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Bibliography 100

ON MEMORY Adhikari, N., 2014. Tenants defy Guthi’s calls to pay rent. Kathmandu Post. Amatya, M.R., 2015. Facing extinction. Kathmandu Post. Amatya, S., 1983. A Brief note on Strategy of His Majesty’s Governement on Heritage Conservation. Anc. Nepal 33–36. Banerjee, N.R., 1970. Inscriptional Evidence on the Preservation of Monuments in Nepal. Anc. Nepal 13, 50–68. Banjade, M.R., Paudel, N.S., Karki, R., Sunam, R., Paudyal, B.R., 2011. Putting Timber in the Hot Seat: Discourse, Policy and Contestations over Timber in Nepal (Discussion Paper). ForestAction, Kathmandu. Bankoff, G., 2015. Design by Disasters - Seismic architecture and cultural adaptation to earthquakes, in: Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., Schipper, E.L.F. (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 53–71. Bankoff, G., 2004. Time is of the Essence: Disasters, Vulnerability and History. Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 22, 23–42. Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Krüger, F., Schipper, E.L.F., 2015. Exploring the links between cultures and disasters, in: Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., Schipper, E.L.F. (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 1–16. Beckh, M., 2006. Traditional Construction Techniques of the Newars at the Itum Baha Monastery in Kathmandu, in: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Construction History. Presented at the Second International Congress on Construction History, Short Run Press, Queen’s College, Cambridge, UK, pp. 325–339. Bhattarai, T., 2014. Nepalese Village Preserves Mustard Oil Tradition Despite Financial Loss. Glob. Press J. Online. Cannon, T., 2008. Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Presented at the Conference on Fragile States–Fragile Groups, UNU-WIDER, Helsinki. Cannon, T., Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Schipper, E.L.F., 2014. The links between culture and risk, in: Cannon, T., Schipper, E.L.F., Bankoff, G., Krüger, F. (Eds.), World Disasters Report 2014 - Focus on Culture and Risk. IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 10–35. Cardoso, R., Lopes, M., Bento, R., 2004. Earthquake Resistant Structures of Portuguese Old “Pomablino” Buildings. Presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.c>, Canada. Cardoso, R., Lopes, M., Bento, R., D’Ayala, D., 2003. Historic, Braced Frame Timber Buildings with Masonry Infill (’Pombalino’ Buildings). World Hous. Encycl. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Spacone, E., Varum, H., 2012. Reflection on the seismic vulnerability associated to common RC buildings in Nepal. Presented at the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal. Cóias e Silva, V., Lourenço, P.B., Ramos, L.F., Mesquita, C.G., 2001. Accounting for the “Block Effect” in Structural Interventions in Lisbon’s old “Pombaline” Downtown Buildings. Hist. Constr. 943– 952. Davidson, C.H., Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G., Dikmen, N., Sliwinski, A., 2007. Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int. 31, 100–115. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.08.003 D’Ayala, D., 2006. Seismic Vulnerability and Conservation Strategies for Lalitpur Minor Heritage, in: Hardy, M., Cancino, C., Ostergren, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Getty Seismic Adobe Project 2006 Colloquium: Getty Center. Presented at the Getty Seismic Adobe Project 2006 Colloquium,

