Wossen Gebreyohannes Balcha. Investigating rural transformation in Ethiopia by MaHS-MaULP

Investigating rural transformation in Ethiopia: The case of NESTown settlement model By : Wossen Gebreyohannes Balcha

Thesis submitted for the award of the degree of Master (of Science) of Human Settlements (MaHS) Faculty of Engineering Science Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning

Promoter: Prof. Pieter Van den Broeck Co-Promoter: Alessandra Manganelli

Academic year – 2017-2018

© Copyright KU Leuven Without written permission of the thesis supervisor and the authors it is forbidden to reproduce or adapt in any form or by any means any part of this publication. Requests for obtaining the right to reproduce or utilize parts of this publication should be addressed to Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 bus 2200, B-3001 Heverlee, +32-16-321350. A written permission of the thesis supervisor is also required to use the methods, products, schematics and programs described in this work for industrial or commercial use, and for submitting this publication in scientific contests. Zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van zowel de promotor als de auteurs is overnemen, kopiëren, gebruiken of realiseren van deze uitgave of gedeelten ervan verboden. Voor aanvragen tot of informatie i.v.m. het overnemen en/of gebruik en/of realisatie van gedeelten uit deze publicatie, wend u tot Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 bus 2200, B-3001 Heverlee, +32-16-321350. Voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de promotor is eveneens vereist voor het aanwenden van de in deze masterproef beschreven (originele) methoden, producten, schakelingen en programma’s voor industrieel of commercieel nut en voor de inzending van deze publicatie ter deelname aan wetenschappelijke prijzen of wedstrijden.

Preface

Evidences at a global scale are pointing towards inevitable urbanization. For a country like Ethiopia, with 84% of rural population, urbanization presents an enormous pressure. I have made it my mission to research and understand the historical processes of urbanization in different contexts and to assist the production of knowledge on the matter. This thesis is about rural transformation in Ethiopia and consists of a critical discussion of the implementation of a model which is proposed as an innovation towards indigenous urbanization (NESTown model of transformation). It’s an approach of restructuring rural livelihood to catalyze rural to urban transformation. The potentials and limitations of the proposal were investigated regarding the historical and cultural context, within the frame of social innovation theory. I am very grateful for VLIR scholarship sponsoring me to study this master’s program. The program, especially the valuable time I had with my promoters, professor Pieter Van den Broeck and Alessandra Manganelli has been an eye opener in so many aspects. They have kindly sacrificed their precious time for me to gain valuable insights, inspiration and motivation. I am also thankful for all special people who were by my side in the process of developing this paper.

“It takes an endless amount of history to make even a little tradition” Henry James

III

Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. VII List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ VIII List of figures .......................................................................................................................................... IX 1

Chapter I –Introduction and research methodology .............................................................................. 1 1.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Rationale for the Research ............................................................................................................ 1

1.3

Research problem.......................................................................................................................... 3

1.4

Mixed research strategies .............................................................................................................. 4

Case study method ................................................................................................................................ 4 Theory based analysis ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.5

Research approaches ..................................................................................................................... 6

1.6

Methods of data collection ............................................................................................................ 8

Chapter II – Literature study on dwelling culture and theories of social transformation ..................... 9 2.1

Part I Glimpse of rurality and dwelling culture in northern Ethiopia ........................................... 9

Historical and contextual framing of rural livelihood ........................................................................... 9 Ethiopian rurality in history .................................................................................................................. 9 Ancient Ethiopia and rurality .......................................................................................................... 11 The Feudal order ............................................................................................................................. 13 After the land reform 1975.............................................................................................................. 15 Current rurality and rural livelihood ................................................................................................... 16 Households...................................................................................................................................... 16 Community ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Hierarchy......................................................................................................................................... 19 Community governance .................................................................................................................. 20 Agriculture dwelling socio- cultural process .................................................................................. 21 2.2

Part II Recent theories and practices in Socio-spatial transformation ........................................ 23

Current Socio-spatial approaches and theories towards innovation and Social transformation ......... 23 Social innovation ............................................................................................................................ 24 Theories in social innovation ...................................................................................................... 25 Community-based development ..................................................................................................... 28 Culture......................................................................................................................................... 29 Networking ................................................................................................................................. 29 Learning ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Community governance .............................................................................................................. 30 Local Exchange Trade ................................................................................................................ 30

2.3

Summery and scheme of theoretical framework ......................................................................... 31

Chapter III- Case of NESTown model - ‘BuraNEST’ prototype ........................................................ 33

3.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 33

3.2

Inception and context of the prototype implementation ............................................................. 33

3.3

Design analysis of the prototype ................................................................................................. 40

Concept and approach ......................................................................................................................... 40 The four nuclei approach ................................................................................................................ 40 The cooperative approach ............................................................................................................... 43 Strategies of NESTown model ............................................................................................................ 45

3.4

Autonomy – Self governance .................................................................................................. 45

Self-sufficiency - Urban quality .............................................................................................. 45

Metabolism - Urban activities ................................................................................................. 46

Renewable resource - Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 46

Exchange - Network................................................................................................................ 46

Education - Urban laboratory .................................................................................................. 47

Open institutions and gardens – Identity................................................................................. 47 Implementation of prototype and challenges .............................................................................. 48

Steps in implementation and construction ...................................................................................... 48 Foundation of legally required cooperative and transfer of land rights ...................................... 48 Agricultural cultivation and training ........................................................................................... 50 Building houses for water harvesting.......................................................................................... 51 Financial Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 53 4

Chapter IV -Theoretical discussion of NESTown innovation ............................................................ 55 4.1

NESTown prototype as a socially innovative community-based development .......................... 55

Autonomous community ..................................................................................................................... 58 Self-sufficiency and metabolism ......................................................................................................... 59 Exchange ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Education - Urban laboratory .............................................................................................................. 62 Open institutions and gardens – Identity............................................................................................. 63 4.2

Structuration in NESTown: Agents and institutions ................................................................... 64

Kinship for settlement ......................................................................................................................... 65 Formalizing the informal cooperative and savings ............................................................................. 66 Positioning of hierarchical attributes: Elders and the church .............................................................. 68 Informal social security and freedom of occupation ........................................................................... 69 5

Chapter V- Conclusion and recommendation ..................................................................................... 71

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 75

Abstract The term rural represents most of Ethiopia. In a mild generalization of the current situation, rural livelihoods represent the majority of the population. This large part of Ethiopia still upholds historical and cultural assets as the societal identity. Moreover, a large share of the national economy and potential is still based in the rural. In the past decades, the nation is however taking up the influences of globalization. As a reflection of the global trend of urbanization, the small percentage of urbanized areas in Ethiopia is getting saturated by rural to urban migrants. The deprivation in the rural has increased to the point of driving the young generations out, to look for a better quality of life. Therefore, the need for reinventing or transforming the rural is becoming a critical step. This raises questions of how to reform the rural towards urbanization. This study focuses on a particular rural settlement transformation model, called NESTown. The model employs technological and social strategies to direct self-sufficient rural to urban transformation. The first prototype of the model is currently under implementation in an area called Bura, Amhara region and the model is planned to be replicated throughout the Amhara region as a rural settlement typology. This study investigates how the NESTown model catalyzes rural to urban transformation while focusing on social change. The social innovation framework is used to explore and investigate the transformation process. This thesis is a theoretical discussion as much as it is empirical investigation of the case, because of the idea of upscaling the model as a settlement typology in Amhara region and the limited physical implementation of the prototype. Theories of social innovation and community-based development are used to frame and identify potentials as well as limitations of the model in its future development. Thus, the intention of this study is to foresee the possible limitations and opportunities of the model before it is implemented on a regional scale. It is also a way to identify the social pillars and attributes of the rural context with opportunities for transformation.

Key words Rural settlement, Urbanization, NESTown model, Dwelling culture, social innovation, Institutions, Agency

VII

List of abbreviations ·

AAU

Addis Ababa University

ABZ

Allgemeine Baugenossenschaft Zurich

ADA

Amhara Development Association

ANRS

Amhara National Regional State

ARNS

Steering Committee Head BORLAU

ASID

Agency, Structure, Institution and Discourse

BDU

Bahir Dar University

BIUD

Bureau of Industrial + Urban Development

BuraNEST

Bura New Ethiopian Sustainable Town

CPA

Cooperative Promotion Agency

EiABC

Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building Construction and City Development

ETH

Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)