101 Bibliography Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA, pp. 120–134. D’Ayala, D., 2003. A summary of the report Seismic vulnerability of historic buildings in Lalitpur, Nepal. Earthq. Hazard Cent. Newsl. 7. Dipasquale, L., Omar Sidik, D., Mecca, S., 2014. Local seismic culture and earthquake-resistant devices: Case study of Casa Baraccata, in: Mileto, C., Vegas, F., Gercia Soriano, L., Cristini, V. (Eds.), Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future. CRC Press, pp. 255–260. DoA, 2007. Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site: Integrated Management Framework. DoUDBC, 1994a. NBC 105: Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal. DoUDBC, 1994b. NBC 203: Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Building Construction: Low Strength Masonry. Ferrigni, F. (Ferruccio)., Helly, B., Mauro, A., Mendes Victor, L., Pierorri, P., Rideaud, A., Teves Costa, P., 2005. Ancient buildings and earthquakes: reducing the vulnerability of historical built- up environment by recovering the local seismic culture : principles, methods, potentialities, Rischio sismico e patrimonio culturale ; 1. Edipuglia, Bari. Freeman, P.K., 2004. Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing. Build. Res. Inf. 32, 427–437. doi:10.1080/0961321042000221016 Gaiman, N., 2013. Why our future depends on libraries, reading and daydreaming. The Guardian. Galetzka, J., Melgar, D., Genrich, J.F., Geng, J., Owen, S., Lindsey, E.O., Xu, X., Bock, Y., Avouac, J.P., Adhikari, L.B., Upreti, B.N., Pratt-Sitaula, B., Bhattarai, T.N., Sitaula, B.P., Moore, A., Hudnut, K.W., Szeliga, W., Normandeau, J., Fend, M., Flouzat, M., Bollinger, L., Shrestha, P., Koirala, B., Gautam, U., Bhatterai, M., Gupta, R., Kandel, T., Timsina, C., Sapkota, S.N., Rajaure, S., Maharjan, N., 2015. Slip pulse and resonance of Kathmandu basin during the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal imaged with geodesy. Science aac6383. doi:10.1126/science. aac6383 GoN, 1976. Guthi Corporation Act, 2033 (1976). GoN, 1964. Lands Act, 2021 (1964). Gyawali, S., 2013. Implementing Building Codes to Save Lives. USAID Nepal Q. Newsl. 8. Hutt, M., 1995. Nepal. A Guide to the Art and Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley. Shambhala, Boston, Boston. ICIMOD, MoEST, UNEP, 2007. Kathmandu Valley Environment Outlook. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Jacques, E., Monaco, C., Tapponnier, P., Tortorici, L., Winter, T., 2001. Faulting and Earthquake triggering during the 1783 Calabria seismic sequence. Geophys. J. Int. 147, 499–516. Kanel, K.R., Shrestha, K., Tuladhar, A.R., Regmi, M.R., 2012. A Study on the Demand and Supply of Wood Products in Different Regions of Nepal. Nepal Foresters’ Association, Kathmandu. Kempe, M., Rohr, C., 2003. Introduction. Environ. Hist. 9, 123–126. Kreps, G.A., 1995. Disaster as Systemic Event and Social Catalyst: A Clarification of Subject Matter. Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 13, 255–284. Langenbach, R., 2013. Timber Frames and Solid Walls: Earthquake Resilient Construction from Roman Times to the Origins of the Modern Skyscraper, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Historic Earthquake-Resistant Timber Frames in the Mediterranean Region. Presented at the H.Ea.R.T.2013, Cosenza, Calabria. Langenbach, R., 2007. From “Opus Craticium” to the “Chicago Frame”: Earthquake-Resistant Traditional Construction. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 29–59. doi:10.1080/15583050601125998 Langenbach, R., Kelley, S., Sparks, P., Rowell, K., Hammer, M., Julien, O.J., 2010. Preserving Haiti’s Gingerbread Houses. World Monuments Fund, New York. Laursen, M.R., 2015. CBDRM in Nepal: a matter of risk perceptions. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 6, 73–85. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2014-0052