ITA

Integrated Town Agriculture

NESTown

New Ethiopian Sustainable Town

ORDA

Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara

RWU

Rain Water Unit

Energy, Ecology, Education and Exchange

VIII

List of figures FIGURE 1-1 RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 1-2 RESEARCH APPROACH. SELF PROCESSED ........................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 1-3 CYCLIC RESEARCHING ................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2-1 MAP OF NORTH ETHIOPIA WITH LOCATIONS OF YEHA ARCHIOLOGICAL SITES (FATTOVICH, 2009) .......................... 10 FIGURE 2-2 NORTH ETHIOPIA, ABYSIANIAN PLATEAU WITH AXUMITE SITES (BUTZER, 1981) ................................................ 12 FIGURE 2-3 AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN ETHIOPIA (A. GETAHUN, 1978) .......................................................................... 13 FIGURE 2-4 SEASONAL MIGRATION FROM AMHARA WOREDAS, SURVEYED FOR RESEARCH BY (ASFAW, TOLOSSA, & ZELEKE, 2010) .................................................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 2-5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SOCIAL INNOVATION (CAJAIBA-SANTANA, 2014)................................................ 27 FIGURE 2-6 SCHEME OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK INFORMED FROM (MOULAERT, JESSOP, & MEHMOOD, 2016), (CAJAIBASANTANA, 2014) AND (MOULAERT & NUSSBAUMER, 2016) ................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 3-1 FORMAL ADMINISTRATION HIERARCHY IN ETHIOPIA....................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 3-2 LOCATION AND SITE LAYOUT (OSWALD, FASIL, & BENJAMIN, 2016) ................................................................ 35 FIGURE 3-3 GRAPHICS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF NESTOWN (DATA SOURCE (BENJAMIN, 2010)) ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 3-4 EXISTING LANDSCAPE OF RIVERS, ACCESS ROADS, SETTLEMENTS DEFINED BY TREE LINES. SELF PROCESSED BASED ON GOOGLE EARTH MAP. ....................................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 3-5 TRADITIONAL PRACTICES OF FARMING AND COOKING (BENJAMIN, 2010) ......................................................... 37 FIGURE 3-6 IMPROVISED CLOTH WASHING AND SCHEMATIC PLAN OF A TRADITIONAL HUT (BENJAMIN, 2010).......................... 38 FIGURE 3-7 ' CORCOROO' HOUSE AND ITS FLOOR LAYOUT (BENJAMIN, 2010) .................................................................... 38 FIGURE 3-8 THE 4E NEUCLUS (OSWALD, BENJAMIN, & FASIL, 2016) .............................................................................. 40 FIGURE 3-9 CONCEPTUAL PLAN (FRANZ OSWALD ET AL., 2017) ...................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 3-10 BEFORE BURANEST CONDITIONS OF BURA AREA (ZEGEYE & SASCHA, 2013) .................................................. 42 FIGURE 3-11 MAP OF THE PLANNED FUTURE OF BURANEST (ZEGEYE & SASCHA, 2013) ..................................................... 43 FIGURE 3-12 COMMUNAL MEETING UNDER A TREE (FRANZ OSWALD ET AL., 2017)............................................................ 48 FIGURE 3-13 TIMELINE BASED ON DATA FROM (BENJAMIN, 2010), SELF PROCESSED .......................................................... 49 FIGURE 3-14 PICTURE OF PLANT NURSERY (“የአማራ ሞዳሌ የገጠር ከተማ ቡራ ኔስት ሊቦራቶሪ,” 2016)............................ 50 FIGURE 3-15 PICTURE OF TRIENES (BEZUAYHU & DANIEL, 2015) .................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 3-16 RWU STRUCTURE AND PLAN (FRANZ OSWALD ET AL., 2017), ...................................................................... 52 FIGURE 3-17 ADOBE BRICKS AND CONSTRUCTION OF WATER RESERVOIRS (BEZUAYHU & DANIEL, 2015) ................................ 52 FIGURE 4-1 CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF CONTEXT AND SOCIAL SYSTEM. SELF PROCESSED ................................................ 55 FIGURE 4-2 INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND SPECIFIC ROLES BY AGE AND GENDER. SELF PROCESSED ..................... 56 FIGURE 4-3 AUTONOMY THROUGH SUBSIDARITY AND PARTICIPATION. SELF PROCESSED ....................................................... 58 FIGURE 4-4 SELF-SUFFICIENCY BY INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS. SELF PROCESSED .................................................................... 60 FIGURE 4-5 METABOLIC ACTIVITIES STARTING FROM ITA+ RWU FOR DIVERSITY DENSIFICATION AND EXPANSION. SELF PROCESSED .................................................................................................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 4-6 ALTERNATIVE EXCHANGE MOADS OF POSSIBLE COSTS. SELF PROCESSED............................................................. 61 FIGURE 4-7 CONVERSION OF LOCAL RESOURCES TO SUPPLY SYSTEM BY EXTERNAL RESOURCES OF TRAINING. SELF PROCESSED ..... 62 FIGURE 4-8SCHEME OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK INFORMED BY CASE STUDY ANALYSIS. SELF PROCESSED .............................. 64 FIGURE 4-9. HOUSEHOLD PROXIMITY. SELF PROCCED..................................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 4-10 INFORMAL COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS. SELF PROCESSED ............................................................................. 66 FIGURE 4-11 SOCIAL HIERARCHY. SELF PROCESSED ........................................................................................................ 68 FIGURE 4-12 GENERAL PROCEDURES TAKEN TOWARDS BURANEST. SELF PROCESSED.......................................................... 70

1 Chapter I –Introduction and research methodology 1.1 Introduction This study is focused on the case of Nestown model which is also referred to as the Amhara model town (Oswald, Fasil, Benjamin, Zegeye, & Peter, 2014) which is developed to be replicated in with in the Amhara region. Therefore, the research started from identifying aspects of rural lively hood in Amhara region in the second chapter of the thesis. As a part two of this chapter a theoretical literature review is made to put together a frame work for analyzing an innovation for transformation and social change. The comprehensive theoretical frame work is summarized as an integration of the contextual livelihood aspects in part one with the theoretical inputs from part two. The combined theoretical framework is used in the analysis chapters of the thesis. The third chapter is about understanding the case and identifying the innovation in the proposal. The proposal is elaborated both as a model and a prototype in the third chapter. Specific background of site before intervention of the model was included; followed by the conceptual and strategic approaches of the model leading to the implementation steps of the prototype. The forth chapter is the analysis chapter where by the theoretical framework is applied on the identified case strategies and innovations. Nestown innovations are discussed with theories of social innovation and community-based development, followed by analysis of agency institution dynamics with correlation of contextual issues with innovative strategies of the model. Conflicting situations and potential opportunities are discussed. The conclusion is made based on this chapter’s synthesis.

1.2 Rationale for the Research As much as the rural Ethiopia is the domain of identity and national pride (Hurni, 2007), it is also challenged by extensive poverty and deprivation and other than problems related to the lack of infrastructure, inaccessible services, issues of land ownership and land degradation (Hailemariam & Adugna, 2011). These problems are increasing drastically in recent years due to the fastgrowing population. The rural population in 1900 was around 12 million but grew multiple folds by the year 2007 to about 77 million (Hurni, 2007). The combination of this problems pressures the rural population to migrate. Especially the youth is fleeing the rural context for education and job opportunities in urban areas. Generally, the dire quality of life in rural areas is forcing migration and displacement for a better quality of life (Atsede, 2016). However, urban areas only account for 16% of population at present time but the rate of urbanization is very high with 4.1%. (Alaci, 2010). The urban growth rate is recorded to be even higher ( 8-9%) based on rural-urban transformation paper by (Dorosh, Schmidt, & others, 2010). 1

This rate rapid rate of urbanization in one of the least urbanized country (Dorosh et al., 2010) calls for very rapid social change. Urbanization process calls for massive social change according to McGEE, (1971). McGEE refers to Reissman’s words on urbanization as “… Appartntly the process is irreverable once began. The imputes of urbanization upon society is such that society gives way to urban institution, urban values and urban demands” (McGEE, 1971,p18). Therefore, Ethiopian values and beliefs preserved in the social identity of the rural is under threat with the rate of urbanization. Urbanization in Ethiopia has been historically limited for three basic reasons according to Solomon Getahun, (2012): The first is the scattered population distribution. Naturally, Ethiopian rural settlements happen with a sporadic manner to maintain landscape and social advantages. This kind of settlement pattern features a very sparse population with less dynamics and interaction to develop in to an urbanized area. Secondly, the low level of technology (S. A. Getahun, 2012). Indeed, technology is not one of the merits of Ethiopia at the current state. Moreover, the country has closed itself for the past century which has limited the extent of exposure. Thirdly, the author mentions the indigenous social organization which did not require urbanization (S. A. Getahun, 2012). Ethiopian society is organized in groups and social institutions at different levels for different purposes. The rural society has already fulfilled certain social merits of urbanization through its institutions. Nonetheless, with the recent globalization trend and the worldwide urbanization process; the challenge of poverty and unmet needs calls for all rounded development. Recently there is a global shift from understanding industrialization as an associated reality of economic development; to framing development process as a population dynamics (Storper & Scott, 2009). In both scenarios of economic development, the need to urbanize is inevitable. This demands introducing indigenous urbanization approaches and models. Although the path towards indigenous urbanization requires deep contextual restructuration, standard master planning and comprehensive planning of urban areas seem to have prevailed in the growing urban centers of Ethiopia. Hence, multi-dimensional challenges of urban areas have limited the benefits of urbanization for Ethiopia. On the other hand, the possibility of planning indigenous urban development has not been in the spotlight despite several peculiarity of settlements and social structure in Ethiopia. NESTown model claims to deliver means of rural to urban transformation through an innovative settlement approach. It puts forward innovative approaches and strategies to catalyze socio- spatial transformation of rural to urban livelihood (Oswald et al., 2014). The model is intended to be an empowering agent of change for the rural communities. It aims to achieve a self-sufficient township with basic services, capable of growing and transforming while being run by the community. The model is currently under implementation in Amhara region, in a rural area called Bura. However, the model is facing challenges and constraints from the context especially from the from inhabitants skeptical view and suspicion. (“FEATURE-Does a struggling Ethiopian model town offer lessons for...,” 2017). Therefor it is very important to investigate how the model is contextualized and how it can catalyze rural-urban transformation through social change. 2

1.3 Research problem Historically, rurality and agriculture-based dwelling culture have basically been the mode of livelihood in Ethiopia. Currently, 84% of the Ethiopian population still dwells in rural contexts, basically surviving form subsistence agriculture (Alaci, 2010). The social structure of the rural domain is the result from centuries of practice lack of services and infrastructure through urbanization models requires also social transformation. Particularly the NESTown model strives for fundamental transformation of rural livelihood towards urbanized livelihood. The model intends to catalyze social transformation towards enhanced self-sufficiency, autonomy and empowerment of rural communities. Understanding how these changes could be possible and if they are achievable by the NESTown model is the essential research problem of this study. “... solutions to production and social order inevitably fail when they exclude the fund of valuable knowledge embodied in local practices” (Scott, 1998). The research lenses are focused on the theoretical and practical bases of the NESTown model to understand the contextual socio-spatial changes and impacts on the context. It intends to explore the social domain of the context and understand the strategic interaction of the NESTown model with the social domain to trigger socio-spatial transformation towards indigenous urbanization. Basically, the research problem is situated in three basic domains of exploration: The first one consists of exploring the contextual socio-spatial practices and culture with an historical background in order to identify a framework for dwelling culture of the context. The second one is about extracting and understanding the transformation inducing innovative aspects of the NESTown model. This will articulate the innovative new ideas and strategies with regards to the context. The third domain is investigating the dynamism and transformation through time. Since the model implantation stands in its initial phase, a robust theoretical basis is needed to foresee possibilities and challenges of socio- spatial transformation. Hence, the resulting research question: • Do settlement innovations in the NESTown prototype reinforce indigenous dwelling culture from ‘rural to urban’ transformation?

Figure 1-1 Research question

The specific objectives of this research question are: -

To frame and profile socio-spatial practices of dwelling culture in northern Ethiopia (Amhara region). To develop a framework of analyzing the innovative socio-spatial transformation of a community through theoretical setup. To identify and investigate the innovative approaches and strategies of NESTown model and its prototype implementation. To develop an investigative discussion on the rural to urban transformative capacity of NESTown model through the theoretical framework.

Methodology 1.4 Mixed research strategies Based on the research problem and specific objective the research deals with a critical investigation of a case with innovative approaches towards settlement transformation. The case is a planning model in its implementation phase. More steps will be taken in the future to complete the full implementation of the model. Therefore, the study is fundamentally based on exploring the model and context and what the possible interaction could happen when the model is complete and running by itself. However, through the process of inception and implementation, starting in 2008, the context also needs empirical investigation to asses demonstrated aspects of the model. Accordingly, the study needed to have two wings of investigation; one is the empirical investigation of data and information on the partial implementation of the model and the other is theoretical exploration and analysis of the innovative strategies and approaches of the NESTown model. This mixed approach will be instrumental in understanding the possible scenarios of the model in the future. Moreover, theory is a fundamental tool in this mixed methodology in understanding the process of change in socio-spatial organization and practice by innovative approach. Besides, based on the objective of developing a framework for analyzing the innovative socio-spatial transformation, a theoretical fact-finding mechanism had to be structured to piece together information from context and foresee transformation. Relating theoretical investigation to practical empirical information from the case was consistently improving the theoretical framework (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012). Predominantly qualitative methods are used to explore the case and, based on secondary materials, quantitative methods are also used in some cases. Through this combination, a parallel view of theoretical and case-based analysis was made.

Case study method According to Zainal (2007), reference of Yin (1984), a case study is a contextual investigation of reality in a defined frame of space, time and relationships.The method is used to investigate and extract relevant information from the case study by using descriptive and explanatory case study approaches together. The descriptive approach will be useful to describe data and phenomena of 4

the case, while the explanatory approach is essential to understand the reasoning behind certain realities and occurrence (Zainal, 2007)This will help to discover and question the attributes of the case, while making links to the parallel theoretical method of researching. The advantage of the case study methodology is to be dealing with the micro level (Chetty, 2013) and will frame a more focused scope of study. It is also articulated, that a single case study approach might not be enough to make generalizations based on the results. The major challenge in this methodology is creating the link with the theoretical domain of the knowledge base (“Research methodologies,” 2018). However, when it is combined with other more inclusive methods, it is possible to assert validity (Zainal, 2007). This approach is also referred to as triangulation by combining different methods to include multiple perspectives and scales of reality for increasing credibility (Creswell, 2003) in (Chetty, 2013). The cases study was conducted parallel to the theoretical analysis, which were complementary in the explanatory process of case study as well as the theoretical analysis. In this mixed method study, other categories of the case study approach are also employed in categorizing and interpreting information. McDonough & McDonough (1997), put forward an interpretive case study, whereby categorization and conceptualization of information and data is done. Furthermore, the authors elaborate an evaluative case study mixing or applying the judgments of the investigator. A case study approach is suitable for this study is suitable as it allows multiple sources of information and data gathering and as it helps explain the complexities of the phenomena McDonough, (1997).Thereby, a case study may include data gathering methods of documentation review, interviews and discussions, secondary documentation and archival investigation according to (Yin, 1994) The study on the case of the NESTown prototype began from the inception parallel to the literature review of rural settlement planning; social process and mechanism of realization parallel to dwelling culture. Furthermore, envisioned mechanisms of transformation in the future parallel to social innovation and transformation literature study. Therefore, a cyclic exploration is employed in the process of researching.

Theory based analysis The research question is founded on three basic pillars: Innovation, dwelling culture and rural to urban transformation. This approach is built on specific literatures dealing with innovation and dwelling culture. Key findings from the literature review are applied to develop a theoretical framework in order to analyze the case of the NESTown model. Multiple layers of reality constitute the observable evident reality and the hidden masked structure can be better understood and explored using theoretical and historical investigation (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012). Theories are to be researched; and according to (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) theories are interpretations of previous researchers instead of a discovery of a hidden reality. Therefore, an interpretive approach of theories is instrumental in conceptualizing and understanding relationship with reality.

The knowledge body on dwelling culture was very helpful in critically organizing the information on the case of NESTown. Hence, it was relevant for the development of the different theoretical inputs in real life domain , moreover dwelling culture is fundamentally human behavior which cannot be well discussed only with theoretical terms (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). However, Flyvbjerg, (2006) establishes the first of the five misunderstandings in case study research as “General, theoretical (context-independent) Figure 1-2 Research approach. Self processed knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge” (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Therefore, parallel to the method of theory-based analysis, qualitative analysis of documentations from the case study is performed (see Figure 1-2). Because, the study requires conceptual understanding and thematization issues in order to be interpreted based on theoretical realm (Biggam, 2010). In the operation of these research approaches literature reviewing, cyclic researching and synthetic diagraming were employed as investigative approaches in throughout the study.

1.5 Research approaches Literature review The study was immensely dependent on a knowledge base that had to be extracted from different literature. This was required to develop a profile and frame of local dwelling culture in northern Ethiopia. Historical and anthropological material was part of the review to understand different socio-spatial practices. An important reference of Bevan and Pankhurst (2007), was identified which was relevant for the development and application of the theoretical framework. This paper, titled ‘Power Structures and Agency in Rural Ethiopia’, is a paper made for an empowerment team in the World Bank poverty reduction group. It was based on research done for developmental lessons from four community case studies. Moreover, the authors are known for researching the

rural context of Ethiopia. Especially Alula Pankhurst, who is a social development consultant and an associate professor in Addis Ababa university, is renowned in Ethiopian studies for decades. The literature review was also extensively employed in developing a framework of innovative intervention for socio-spatial transformation. A focused literature review was constructed based on social innovation theories. The review was directed towards structuring a framework of analysis for a social innovation intervention for the case of NESTown. Two basic conceptual models are referred from. -

Agency, structure, institutions, discourse (ASID) in urban and regional development by Moulaert, F., Jessop, B. and Mehmood, A. (2016).

Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework and Giovany CajaibaSantana (2014). - The social region beyond the territorial dynamics of the learning economy by Frank Moularet and Jacques Nussbaumer (2005). The first two references express two different views of social innovation, which will be used in a combined framework. The third source on the exploration of community-based development is used to develop an implicit understanding of community-based development regarding social innovation which was helpful for combining the social innovation theories with the frame developed from the local dwelling culture study.

Interactive cyclic researching (alternating between theoretical- and case analysis) The process of investigation has two rails, theoretical and the case based. In this cyclic process of investigating, different aspects of the study were followed. A specific strand of information is followed throughout to find out all possible information available. Moreover, it was an offsite investigation, so it was basically done out of secondary sources. Therefore, it was important to cross check and track information through different sources whenever possible. As shown in Figure 1-3, it helped to triangulate information and interpretations. It was also a systematic way of updating the research segments through the process. Figure 1-3 Cyclic researching

Schemes and diagraming Schemes of ideas, structures and relationships were made at different stages of the research. They clarified empirical information of the case as well as different interrelationships of different 7

concepts in the theoretical analysis. Schematizing proved to be useful in interpreting information from the case study. Especially in synthesizing information and analysis, they were used to maintain impartiality and reasonability.

1.6 Methods of data collection Since the NESTown model is still under implementation. The study predominately bases on the model itself and the historical progress of the implementation. Therefore, main sources of information were secondary data, publications, electronic discussion with stakeholders.

Secondary data analysis The basic source of information for the case analysis are secondary data materials. This material where documented by involved personalities during the inception and implementation of the model. Presentation slideshows where made for authorities and different stakeholders at different stages of the process. Gathering of this material was done by contacting and accessing the documentation.

Publications and articles from Nestown group References of brochures, articles and preparation material were referred to in the process of case investigation. The NESTown group has published a booklet of concepts and experiences (Oswald et al., 2014) which covers the progress of the project from inception to realization. And a number of other articles were made in the preparation and implantation phase of the prototype.

Interdisciplinary archival analysis A limitation of available material on rural livelihood of Ethiopia within planning and urbanism requires interdisciplinary exploration of material. Sociological, historical and geographical references where made to construct an informed framework of local livelihood. Moreover, these references were important in identifying social institutions and social organization in the context of the prototype.

Discussion with stakeholders Open discussions with important members of the NESTown group and the community coordinator counterpart were done. It was relevant to fill information gaps and clarify procedures of implantation of the proposal. The personalities were involved in the taskforces NESTown team working on the prototype in Bura kebele (Amhara region). More interactive discussions where targeted in the discussions to extract more information. Phone conversations were used as the basic tool of interaction in the process. Discussions were made at the initial and intermediate stage of the research.