Bibliography 102 Lyons, M., 2009. Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction. World Dev. 37, 385–398. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.006 Maharjan, M., 2012. Conflict in World Heritage Sites of Kathmandu Valley: A Case Study on the Conservation of Private Houses in Three Durbar Squares. Nepal Tour. Dev. Rev. 2, 87–104. Marahatta, P.S., Pokharel, J.R., 2014. Resilience Building against Earthquakes in Traditional Settlements of Kathmandu Valley. MUHON J. Archit. Landsc. Archit. Des. Environ. 32–38. Mauelshagen, F., 2009. Disaster and political culture in Germany since 1500, in: Mauch, C., Pfister, C. (Eds.), Natural Disasters, Cultural Responses. Case Studies Toward a Global Environmental History. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, pp. 41–75. Mauelshagen, F., 2007. Flood Disasters and Political Culture at the German North Sea Coast: A Longterm Historical Perspective. Hist. Soc. Res. Hist. Sozialforschung 32, 133–144. Mumtaz, H., Mughal, S.H., Stephenson, M., Bothera, J.K., 2008. The Challenges of Reconstruction after the October 2005 Kashmir Earthquake, in: Engineering an Earthquake Resilient New Zealand. Presented at the NZSEE Annual Conference 2008, Wairakei, New Zealand. Muzzini, E., Aparicio, G., 2013. Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal: An Initial Assessment. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C. NSET, ADPC, 2005. Earthquake Resistant Construction of Buildings. Curriculum for Mason Training. Guidelines for Training Instructors. Ortega, J., Vasconcelos, G., Correia, M., 2014. An Overview of Seismic Strengthening Techniques traditionally applied in vernacular Architecture, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Masonry Conference. Presented at the 9th International Masonry Conference, Guimarães, Portugal. Pande, S., 2015. Rebuilding, restoring. Kathmandu Post. Pandey, M.R., Tandukar, R.P., Avouac, J.P., Lavé, J., Massot, J.P., 1995. Interseismic strain accumulation on the Himalayan crustal ramp (Nepal). Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 751–754. doi:10.1029/94GL02971 Pandey, M.R., Tandukar, R.P., Avouac, J.-P., Vergne, J., Héritier, T., 1999. Seismotectonics of Nepal Himalayas from a local seismic network. J. Asian Earth Sci. 17, 703–712. doi:10.1016/S13679120(99)00034-6 Petal, M., Green, R., Kelman, I., Shaw, R., Dixit, A., 2008. Community-based construction for disaster risk reduction, in: Bosher, L. (Ed.), Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience. Routledge, London; New York, pp. 191–217. Pradhananga, N., 2011. Integrating Indigenous and Modern Heritage Conservation Practice: A Case Study of the Guthis in Nepal. The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. Pradhananga, N., Shrestha, K., Dee, J., 2010. Sustaining Indigenous Heritage: Learning from the Guthi System in Nepal. Presented at the New Zealand Geographical Society Conference, Christchurch, NZ. Ramos, L.F., Lourenço, P.B., 2003. Seismic Analysis of the Old Town Buildings in “Baixa Pombalina” Lisbon, Portugal. Presented at the Ninth North American Masonry Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, USA. Ray, C., 1999. Towards a Meta-Framework of Endogenous Development: Repertoires, Paths, Democracy and Rights. Sociol. Rural. 39, 522–537. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00122 Romão, X., Paupério, E., Menon, A., 2015. Traditional Construction in High Seismic Zones: A losing Battle? The Case of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake, in: Correia, M.R., Lourenço, P.B., Varum, H. (Eds.), Seismic Retrofitting: Learning from Vernacular Architecture. CRC Press, S.l., pp. 93–99. Schacher, T., Ali, Q., 2009. Dhajji Construction for one and two storey resistant houses. a guidebook for technicians and artisans. Schenk, G.J., 2015. “Learning from History”? - Chances, problems and limits of learning from historical natural disasters, in: Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., Schipper, E.L.F. (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction.