2 Chapter II – Literature study on dwelling culture and theories of social transformation 2.1 Part I Glimpse of rurality and dwelling culture in northern Ethiopia Historical and contextual framing of rural livelihood Identity is becoming a valued asset in recent years and its attributes extend from social reasons to economic reasons. Given the current trend of globalization with all its potential advantages in terms of flows of people, ideas, capital and culture; the status of local identity is possibly threatened. Ethiopia is a place of unique identity and culture, Ethiopians have historically been able to maintain their values and norms. Therefore, formal interventions of urbanization and spatial planning face a huge challenge and bear the responsibility to strive for development while maintaining the identity of the dwellings (Selamawit & Fasil, 2011). However, recent rapid urbanization induced cities are far from grasping Ethiopian identity through their spatial organization, activity networks and sense of place. External cultural influences and economic capital-based development has left urbanized areas with diluted spice of local identity. Rural settlements and the countryside are places of preserved local identity (Hurni, 2007), due to isolation from infrastructural and information networks. The rural livelihood is a mix of, local identity and practices with primitive means of survival due to deprivation and underdevelopment. This puts identity and cultural heritage in great threat as it can be wiped out for development along with primitive practices. The rural condition in Ethiopia requires a comprehensive practical and theoretical understanding to build up an influential discussion. It is also essential to highlight the slow evolution and recent mutation of rural settlement to pre-conceptualize the pattern and trends that lead to the current conditions on the ground. This is the aim of this chapter, by first retracing the history of Ethiopian rural dwelling culture since the ancient times to the land reform of 1975, and secondly elaborating on the current socio-cultural aspects of the rural livelihood. The first section will briefly cover the historical settlement conditions, highlighting prominent ancient civilization; attempt an explanation of the feudal structure of settlements and lastly trace the settlement impacts of the land reform. The second section is a deeper exploration of rural dwelling culture literature, like studies by Bevan and Pankhurst (2007). This section will disclose basic aspects of rural community in the Ethiopian Amahra region, which is relevant for contextualising the further developings made in this paper.

Ethiopian rurality in history Despite today’s poverty and deprivation, Ethiopia is a nation with a long history of civilization. Furthermore, historically Ethiopia has exercised a pioneering role among African countries in many aspects of civilization and culture. The history of Ethiopian civilization can be split up in several historical eras. In the ancient times (800 – 400 BC) (Fattovich, 2009) the pioneering civilizations of the ‘Yeha’ kingdom expanded over the territory that corresponds to the current Ethiopia (Fattovich, 2009). Still nowadays, several ruins and archeological remains of the Yeha 9

civilization settlements ( shown in Figure 2-1) which where encroached on Ethiopian highlands, mark the level of societal advancement and dominance over the north Ethiopian territory (Fattovich, 1977).

Figure 2-1 Map of north Ethiopia with locations of yeha archiological sites (Fattovich, 2009)

Later, the most famous, ‘Axumite’ civilization, which was at its peak around 400-600 AD was one of the dominant powers influencing East Africa and the Middle East (Butzer, 1981) The way how settlements developed all along the history has been determined by the geographical landscape of the nation: Agricultural suitability, accessibility, trade routes and security (S. A. Getahun, 2012). The agrarian way of life has also been the most representative lifestyle, up to nowadays. Indeed, possessing land to cultivate and owning cattle is still the fundamental necessity for most of the population. However, the practice of agriculture and the quality of rural life has hardly been developed through the long history due to continuous war and instability between rival groups. This was further aggravated by the conditions of isolation that characterized Ethiopia through history. On the other side, due to the dominance and influence of the Christian orthodox religion since the fourth century AD, the Ethiopian dwelling culture has been deeply shaped by the habits and customs of Christianity (Butzer, 1981). Therefore, socio-spatial practices throughout the history have revolved around religion. When the Islamic religion was introduced to the nation, the 10

significance of the mosque replaced the churches in some parts of the current Ethiopia. The sociocultural and religious values still have a prominent character for Ethiopians. The church and the clergy are respected members of communities. Besides, they are active participants and conductors of social and communal activities. Especially in rural areas, traditions and cultural heritage values are still relatively intact, finding ways to cope with all the deprivation and the political instability, in equity and terrine at present time. Ethiopia is one of very few developing countries which has not been formally colonized and were able to defend external force through national solidarity and patriotism (Englebert, 2000). Being a country in Africa continuously under the threat of colonialism; but not subjugated and colonized; the nation was practically closed off from the rest of the world in the recent industrial centuries. However, merits of the heritage and cultural depth were not translated to fight poverty and deprivation on the present day. Currently the large share of Ethiopian population lives below the poverty line in a very dire economic condition. According to the world bank report 2011, 30 % of Ethiopians still dwell under poverty line (“Ethiopia Poverty Assessment,” 2014) Thus, this brief background history seems to suggest that reinventing rural life in Ethiopia calls for a sound understanding of the local customs, traditions, values of its rural dwellings and requires a proper study of the socio-cultural structure of Ethiopian rural settlements. Ancient Ethiopia and rurality The current territory of Ethiopia has seen the expansion of a number of empires in the course of history. In most literatures like (Butzer, 1981a; Crummey, 1980; Fattovich, 2009; S. A. Getahun, 2012) mention the strategic location of the northern part of Ethiopia, is identified as the main reason or stimulator of civilization and great empires. The location which is suitable for agriculture, on lucrative trade routes and high security advantage. Nonetheless, there is a recent discussion about the importance of the fertile land and abundance of water resources throughout the terrain, which were suitable for settlements, for the flourishing empire (Butzer, 1981) As Butzer in (1981) exclaims civilization are the impressin of human ecosystem. Accordingly, rural life has been in the background of Ethiopian empires and development through history since the ancient eras. One of the greatest Ethiopian empires of the ancient times was the ‘Axumite’ empire. It was known to be a ceremonial center after 100 AD with a population of trade. The township is said to have counted over 10.000 people. In the early times the strategic location of the city between the eastern civilizations (China and India) and the European civilizations (Romans and later Spanish) gave the Axumite territory a huge trading opportunity (Butzer, 1981). The port of Adulis was the strong hold of the Axum trade route, which funneled resources to the northern Highlands of Ethiopia (Butzer, 1981). The other driving force about the emergence of the Axumite civilization is its habitable landscape. Unlike the present-day condition of semi-arid climate, the North used to be a wet and extremely fertile environment during the Axumite times. The core area of Axum originated in the mildly 11

humid northern end of the Abyssinian plateau (Butzer, 1981). Records indicate local farming systems with strategic irrigation systems along with craft and metal working was practiced (Butzer, 1981). Despite the lucrative trade route in operation under the Axum empire, dwelling culture based on farming was still rooted in the society and supported trade activities. Although there are many other factors leading to the demise of Axum, it shows the significance of agrarian dwelling in the ancient times. Axum civilization was largely dependent on the authority and taxation over the international prosperous trade routes, but the local population subsistence was strongly linked to the fertility of the environment. Research done on the area, indicates that around the first century AD a change in the climatic signal occurred regarding the seasonal rain, the number of rain months per year increased (Butzer, 1981) This dramatically increased the number of harvesting per year and allowed to support the commercial empire of Axum with a vaster territory (Butzer, 1981). Moreover, this explains why there was not a sporadic expansion of settlements to the south of Axum, towards ‘Begemder’ or ‘Lasta’ areas (see Figure 2-2), which are naturally productive lands at the time of Axum empire (Butzer, 1981). Figure 2-2 North Ethiopia, Abysianian plateau with Axumite sites (Butzer, 1981)

This intensive agriculture around Axum depleted however its fertility, the civilization of axum was nonexistent at 800 AD (Butzer, 1981), later the degradation was that severe, that the power center had to shift to Lasta, in the current Amahara region, around the tenth century. According to Tamrat (1972) and Butzer (1981), the consideration of a suitable environment for agriculture may have been more influential and responsible or the shift more than security in this case. Indeed, regardless of the continuous risk of raid by neighboring rival groups, Lasta became next center of power at . The fact that the center of the following ‘Zagwe’ kingdom shifted to several other a more fertile area for dwelling after the ‘Zagwe’; shows the deep-rooted dwelling culture directly related to agriculture and rural basis. After the fall of Zagwe kingdom, the ruling center shifted yet again to a number of places in function to ongoing rivalry and war as well as of dwelling conditions. However, the fundamental power source relied in the subjugation of land and the taxation of agricultural production. And the 12

therefore, the various kingdoms were for centuries primarily dependent on their peasants practicing agriculture on their arable land (Crummey, 1980). A feudal system was established by the monarchy, thereby insuring the control of production and taxation for the central kingdom. Moreover, the greatness of kingdoms was determined by the extent of their occupation of vast subjugated land and population. Later, at the beginning of the Gonderian Era in the 17th century, the ruling power settled in a town called ‘Gonder’ to the west of ‘Lasta’. A new urban center was formed around the imperial castle. The Gonder settlement was dependent on surrounding fertile areas called ‘Dembia’ and ‘Wogera’ (S. A. Getahun, 2012). However, Gondar civilization possessed relatively developed urban qualities. The town is known for the grand palace and a set of churches. Urbanization has been historically triggered by the positioning of rulers of the land and the construction of churches (S. A. Getahun, 2012). The palace and the church composition is repeated in other remote areas to extend administration. Nobility assigned governor of territory called ‘Ras’ will construct a residence and orders a construction of a church (S. A. Getahun, 2012). With the church and the admirative center of the ‘Ras’ this leads to the emergence of ‘Menders’ (small villages). Although the Gonderian empire and Gonder town were partly advantaged by taxing trade caravans (S. A. Getahun, 2012), the continued agriculture and the fertility of the area was fundamental for the urban emergence of Gondar.

Figure 2-3 Agricultural systems in Ethiopia (A. Getahun, 1978)

Agriculture is practiced in almost all geographical areas of Ethiopia. The central highlands are dominated with mixed agriculture whereas the low lands are dominated by pastoral agriculture. Different type of agriculture also take place in the region in between. Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of agricultural systems just after the land reform 1975. The Feudal order Ethiopia used to have a feudal governance system before the 1974 revolution which overthrew the Ethiopian monarchial line of Solomonic dynasty, which was in power since the pre-Axumite time. 13

In the feudal order of settlement, land ownership was very determinant in governance and social structure. The current Ethiopian territory was also referred to as ‘Abyssinia’ in the past centuries and it is possible to discover the term Abyssinia on the geographical location of Ethiopia especially on literature of the feudal era. Crummey (1980), also uses Abyssinia to refer to Ethiopia on his journal named ‘Abyssinian Feudalism’. According to Crummey (1980), the Ethiopian ruling class was fundamentally dependent on the land and peasantry. The relationship is established in a tributary relationship based on the surplus agricultural production extraction from peasants. The structure of land ownership was basically determined by inheritance and the monarchial rule. Individual ownership of land was passed hereditarily among peasants whereas grazing lands were commonly shared and were owned by peasant institutions. Relative to other feudal structures, there is a low level of direct access to land by the Abyssinian royalty (Crummey, 1980). Most of the peasant population works under the rightful nobilities. The monarchial structure was very centralized and worked through a chain of taxations directed by the king who was proclaimed by the system as the rightful leader by inheritance. The feudal institution is mainly operationalized by the peasants paying royal ‘Asrats’ (a tenth of their harvest production) to the nobility (Crummey, 1980). Peasants might have been subject to additional tributary payment of a fifth or even third of their production (Crummey, 1980). In some cases, peasants were also expected to offer labor services and assistances during celebration. Crummey (1980), specifies the advanced social structure of Abyssinian feudalism in comparison to the technologically advanced European feudalism. He articulates the peculiarity of Ethiopian feudalism through the position of the peasant as ‘Gebar’ meaning tribute payer instead of a state of a serfdom like in the case of Europe. Moreover, the peasants hold direct access to the land as they own it hereditarily whereas the nobilities assigned for tribute collection by the monarchy had no direct access to the land. Also, the tributary rights of the nobility (‘Gult’) are not necessarily hereditary in the feudal times (Crummey, 1980). It was indicated that the peasant land ownership status was very high; for instance, only nine percent of peasants were recorded not to own land in the ‘Begmeder’ area, which includes the site which will be detailed in the description of the NESTown prototype site (Crummey, 1980). Around the 50’s and the 60’s of the monarchial rule, students and intellectuals started a movement against the feudal system land governance that was calling for a swift land reform with a motto of ‘land for the people’, which eventually cracked the monarchial system and led to a military coup against the last king emperor Haileselase in 1974. This happening unfolded a set of declarations and policies reversing the feudal aristocracy towards socialism. As a part of this, the land reform, confiscation and redistribution of unjust property from the feudal authorities to the peasants was set in to action by the vast mobilization of higher education students to coordinate and implement the task in 1975 (Cohen & Koehn, 1977)

After the land reform 1975 The land reform was the most important response to the peoples and students’ movement from the military regime, which was in charge of Ethiopian government after 1974. The reform consisted of the redistribution of complete land ownership to the peasants by withdrawing it from the feudal owners and of the confiscation of supplementary housing from urban feudal owners to be redistributed to the people. The land reform finally allowed peasants to have autonomy on their own fate, the way they work their land and what to produce, which greatly structures their way of life. The proclamation of the rural land reform spells out “Whereas, it is essential to fundamentally alter the existing agrarian relations so that the Ethiopian peasant masses who have paid so much in sweat as in in blood to maintain an extravagant feudal class may be liberated from age old feudal oppression, injustice, oppressions, poverty, disease … and in order to increase agricultural production and to make the tiller the owner of the fruits of his labor, it is necessary to release the productive forces of the rural economy by liquidating the feudal system under which the nobility, aristocracy and small number of other persons with adequate means of livelihood, have prospered with the toll and sweat of the masse…” Taken from - proclamation no. 31 of 1975 , a proclamation to provide for the public ownership of rural lands

However, the law was also criticized by observers stating that it dodges three important points, according to Cohen, (1977). Firstly, it is said to exclude land within municipalities or towns (in a later stage, the land and property reform was also formulated for the urban areas). Secondly, there was no mention of the extensive land ownership of the Orthodox Church, although at that time the church owned 20 percent of all arable land. The third point of critique regards the separate and more inconsiderate treatment of kinship and village tenures of the northern provinces. The semifeudal pattern of land ownership has an embedded notion of inheritance, whereby the right to own a land was dependent on proofing one’s blood relation to the family. Convincing political skills of a farmer were important to acquire large pieces of the from the elders of the village community. These deeply rooted social structures and ownership systems were a challenge for the progress of rural land reform. This shows the established sense of village settlement in the northern part of Ethiopia, based on kinship and relationship to ancestral founders. The informal administration at grass root level was made up of ‘Chika Shum’ and Gultegna (who were the lowest level of administration personality collecting wedges and taxes from peasants) which were assigned based on article 8 of the proclamation, which actually led to the economic progress of the peasants (Cohen & Koehn, 1977) The proclamation of the rural land reform deals separately with nomadic people. The article 26 of the proclamation promoted grass root level nomadic associations to develop water rights and grazing land. However, this policy was not realistic given the high mobility of the nomads. Based 15

on this proclamation, land was nationalized from the hands of nobility of the feudal order and redistributed to peasant ownership. Rural associations were organized based on the former peasant population. Each association was assigned a unit of about 800 hectares, which was administered by the ‘Chika Shum’. These units became the structural element for the country’s rural land, although still under supervision of an assigned official from an entity of the higher level division of the country in 500 ‘Woredas’, defined by an average area of 800,000 hectares of land each (Cohen & Koehn, 1977). Using this scheme of governance, land was allocated to peasants in the area where they used to work for the feudal owner. In some cases, population had to be relocated to rationalize land resources. This process is referred to as ‘villagization’ scheme which was resented by many for its radical contextual dislocation it caused separating communities (Cohen & Koehn, 1977)

Current rurality and rural livelihood Rurality is a way of life for most Ethiopians basically tied to natural resources and traditional practices. The interwoven mechanisms of rural dwelling, especially in the northern part of Ethiopia, requires a great deal of attention for the study of the livelihood of the rural community since it is a centuries old produce of the environmental, economic, social, cultural and religious conditions. Livelihoods are a construct of assets (in some cases referred to as capitals) and activities possible by the application of these assets. They can take any form of deployable resource like man power, monetary capital, knowledge, environment, social relations etc., which can be accessed regulated by the institutional context of activities by the household (Lerner & Eakin, 2010) This paper intents to portrait a glimpse of rural livelihood in northern Ethiopia, focusing on the farming supported lifestyle, predominantly based on the research paper ‘Power Structures and Agency in Rural Ethiopia’ by Philippa Bevan and Alula Pankhurst (2007). Four recurring subtopics in the discussions of rural Ethiopian livelihoods can be highlighted as follows: • Households • Community Governance • Community • Agriculture and social dynamics • Hierarchy Households The concept of a household has a very strong influence in the social structure and communal livelihood of the rural population in the Ethiopia. Especially Amhara region in the northern Ethiopia. It appears to be the fundamental element of most manifestations of the rural community. ‘Beteseb’ is the Amharic word that refers to a family, which basically grasps a similar concept. Most households are formed by ‘Beteseb’, which is basically a summation of all people living permanently in a household, including adopted family members, relatives living in the same house and the family (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007) The implication of a ‘household’ might have slight variations in different locations but in the general Amhara cultural context, every member of the household usually performs tasks that are 16

commonly accepted by the society for their age and gender and the household is run and represented by the male parent (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Further, the contrasting roles of men and women can be described as follows: Men are generally involved in physically demanding outdoor activities like ploughing, sowing, harvesting, threshing, and grain trading, slaughtering, herding, driving pack animals, building houses and cutting wood, which usually brings economic gain to the ‘Beteseb’ and often requires them to stay a longer time away from their residence. On the contrary, women are rather involved in activities rooming around their residence such as cooking, spinning, carrying water and taking care of children. This implies an established structure in which men are the sole providers of the ‘Beteseb’, which traditionally entitles them to ultimate decision making on behalf of the ‘Beteseb’. However, despite possible inconvenience, it is not that uncommon to see female-headed households, where the women accomplish the heavy tasks related to cropping, usually on a shared basis with other households(Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). This shows the flexibility of a ‘Beteseb’ in terms of membership as the sharecropper is usually dwelling with the family although there is no blood relation except the economic agreement; nonetheless there does not seem to be a distinction made. Households in rural areas of Ethiopia normally pass through three stages: Young, Middle aged and Old (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Conceptually, newly formed Betesebs (young households) need help and attention from the middle aged households, usually parents or older kinship, before they can completely stand by themselves. On the other hand, when households get older they lose the capacity to sustain themselves and hence need help and attention from the middle aged households which usually are the closest kinship. This kind of interaction between households is also visible in the traditional settlements and land allocations of households in small and indigenous rural areas where by it is common for households in close proximity to have a close kinship. Similarly, there is a close relationship between Betesebs: When young men approach the age of adulthood, normally the community expects them to get married and start their own household. At this point, they will need to own their share of land and a place to build a house close to their parents’ house, which is generally also close to the inherited land. Once they start their own family, the parents or older, already formed households will aid and assist them in a number of ways like house construction, preparation of the land for farming, gifts of cattle, assisting with the first child birth or companionship. Community Households being the integral unit of the community, a group of households form a village. The tying bond between the households is usually kin relationship in the earlier times. However, after a series of resettlement and dynamics of the rural environment, the small rural settlements are becoming sets of mixed kinships. Such a set of interrelated households constitute an average rural community and those traces of kinship are even still visible within more complex rural communities. 17