103 Bibliography Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 72–87. Schilderman, T., 2004. Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction: experiences with community-based approaches. Build. Res. Inf. 32, 414–426. doi:10.1080/0961321042000250979 Shrestha, A., 2001. Bleeding Mountains of Nepal. iUniverse. Shrestha, B.G., 2012a. Role of Guthi, the Socio-Religious Associations in Sankhu, in: The Sacred Town of Sankhu: The Anthropology of Newar Ritual, Religion and Society in Nepal. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 199–265. Shrestha, B.G., 2012b. The Significance of Newar Culture and Society, in: The Sacred Town of Sankhu: The Anthropology of Newar Ritual, Religion and Society in Nepal. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 21–41. Shrestha, B.K., 2013. Implementing the proposed outer ring road in Kathmandu Valley. J. Manag. Dev. Stud. 25, 23–38. Shucksmith, M., 2010. Disintegrated Rural Development? Neo-endogenous Rural Development, Planning and Place-Shaping in Diffused Power Contexts. Sociol. Rural. 50, 1–14. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9523.2009.00497.x Skerratt, S., 2013. Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: Evidence from community land ownership. J. Rural Stud. 31, 36–46. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003 Soens, T., 2013. Flood Security in the Medieval and Early Modern North Sea Area: A Question of Entitlement? Environ. Hist. 19, 209–232. doi:10.3197/096734013X13642082568651 Tiwari, S.R., 2013. Revisiting Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site: Community participation in heritage affairs, in: Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage. Presented at the Revisiting Kathmandu: Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu, pp. 189–196. Tiwari, S.R., 2009. Material Authenticity in Tradition of Conservation in Nepal. Presented at the Thunder International Conference, Kathmandu. Tobriner, S., 1983. La Casa Baraccata: Earthquake-Resistant Construction in 18th-Century Calabria. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 42, 131–138. doi:10.2307/989827 Toffin, G., 2005. From Kin to Caste: The Role of Guthis in Newar Society and Culture. Social Science Baha, Lalitpur, Nepal. Twigg, J., 2004. Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming. Overseas Development Institute, London. UNDP, ERRRP, 2009. Report of the Training Program on Earthquake Resistant Construction of Buildings for Masons in Pokhara. UNDP, GoN, CoRD, MRB & Associates, 2013. Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines of Buildings in Nepal. Training Curriculum. Vanclay, F., 2011. Endogenous rural development from a sociological perspective, in: Stimson, R., Stough, R.R., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Endogenous Regional Development: Perspectives, Measurement and Empirical Investigation. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, pp. 59–71. Varum, H., Rodrigues, H., Lourenço, P.B., Vasconcelos, G., 2015. Seismic Behaviour of Vernacular Architecture, in: Correia, M.R., Lourenço, P.B., Varum, H. (Eds.), Seismic Retrofitting: Learning from Vernacular Architecture. CRC Press, S.l., p. 262. Vermeire, B., Gellynck, X., De Steur, H., Viaene, J., 2008. Networks in Rural Economy: Valorising Endogenous and Exogenous Drivers of Innovation (110th Seminar No. 49846). European Association of Agricultural Economists, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria. von Fürer-Haimendorf, C., 1956. Elements of Newar Social Structure. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. 86, 15–38. doi:10.2307/2843991

Bibliography 104

ON PEOPLE Acharya, Y.P., Acharya, U., 2006. Sustainability of Microfinance Institution from Small Farmers’ Perspective: A Case of Rural Nepal. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Pap. 2, 117–126. Associated Press, 2015. Nepal formally adopts new constitution amid protests from minorities. The Guardian. Bajracharya, R., 2012. The study on the spatial transformation of traditional towns. A Case of Lubhu, Kathmandu, Nepal. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Bankoff, G., 2015. Design by Disasters - Seismic architecture and cultural adaptation to earthquakes, in: Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., Schipper, E.L.F. (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 53–71. Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Krüger, F., Schipper, E.L.F., 2015. Exploring the links between cultures and disasters, in: Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., Schipper, E.L.F. (Eds.), Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 1–16. Bennett, L., 2005. Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal: Following the Policy Process from Analysis to Action, in: New Frontiers of Social Policy. Presented at the Arusha Conference, Arusha, Tanzania. Bennett, L., Goldberg, M., Hunte, P., 1996. Ownership and sustainability: Lessons on groupbased financial services from South Asia. J. Int. Dev. 8, 271–288. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10991328(199603)8:2<271::AID-JID375>3.0.CO;2-Z Bharadwaj, B., 2012. Roles of Cooperatives in Poverty Reduction: A Case of Nepal. Adm. Manag. Rev. 24, 120–139. Blair, K.D., 1983. 4 Villages: Architecture in Nepal. Craft & Folk Art Museum. Bollin, C., Cárdenas, C., Hahn, H., Vatsa, K.S., 2003. Disaster Risk Management by Communities and Local Governments. Inter-American Development Bank. Brett, D., 1996. The Construction of Heritage. Cork University Press, Cork, Ireland. Cannon, T., 2008. Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Presented at the Conference on Fragile States–Fragile Groups, UNU-WIDER, Helsinki. Cannon, T., Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Schipper, E.L.F., 2014a. The links between culture and risk, in: Cannon, T., Schipper, E.L.F., Bankoff, G., Krüger, F. (Eds.), World Disasters Report 2014 - Focus on Culture and Risk. IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 10–35. Cannon, T., Titz, A., Krüger, F., 2014b. The myth of community?, in: Cannon, T., Schipper, E.L.F., Bankoff, G., Krüger, F. (Eds.), World Disasters Report 2014 - Focus on Culture and Risk. IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 92–119. CBS, 2012. National Population and Housing Census 2011. Chitrakar, R.M., Baker, D., Guaralda, M., 2014. Urban Growth in the Kathmandu Valley: The transformation of public space, in: Bravo, L. (Ed.), School of Civil Engineering & Built Environment; School of Design; Creative Industries Faculty; Science & Engineering Faculty. Presented at the Past Present and Future of Public Space – International Conference on Art, Architecture and Urban Design, Bologna, Italy. Cornwall, A., Coelho, V.S., 2006. Spaces for Change?: The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas. Zed Books, London; New York. Cornwall, A., Pratt, G., 2010. The use and abuse of participatory rural appraisal: reflections from practice. Agric. Hum. Values 28, 263–272. doi:10.1007/s10460-010-9262-1 Dangol, N., 2010. Sana Guthi and the Newars: Impacts of Modernization on Traditional Social Organizations. University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.

105 Bibliography Davidson, C.H., Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G., Dikmen, N., Sliwinski, A., 2007. Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int. 31, 100–115. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.08.003 de Beer, F., 2012. Community-based natural resource management: living with Alice in Wonderland? Community Dev. J. bss058. doi:10.1093/cdj/bss058 Etzioni, A., 1996. Positive Aspects of Community and the Dangers of Fragmentation. Dev. Change 27, 301–314. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1996.tb00591.x Freeman, P.K., 2004. Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing. Build. Res. Inf. 32, 427–437. doi:10.1080/0961321042000221016 Gaventa, J., 2006. Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis. IDS Bull. 37, 23–33. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x Gingrich, C., 2004. Community-Based Savings and Credit Cooperatives in Nepal: A Sustainable Means for Microfinance Delivery? J. Microfinance ESR Rev. 6. GoN, 1962. The Constitution of Nepal, 2019 (1962). Gurung, P., 2000. Bungamati: The life world of a Newar Community explored through the natural and social life of water. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Gutschow, N., Kreutzmann, H., 2002. Urbanization requires Brick Production: A case study from the Kathmandu Valley. Erdkunde 56, 15–36. doi:10.3112/erdkunde.2002.01.02 Hachhethu, K., 2003. The Question of Inclusion and Exclusion in Nepal: Interface between State and Ethnicity. Presented at the The Agenda of Transformation: Inclusion in Nepali Democracy, Kathmandu. High, C., Nemes, G., 2007. Social Learning in LEADER: Exogenous, Endogenous and Hybrid Evaluation in Rural Development. Sociol. Rural. 47, 103–119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00430.x Hudon, M., Seibel, H.D., 2007. Microfinance in Post-Disaster and Post-Conflict Situations: Turning Victims into Shareholders. Sav. Dev. 31, 5–22. Hutt, M., 1995. Nepal. A Guide to the Art and Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley. Shambhala, Boston, Boston. ICIMOD, MoEST, UNEP, 2007. Kathmandu Valley Environment Outlook. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Korn, W., 1976. The Traditional Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley, Bibliotheca Himalayica. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu. Kyamusugulwa, P.M., 2013. Participatory Development and Reconstruction: a literature review. Third World Q. 34, 1265–1278. doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.824653 Laursen, M.R., 2015. CBDRM in Nepal: a matter of risk perceptions. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 6, 73–85. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2014-0052 Lyons, M., 2009. Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction. World Dev. 37, 385–398. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.006 Maclean, J., 1995. The Ethics and Language of Restoration. SSCR J. 6, 11–15. Maharjan, M., 2012. Conflict in World Heritage Sites of Kathmandu Valley: A Case Study on the Conservation of Private Houses in Three Durbar Squares. Nepal Tour. Dev. Rev. 2, 87–104. Margarian, A., 2011. Endogenous Rural Development: Empowerement or Abandonment? Presented at the 4th International Summer Conference in Regional Science, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Dresden, Germany. Millar, D., 2014. Endogenous development: some issues of concern. Dev. Pract. 24, 637–347. doi:10 .1080/09614524.2014.938615 Müller-Böker, U., 1988. Spatial Organization of a Caste Society: The Example of the Newar in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 8, 23–31. doi:10.2307/3673403