When looking at interaction within a community beyond the household level, there are a number of socio-cultural, informal institutions organized in order to deliver social welfare, community good and common interest. These social institutions are fundamentally based on moral values and decency rather than on legal bindings (Girma, 1978). These include the four following types of self-help organizations: 1) Iddir (Burial society): It is a common social institution formed by people living in close proximity to each other, regardless of kin- or friendship. It is a mechanism of community support for members who are in need, due to certain tragedies such as the decease of a ‘Beteseb’ member. In such a situation, the Iddir will provide some financial contribution as well as moral and emotional support for the family and relatives. In addition to this, the Iddir members will play an important role in organizing the necessary activities and the funeral, while the immediate family and relatives of the deceased are in state of shock and distress (Girma, 1978). 2) Ikub (Saving club): An Ikub is usually an informal grouping of people who are interested in collectively saving resources, usually money. This method has similar concepts as a bank which are saving and loaning money. On a defined periodicity, all members contribute with the agreed amount to a collected saving pot with someone trusted, who for every round gives out the collected sum in turns to the members (Girma, 1978). It helps dwellers in mobilizing large sums of capital for specific purpose ahead of time as well as it creates the motivation to save. 3) Mahber (monthly feasting and celebrating groups): Mahbers are quite common as well, households might be involved in a number of Mahbers who could be formed on the basis of kinship, friendship, gender and proximity, or even sometimes by an common experience (i.e. former war veterans). A Mahber is usually a group that meets on a regular basis, like monthly or biweekly, to feast, celebrate and discuss all sorts of issues. These groups are also the first ones to arrive in case of emergency or tragedy of a member and normally there is a strong bond between the members (Girma, 1978). More importantly Mahbers are common grounds of sharing and deep-rooted solidarity. 4) Debo (Seasonal work group): This is a very informal agreement between acquainted farmers to perform common agricultural activities by organizing themselves in groups. Usually this is done during time of harvesting crops, weeding and other labor-intensive practices. Each member will have their turn to have their urging farming tasks being done by the combined force of the group. This solid practice intensifies the settlement solidarity in rural areas and increases quality and efficiency of production. After every completion of a task as result of hard labor as a group, there is a cheerful shared moment which builds intimacy and strong social bonds (Bevan, Pankhurst, & Tom, 2006).

Self-help organizations characterize the institutional associations of rural communities which are based kinship, neighborhood, friendship and employment relations (Bevan et al., 2006). Additionally, there are other indigenous and community-based systems and organizations which grant social welfare by different means. These communal practices have been carried out historically and are considered as the framework of the societal organization in northern Ethiopia. For instances, the share-cropping out of land operates as a form of social protection for elder or sick community members (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Hierarchy Community organization can also be explained through hierarchies which also determines the roles and levels of involvement in community actions including community governance, the production of ideas and the dissemination of important change (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Decision making within a family is also based on hierarchy: Planning and assigning tasks to the family members is commonly the responsibility of the man of the house, to which all the agricultural duties are associated to as well. The social hierarchy is determined by a number of factors ranging from age, religion, religious status, kinship, gender, work, education and a set of other more contextual reasons. High positioned men in a society can mobilize collective power, calling upon their blood relatives, neighbors, friends etc. Elders and religious leaders have the highest level of acceptance whereby the elders take most of the important roles in the cultural and social life of the population. It is a very important part of the community culture to have intrinsic as well as externally visible respect to elderlies. They are elemental for most important social events like marriage, arbitration, social gatherings and important community decisions etc. Religious leaders earn great respect and exert influence on the rural community and usually hold a key role in case of difficulties and challenges faced by the community. Getahun (2012) points to the historical significance of churches for the formation of ‘Menders’ (community settlements) and urbanization in Ethiopia. It can furthermore be observed that people respond rather to a religious leader’s call or motive instead of the government official’s call (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Moreover the church also act as centers of learning. Clergy in a church are given titles like ‘Liqa-ailaf’ (professor of numerous), ‘Liqa-likawint’ (professor of professors) and ‘Meri-geta’ (leading professor), which indicate their level and depth of knowledge (S. A. Getahun, 2012); which also implies their high hierarchical position in a community. Formally educated people are also highly respected and taking up an influential role in a rural society, especially since education is associated with very high costs and determination. The process of educating oneself is indeed often a long and complicated process involving privations like having the child undertake long distance commuting to schools or live away from the community with families living in a larger town, whereby the household loses an extra help for agriculture. On the other side, educated people are usually valued for offering wise advices or 19

contributing to the drafting of basic community decisions especially in situations where the community has to deal with external influences and interventions. Certain types of occupation which basically relate to craft workers, occupy a lower rank in the social hierarchy as a result of a historical associations of these skills. Also poor people and women also do not acquire great respect by the rural community. In addition, children and young members of the community are not considered influential and hence are even less regarded in community affairs (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Community governance In rural Ethiopia, there are two intertwined sets of governance structures, one having its roots in the community which will be called ‘local community governance’ and the other one being brought into the community by the government, which will be referred to as ‘local government governance’. The former involve ‘informal institutions’ while the latter describes ‘formal state institutions’(Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Here, local community and government structures of opportunity and constraint are considered separately, and then discussed regarding how they interact across the interface, focusing on institutional contradictions and alignments, as well as conflicts and cooperation. Governance structures consist of the roles, rules, values and beliefs involved in decision-making and implementation on behalf of the community. A key aspect of community governance structures are those which provide social protection. There are two interactive governance forces one with its roots in the community while the other disseminated to the community from a larger scale. Informal institutional local power in community structures is associated with being part of the elites which involves one or more of the following aspects: Greater wealth, influence through local informal organizational positions, and/or influence through formal organizational positions including governmental and religious roles. Literacy and education can be meaningful, too. Greater wealth can not only enable elites to purchase productive assets, such as pumps or vehicles in the richer sites; but also to mobilize more labor through festive work groups or wages; to invest in more livestock in the poorer sites, including prestigious animals like camels, horses and mules; to improve their housing, notably with tin roofs (thereby becoming a symbol of elite-ness in the poorer sites); to build urban houses; and to purchase luxury items, ranging from better household goods to trucks. Elites are also able to access better services in towns and to afford sending their children to live with town relatives for education. Sometimes, such status derives from larger landholding and trade activity. Customary elites are influential in local decision-making and implementation, particularly in resolving disputes. Local dispute resolution usually is carried out by elders who are concerned to bring the parties together to discuss the issues and to restore harmony among people who live close to each other. Whereas the formal local governance, politics is important in the selection of leaders of administrative units (‘Kebeles’) who are elected by the people. Sometimes they seem to be follow ethnic or clan lines and may be important in the election or replacing of kebele representatives. However, these elections are also subject to influences from the wereda authorities, and occasions 20

when directives instruct leadership changes offer opportunities for changing unpopular leaders and can alter the power balance and lead to shifting alliances and allegiances Collective action (power with and power to) at ‘club’ and ‘community’ levels plays a big role in these communities. People come together to organize ceremonies related to death, marriage and birth and locally important dates in religious and customary calendars, in work groups to build houses and do farm work, and to pursue particular projects or goals. Community celebrations have been a customary way to build solidarity and a community spirit. (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007) Agriculture dwelling socio- cultural process A typical farmer in the northern Ethiopia shall have land, labor capacity, farming inputs, two oxen, and other livestock and a house. The combination of these interdependent components shall be sufficient to cultivate a land, collect the harvest, do proper trading and gain profits out of selling small livestock or dairy products. Donkeys, horses or mules are used for transportation. Being exceptionally successful with agriculture in the limited conditions of rural settlements leads to high ranks in the social hierarchy of a traditional community. The local administration usually has a development branch which is supposedly expected to support the farming environment. These development services normally provide different technological inputs for farming like fertilizers, pesticides, improved seeds, irrigation pumps and livestock vaccination (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Farmers, who are capable of affording this service can significantly increase their productivity. When women are the only head of a household, usually it is common for them to delegate the farming to someone on the basis of sharecropping, which is done based on a calendar of tasks happening with seasonal variation throughout the year. This method allows these women to dispose of extra labor to complete the tasks and simultaneously creates opportunitie for men without land to earn an income by working on someone else’s land and earn a share of the products. Through the seasons of the year, there are also long time spans where people can only be involved in off-farm activities. During this time, people involve in different household activities or migrate for a few months to urban areas to make an extra income (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). This is happening more recently as living costs increase and extra income becomes more often necessary to support the family. Especially young members of the family are migrating to urban areas in such great numbers (see Figure 2-4), that they are becoming a demographic weight in the cities (Asfaw, Tolossa, & Zeleke, 2010). People in rural areas also engage in different types of agreements on their agricultural practice other than sharecropping. One of these is called ‘Wenfel’, which is simply an agreement between two farmers to join forces and work on their land alternatively. This augments their efficiency and working conditions. The other type is a deal among two farmers who only have one oxen each, to couple them for ploughing their lands alternatively. 21

Figure 2-4 Seasonal migration from Amhara woredas, surveyed for research by (Asfaw, Tolossa, & Zeleke, 2010)

There is also share rearing in the case of rearing sheep and goats whereby richer households lend their livestock to poorer households to take care of them, whereby the new born sheep and goats will be shared. This allows for community members to recover from their financial problems within the community. Also the exchange of tools and seeds among farmers is a very common practice. Sharecropping is becoming a typical system of survival. Based on the research by Bevan and Pankhurst (2007), 42% of all households has experiences with sharecropping. The increase of sharecropping practice in rural areas is related to the land administration changes with limited possibilities of formal land transaction(Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Land ownership has been a very vulnerable issue in recent history, since at present day farmers are legally only leasing their land without full ownership; thereby ruling out their right to sell or buy land. Daily labor is another way of earning extra income off-farm, however with implications regarding the social hierarchy and therefore usually only done by young, landless and desperate members of the community. Especially working on a daily labor basis, payment is almost unacceptable but working on the basis of payment for piecemeal service is relatively acceptable. 22