Bibliography 106 Murdoch, J., 2000. Networks - a new paradigm of rural development? J. Rural Stud. 16, 407–419. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00022-X Muzzini, E., Aparicio, G., 2013. Urban Growth and Spatial Transition in Nepal: An Initial Assessment. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C. Petal, M., Green, R., Kelman, I., Shaw, R., Dixit, A., 2008. Community-based construction for disaster risk reduction, in: Bosher, L. (Ed.), Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience. Routledge, London; New York, pp. 191–217. Poudel, N., Mamoru, I., 2015. Development of Modern Co-operative in Nepal Historical Perspective of Co-operative Development. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 4, 160–175. Pradhan, M.S., 2012. Who Participates? The “Penalty” of Caste and Ethnicity on Participation in Local Level Collective Action Programs. Contrib. Nepal. Stud. 39, 99–136. Pradhan, R., 2011. Ethnicity, Caste and a Pluralist Society, in: Visweswaran, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 100–112. Pratt, G., 2001. Practitioners’ Critical Reflections on PRA and Participation in Nepal, IDS Working Papers. IDS, Brighton, UK. Rankin, K.N., Shakya, Y.B., 2007. Neoliberalizing the Grassroots? Microfinance and the Politics of Development in Nepal, in: England, K., Ward, K. (Eds.), Neoliberalization. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 48–76. Ray, C., 1999. Towards a Meta-Framework of Endogenous Development: Repertoires, Paths, Democracy and Rights. Sociol. Rural. 39, 522–537. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00122 Schilderman, T., 2004. Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction: experiences with community-based approaches. Build. Res. Inf. 32, 414–426. doi:10.1080/0961321042000250979 Shrestha, B.G., 2012. The Significance of Newar Culture and Society, in: The Sacred Town of Sankhu: The Anthropology of Newar Ritual, Religion and Society in Nepal. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 21–41. Shrestha, B.G., 1999. The Newars: The Indigenous Population of the Kathmandu Valley in the Modern State of Nepal. Contrib. Nepal. Stud. 26, 83–117. Shrestha, D., 2015. Khokana: What happens when homemakers live under tents? ActionAid Nepal. Shucksmith, M., 2010. Disintegrated Rural Development? Neo-endogenous Rural Development, Planning and Place-Shaping in Diffused Power Contexts. Sociol. Rural. 50, 1–14. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9523.2009.00497.x Shucksmith, M., 2000. Endogenous Development, Social Capital and Social Inclusion: perspectives from leader in the UK. Sociol. Rural. 40, 208–218. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00143 Skerratt, S., 2013. Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: Evidence from community land ownership. J. Rural Stud. 31, 36–46. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003 Subedi, M., 2011. Caste System: Theories and Practices in Nepal. Himal. J. Sociol. Anthropol. 4, 134–159. doi:10.3126/hjsa.v4i0.4672 Tariq, F., 2012. Facilitating community development with housing microfinance: appraising housing solutions for Pakistan after disasters, in: Brebbia, C.A., Zubir, S.S. (Eds.), Management of Natural Resources, Sustainable Development and Ecological Hazards III. WIT Press, Southampton, UK, pp. 645–655. Thapa, R.B., Murayama, Y., Ale, S., 2008. Kathmandu. Cities 25, 45–57. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2007.10.001 Toffin, G., 2005. From Kin to Caste: The Role of Guthis in Newar Society and Culture. Social Science Baha, Lalitpur, Nepal. Toffin, G., 1982. La Notion de ville dans une société asiatique traditionnelle: l’exemple des Néwar de la vallée de Kathmandou. L’Homme 22, 101–111.

107 Bibliography Turner, J.F.C., 1972. Housing as a Verb, in: Turner, J.F.C., Fichter, R. (Eds.), Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process. Macmillan, New York, pp. 148–175. Twigg, J., 2004. Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency programming. Overseas Development Institute, London. Vanclay, F., 2011. Endogenous rural development from a sociological perspective, in: Stimson, R., Stough, R.R., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Endogenous Regional Development: Perspectives, Measurement and Empirical Investigation. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, pp. 59–71. Vermeire, B., Gellynck, X., De Steur, H., Viaene, J., 2008. Networks in Rural Economy: Valorising Endogenous and Exogenous Drivers of Innovation (110th Seminar No. 49846). European Association of Agricultural Economists, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria. von Fürer-Haimendorf, C., 1956. Elements of Newar Social Structure. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. 86, 15–38. doi:10.2307/2843991