2.2 Part II Recent theories and practices in Socio-spatial transformation Current Socio-spatial approaches and theories towards innovation and Social transformation Looking through the abovementioned literature and studies about rural change and its impact, it is possible to understand the interwoven relation of rural development and social transformation. Particularly when it comes to the process of transformation towards urbanization, socio-spatial change becomes crucial. In addition, given the interest of this research on dwelling culture, it is quite instrumental to articulate the study on social innovation and socio-spatial transformation. Moreover, the case of NESTown prototype is a comprehensive settlement planning approach, integrating proposals for development regarding community development through the introduction of sustainable institutional governance schemes. The prototype proposal has introduced some recent sustainability approaches for food production, rural housing, energy recycling and water conservation. Clearly, the prototype is an attempt to integrate a technological and technical advancement along with a new proposal for social restructuring towards an urbanized dwelling culture. To develop an understanding on the possible impacts of the proposal, it is essential to build up a proper framework to explore the socio-spatial possibilities regarding the prototype. Innovations are indispensable elements of any development. Effort and creativity have always been recipes for innovation towards better quality of life in the story of mankind (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). To be creative and innovative, producing new ideas and new realities is fundamental aspect of civilization (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). The term innovation has been redundantly used in several disciplines, as a connotation of successful and convenient means of production and consumption. In different scientific fields it has adopted with different connotations. It is usually related to profitable or feasible output-oriented maturity of new ideas. But this kind of definitions are recently being criticized for their economic and technological interpretation of innovation (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). For this reason, the innovations usually lack a lasting influence and positive impact. On the contrary, when it comes to social fields, innovation goes beyond profitability or feasibility, but targets social change (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Concepts and processes such as culture, networks, communication and organization have become increasingly theorized as instruments of economic progress, which itself was considered as the equivalent of human progress in general (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). The concept of Economic progress and human progress had been alternatively used in the past industrial innovative era. This way of thinking directly implies undermining or ignoring of all social and human dynamics beyond economics. Therefore, it is imperative for the theoretical framework to encompass the ideas of community development as a combination of culture, networks, communication and organizational process which will be the key element for understanding the impact and setbacks of the NESTown prototype. In both ways of defining

innovation, the meaning of innovation implies a trend towards the wellbeing of society, but the approach and methods are totally different. Given this premise, a framework for unpacking the different aspects of innovation in the NESTown settlement proposal is essential. To this purpose, a review of recent socio-spatial approaches of innovation which articulates phenomena of social change is included. Taking as key reference the article by Frank Moulaert and Jacques Nussbaumer, entitled ‘the social region beyond the territorial dynamics of the learning economy’, it becomes possible to see the different socio-spatial innovation approaches in very recent research and practical movements. The article discusses community based development with regards to social innovation as an alternative to market lead development (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). This research was developed based on different articles and studies that were produced in the past by the same authors and other researchers on the topic which are pushing the knowledge frontiers on the topic of social innovation. In parallel to this, an article by Cajaiba-Santana (2014), is consulted for establishing a better understanding of social innovation through the theoretical framework adopted in this work. Based on this text, a theoretical discussion on the forth chapter is formulated regarding the case of the NESTown prototype. It highlights an elaborate conceptual discussion on the social innovation perspectives, elements and relationship. Social innovation The concept of social innovation is a term that is not fully defined yet. Cajaiba-Santana (2014), articulates the significance of the word ‘social’ which is beyond the behavioral practices towards common good. The notion has been mentioned by several researchers and authors in a number of occasions, however few have looked through it to come up with a concept of how social innovation emerge from a deliberate social action (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Agreeably, social innovation has the following aspects that distinguishes it from other types of innovation that could take place in a given context: The first one is the fact, that social innovation focused on asset building. In other words, social innovation addresses issues of the community by addressing the root potentials to strengthen capacity instead of immediate reaction to emerging needs. This leads to the second and fundamental point, which asserts that social innovations striving social change basing itself on potentials and opportunities. Thirdly, it is the reconfiguration of the ‘how’. Social innovation is an approach to strive for social change with a mission of seeing through potentials and addressing problems. The critical dwelling point is always on the ‘How’(Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Based on the defining elements of social innovation it is possible to see the NESTown project as a technical as well as a social innovation project towards rural to urban transformation. The prototype is a reconfiguration of how settlements are formed in rural areas. The concept of the NESTown prototype is indeed also focusing asset building towards indigenous urbanization in 24

order to fulfill unmet rural needs. Moreover, the prototype intends to foster tremendous social change in the local life in rural contexts. Therefore, understanding the project through social innovation theories and a theoretical framework would help to recognize the potential of conceptual approaches in the settlement prototype. And also, it would help to better analytically frame the potential effects of the project’s implementation on the local communities and their social innovation dynamics. Theories in social innovation From the attempt of understanding how social innovations work, two major views about social innovation emerge. One faction postulates social innovation as the result of individual actions on the social system. This point of view is referred to as ‘Agentic centered perspective’, based on Cajaiba-Santana (2014), who further states that based on this perspective, social innovation is the outcome of action by capable people who can understand and innovatively interpret the needs of communities (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). . The other side, described by the same author, claims that social innovation is determined by an external structural context. From this follows the understanding of the structural content to determine the different categories and relationships (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). In his article he refers to this as ‘structural perspective’. He describes the interest towards categorizing and analyzing structures as the determining attribute of the social context (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). However, a unifying view is required since each of the perspectives are interdependent within their dualism. From this need, the third perspective was formed, which situates social innovation as an interaction of agents and social structures (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). When referring to the Agency, Structure ,Institution and Discourse (ASID) model of social innovation theory, there are four sets of explanations as the authors put it: ‘Agency based explanation’, ‘Structure based explanation’, ‘Institution based explanation’ and ‘Discourse based explanation’. ‘Agency based’ refers to the capacity to join forces and catalyze change in socio economic development. ‘Institution based explanation’ is about institutions in social fields which link or constrain actions, by explaining the mediation process, whereas ‘structural based explanation’ is about border forces playing a role in enabling or constraining other forces, actors and behaviors, and acknowledges individual or collective properties of action which are not directly affected by structure but could be influenced by it. And finally, ‘discourse based explanation’, is useful in strategy development and policy making, which relies on the quality of discourse which can be more likely to be institutionalize (Moulaert, Jessop, & Mehmood, 2016). Therefore, the definition of these basics of social innovation was necessary to propose a method of relation and connection between them as a theoretical framework. Definitions from the ASID model, which were developed to analyze socio-economic development in space are used as a primary basis of defining concepts of social innovation. It is relevant to consider that little consensus exists on how to define these terms in different disciplines. Cajaiba-Santana’s framework is used for investigating the relationship and connection between individual concepts. Therefore, it is not a comprehensive theoretical analysis; instead it is an approach to investigate the case with the use of selected aspects based on indicative theories. 25

Based on the definition of the ASID model, agencies are human interventions through different tools and methods towards actions which targets adoption of natural or social context. The intervention could be social, organizational, experiential or spatial - or different combinations of them. With this definition, major agencies are identified in the NESTown model and implementation. Institutions are defined as routines and practices of the community, which are referred to as ‘socialized structures’ by the ASID model. This attribute defines the domain of action in a society. They possess enabling of constraining capacity towards a given agency(Moulaert et al., 2016). Structures are natural as well as social realities which go beyond local scale and cannot be influenced by a single/collective agency. So based on this, the ASID model is defines structures relative to transformative social pressure (Moulaert et al., 2016). The AISD model asserts the practical factors of an agency as reactions of a community due to intrinsic reasons like motivation and mindset to context as well as reflections based on creativity and values (Moulaert et al., 2016).. It is also postulated to examine organizational agency and inter-organizational collaboration as alternative drivers of agencies. Moreover, agency is considered as the central element in the reproduction and transformation of structures and institutions, while focusing on institutional transformation (Moulaert et al., 2016). For Cajaiba-Santana, social innovations are primarily actions directed to underlying institutions inside a social domain (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Actions are considered as collective, when they are about the collective interest rather than individual interventions. Secondly, it is about situating a given case of social innovation process in a context which needs a higher regard for historical and cultural context (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). By this second statement, the importance of contextual studies is elaborated, in the form of historical and cultural readings of a given community as a precondition towards understanding situated processes of social innovation. Institutions are capable of enabling and constraining actions in a society from any agency. This process leads to the creation of social practices. It also indicates the iterative relationship between agents and institutions in impacting, determining or reinforcing each other. In other words, basic interactions between actions and institutions can be determined in terms of constraining and enabling capacity (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). The author also adds the notion of dynamism to the concept of social innovations, since it alters the social practices which are continuous interaction of the social context and the activities taking place within context leading to social change, which is the essence of this type of innovation. (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Agents' actions have the power of changing institutions but are at the same time constrained by institutional practices. This feature of agency is an essential and potentially transformative element of social systems (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Of course, the agent’s positions and access are big factors on the capacity of inducing social change, but also the actions are results of the reflexive capacity and institutional structures setting 26

the scope and effect of actions. This clearly articulates the position of structuration beyond an behavioral approach, which focuses on agents’ reasoning about structure of interpreted social field. The conceptual model put forward by the author deals with interrelated concepts of social innovation and their interrelationship as a tool for interpretation of situations (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014).