Bibliography 108

ON SPACE Bhattarai, T., 2014. Nepalese Village Preserves Mustard Oil Tradition Despite Financial Loss. Glob. Press J. Online. Bjønness, H.C., Subba, M., 2008. Urban Sprawl. A Necessary Evil? Towards a framework for research on urban containment for Kathmandu Valley, Nepal., in: Urban Growth without Sprawl. Presented at the 44th ISOCARP Congress, Dalian, China. Blair, K.D., 1983. 4 Villages: Architecture in Nepal. Craft & Folk Art Museum. Chitrakar, R.M., Baker, D., Guaralda, M., 2014. Urban Growth in the Kathmandu Valley: The transformation of public space, in: Bravo, L. (Ed.), School of Civil Engineering & Built Environment; School of Design; Creative Industries Faculty; Science & Engineering Faculty. Presented at the Past Present and Future of Public Space – International Conference on Art, Architecture and Urban Design, Bologna, Italy. Chitrakar, R.M., Baker, D.C., Guaralda, M., 2016. Urban growth and development of contemporary neighbourhood public space in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Habitat Int. 53, 30–38. doi:10.1016/j. habitatint.2015.11.006 Cornwall, A., 2002. Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development, IDS Working Papers. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Cornwall, A., Coelho, V.S., 2006. Spaces for Change?: The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas. Zed Books, London; New York. D’Ayala, D., 2003. A summary of the report Seismic vulnerability of historic buildings in Lalitpur, Nepal. Earthq. Hazard Cent. Newsl. 7. Fitzpatrick, D., 2005. “Best Practice” Options for the Legal Recognition of Customary Tenure. Dev. Change 36, 449–475. doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00419.x Fraser, N., 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Soc. Text 56–80. doi:10.2307/466240 Gaventa, J., 2006. Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis. IDS Bull. 37, 23–33. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x Habermas, J., 1974. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). New Ger. Crit. 49–55. doi:10.2307/487737 Harvey, D., 2011. The Future of the Commons. Radic. Hist. Rev. 2011, 101–107. doi:10.1215/016365452010-017 Hoffman, M., 2013. Why community ownership? Understanding land reform in Scotland. Land Use Policy, Themed Issue 1-Guest Editor Romy GreinerThemed Issue 2- Guest Editor Davide Viaggi 31, 289–297. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.07.013 Hutt, M., 1995. Nepal. A Guide to the Art and Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley. Shambhala, Boston, Boston. Korn, W., 1976. The Traditional Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley, Bibliotheca Himalayica. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu. KRRC, 2016. A Proposal for Khokana Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. Lefebvre, H., 1974. La production de l’espace. Éditions Anthropos, Paris. Levy, R.I., 1990. Mesocosm: Hinduism and the organization of a traditional Newar city in Nepal. University of California Press, Berkeley. Mansbridge, J., 2000. What Does a Representative Do? Descriptive Representation in Communicative Settings of Distrust, Uncrystallized Interests, and Historically Denigrated Status, in: Kymlicka, W., Norman, W. (Eds.), Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press, pp. 99–123. Maskrey, A., 2011. Revisiting community-based disaster risk management. Environ. Hazards 10,

109 Bibliography 42–52. doi:10.3763/ehaz.2011.0005 Müller-Böker, U., 1988. Spatial Organization of a Caste Society: The Example of the Newar in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 8, 23–31. doi:10.2307/3673403 Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., Policansky, D., 1999. Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science 284, 278–282. doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278 Reale, A., Handmer, J., 2011. Land tenure, disasters and vulnerability. Disasters 35, 160–182. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01198.x Shrestha, B.G., 2012. The Significance of Newar Culture and Society, in: The Sacred Town of Sankhu: The Anthropology of Newar Ritual, Religion and Society in Nepal. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 21–41. Shrestha, B.K., 2013. Implementing the proposed outer ring road in Kathmandu Valley. J. Manag. Dev. Stud. 25, 23–38. Shucksmith, M., 2010. Disintegrated Rural Development? Neo-endogenous Rural Development, Planning and Place-Shaping in Diffused Power Contexts. Sociol. Rural. 50, 1–14. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9523.2009.00497.x Skerratt, S., 2013. Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: Evidence from community land ownership. J. Rural Stud. 31, 36–46. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003 von Fürer-Haimendorf, C., 1956. Elements of Newar Social Structure. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. G. B. Irel. 86, 15–38. doi:10.2307/2843991

Bibliography 110