Figure 2-5 Conceptual framework of social innovation (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014)

Based on this model, there are three basic conceptual frames for a new idea to have success in social innovation. Referring to Figure 2-5, it starts from setting the scale of the social practices in a context as intra- (with in the community), inter-(among communities) and extra-groups (external factors beyond community), where by it can be a situated social field. In this step it also provides recognition for social changes that will take place in the process. The boundary of the social field is manifested as social practices to result in agencies. Due to the variation of scale within the social field, the social practices could be the combined result of intra, inter and extra groups, which can imply a set of agencies which are capable of being reflexive (self-critical through process). New ideas are generated as communicative actions from the agency at different positions, which are constrained or enabled by institutional practices before they can establish change on the existing social system. Those ideas that are legitimized by the institutional practice persist to innovations which will be a successful factor as means of changing social systems. 27

The interconnection of different aspects of social innovation is well elaborated on schematic figure of the theoretical framework, which is instrumental to unpack and understand a certain approach of social innovation. Especially the capacity of the framework to assimilate social dynamism as social change, agency positions and institutional change makes it a robust tool for analyzing social contexts undergoing transformation. Based on the key reference, the framework can be read or used in the following levels: The 1st level is about how individuals are socialized. Intra social group innovations, that are based on fundamental norms, values, rules, habits and conventions are studied at this level. Institutions are limited to group, related to micro levels in their scale. Social and cognitive mindsets can be leading to assimilation or rejections of new ideas and routines (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). The 2nd level is about collaboration and competition of different groups. The capacity to make a change and implement new practices is dependent on the distribution of power. The 3rd level is about resolving structural problems. For instance, this level involves diffused social innovation in households leading to wider change. The relation to the extra local and the wider context is given attention on this level. To apply this theoretical framework and interpret social transformation in the case of the NESTown prototype proposal, it is also crucial to complement the theoretical framework for social innovation with developmental theories, because the NESTown prototype is a developmentoriented proposal towards rural to urban transformation. Therefore, in order to apply a theoretical analysis, it is relevant to inform the theoretical framework with community-based development literature within the frame of social innovation. The next part of the literature review will help frame a theoretical aspect of community-based development with regard to important contextual issues and spatial indications. Community-based development The concept of community-based development is elaborated through alternative Territorial Innovation Model (TIM) theories and social innovation theoretical views. The key reference used is article by Moulaert, F. and Nussbaumer, J., (2005) with a title of The Social region: beyond territorial dynamics and learning economy. The article critically elaborates the notion of innovation in TIM and its limitations. The argument in favor on social innovation is elaborated through the relation to concepts of ‘capital’ and ‘institution’ in the TIM. The authors qualify social innovation to be the determinant instrument in community-based development, enhancing the notions of TIMs. The authors further articulate the value of associations and reciprocity in building socio-economic relations in community oriented development beyond market mechanisms (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Relevant concepts are highlighted within the same article of community-based development. The most important ones are culture, networking, learning,Governance and local exchange trade (LET). These key concepts of the community are expected to be renewed through social innovation led community development.

Culture Culture is one of the most important determinants of socio-spatial change. Culture is manifested in how people in a household, community and settlement appropriate and make use of space. It involves how a community mobilizes and takes initiative to develop place patterns of activity, Community rooted views, decision-making systems for different aspects of development, values and practices (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Community rooted views are very essential as they will be instrumental or limiting factors in any type of community development that can take place. This implies that the integration of new ideas in a community practice need a specific approach and strategies to be successful and locally meaningful [Mouzelis, 1997] in Moulaert, F. and Nussbaumer, J., (2005). The conflicting nature of cultural integration and market logic makes them fundamentally impossible to coexist; even in cases where the needs of cultural groups are recognized in communication and development design (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). The article postulates on the possibility of cultural integration in community development devoid of fundamentalism in market logic. In other words, it enunciates the limitations of market led development as a strategy for encompassing community led views. It also articulates the significance of diversity in community-based approaches regarding Networking, Governance and Learning which shall be incorporated through creative principles without embodying functional logic as a precondition (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Moreover, recognizing the informal nature of community rooted views as informal socialization possibilities, is another key aspect highlighted in the paper. It is articulated that the social platforms of society or community which used to practice certain routines of sustenance for long periods of time is referred to as ‘implicit mode of organization’ (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). In conclusion, locally rooted and embedded views and practices influencing factor are put forward as a major difference between social innovation and territorial innovation models. Moreover , it was possible to see the community roots of social innovation, which was not the case in technological innovation. Social innovation is also emphasized by the inclusion of noncompartmentalized community rooted views of economic, social and cultural development. For this reason it is relevant to take note of the cultural position in social innovation as a broad and determining attribute, as stipulated by Moulaert, F. and Nussbaumer, J., (2005). Networking In line with Moulaert, F. and Nussbaumer, J., (2005), communicative relations are framed as the essential element of networking in a community-oriented development, whereas cooperation and interaction are singled out as core components towards the establishment of networks. Institutional and personal relations are situated within the indigenous social assets of the community. A democratic institutional environment is put as the main precondition for communitarian networks to blossom (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005), which gives place to the realm of communication between the members of the community with each other plus with the external and semi external agents. Moreover, the article identifies the institutional environment as a possible promoter and initiator of network to network interaction and cooperation (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). 29

Agents and institutions are responsible in tuning networks with relevant issues. Agents in the networks can be individual, collective and public, representing various expressions of capital (business, ecological, institutional and human). (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Thus, networking relies on communication and successful communication takes place in a horizontal environment of participation by information exchange as well as decision making (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Thus, the significance of the democratic quality and the collective capacity of the space and the possibilities of meeting are acknowledged as being indispensable for shaping the way current and future exchanges are made. Here, a direct link to spatiality is made by discussing the performance of a network. Moreover, Human capital and communities possess the willpower over communicative strategies. Therefore the designing of ‘true’ communicative relations is possible through institutional and human capital of a community (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Learning Beyond the conventional learning strategies, other types of learning possibilities are promoted by social innovation. The social organization by itself provides a number of co-learning opportunities which can be potentials for generating ideas and practical solutions. Recognizing that, Moulaert and Nussbaum (2005) suggest that multiple modes of learning should be introduced and combined. The multi-modality of learning includes social organization and how the learning process in a community should be (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). By ‘multiple modes’, the authors were referring to creativity, communication strategies, decision making and collective learning that shall all be part of incorporated in to learning strategies (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Community governance Regarding governance and state, the importance and relevance of bottom linked governance systems are found to make a difference in community based development. The prevalence and importance of unions, political, organizations and local sociocultural organizations in the modern era is understood in their reluctance to act (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). They require being pushed by internal social and political initiations in the community at spatial as well as institutional scales of action(Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). The authors recognize, that in the current state of global development it is imperative to consider the interconnectedness of governance systems with hierarchical spatial scales. All initiatives in a community need a link to the outside world, in fact community development is dependent on the ability of agents to integrate in extra local networks with different means od support (Moulaert, F. and Nussbaumer, J., 2005). The study of levels of governance and coordination is essential for determining relations in terms of trade, exchange relations, expertise and support agents. Local Exchange Trade In different contextual cultures, communities are linked by many strands of relationships. Dwellers inhabiting the same locality perform diverse forms of exchange to sustain themselves and the community. This practice generally intensifies during times of deprivation. In this condition, the 30

market system fails to reflect on what the deprived community needs, because they deprived communities rely more on local exchange trade (LET). This means on self-production of necessities and establishing local exchange systems with in the community. If this is not a possibility, state distribution is the other means addressing deprivation (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). However, the success and quality of this system is not universal and highly dependent on the specific context and environment.

2.3 Summery and scheme of theoretical framework In order to develop a framework of analysis for understanding the structuration in the NESTown model, a synthesis of the normative information informed by the literature review was developed. A clear objective was set on how the theoretical framework is going to be employed in the case of investigation and theoretical analysis. The theoretical framework will be an important mechanism to explore the attributes of the case and the context in an attempt to foresee and understand root causes, synergies, conflicts, constraints and opportunities which determine the potential of transformation.

Figure 2-6 Scheme of theoretical framework informed from (Moulaert, Jessop, & Mehmood, 2016), (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014) and (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2016)

The basic frame of social innovation by the Agency, Structures, Institutions and Discourse (ASID) model of Moulaert, F., Jessop, B. and Mehmood, A., (2016) and a conceptual framework by Cajaiba-Santana, (2014) are used in combination. The ASID model provides the framework definitions of agency, structure and institution while Cajaiba-Santanas work is essential for understanding the dynamic relationship between these entities. This shapes the basic framework of social innovation entities and their relationship and connection. However, in order to make the framework more contextualized and tuned to the specific case, it was relevant to integrate elements of contextual and social dynamics. Therefore, social field was articulated in to analytical frames of Household, Community, Hierarchical and Agricultural dynamics informed by (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). The analytical are used to thematize understanding on social practices rather than categorizing events and phenomena. Because in real world this frame is not represented separately. Since the model of NESTown is also intended as a community-based development, the implicit inclusion of the references made on community-based development is important as it has a powerful impact on the theoretical framework for the thesis. It was the basis for the categorization of the institutional aspects of the context as well as the innovative strategies of the model. It will be used for unpacking the different aspects of the NESTown settlement prototype. The analysis recognizes the agency of the NESTown model and community agency. The specific strategies of the NESTown model are new ideas, which are introduced as an innovative way of inducing social change. Identified social strategies (elaborated on chapter three) of the model are incorporated as new ideas. A focus on the specific institutional aspects of society is made regarding their constraining and enabling capacity towards the new ideas. The ASID model is used to define and position the different interrelated agentic and institutional issues, while the approach by CajaibaSantana, (2014) is used to understand the relationship between them. A discussion is formulated in chapter four using this framework of relationship. Dealing with social issues require flexibility in the mechanism of exploration, besides the individual concepts of agency and institution have a codependency which must be interpreted as a dynamic instead of direct relationship. Moreover, the shifting position of agency and time dependent institutional change expands the domain of interrelationship between them. The following chapter is about descriptive a explanatory case investigation starting form the inception and background study to the implementation and financing proposal of the case. It is in this chapter that the innovative strategies of NESTown are identified and briefly discussed as a prelude to the elaborate interpretive discussion on the fourth chapter. This is done by linking the innovative strategies to the theoretical framework leading to evaluative theoretical analysis of the case based on agency -institution dynamics.

3 Chapter III- Case of NESTown model - ‘BuraNEST’ prototype 3.1 Introduction The NESTown model is an innovative approach to address the multitude of rural problems by introducing a new means of autonomous transformation towards urbanization. The NESTown model intends to enable locals in rural vicinity to structure a new transformative way of dwelling. The NESTown model is based on an integrated agricultural practice; promoting density and diversity. For this reason, the model introduces a new form of settlement with a unique and dynamic structure, that is thought to have the capacity of hosting the transformation from scattered rural settlements to densified urbanized townships. Based on this vision, the fundamental goals of the NESTown model are to maximize farming land and rain fed irrigation as well as cost and resource sharing(Oswald et al., 2014). A prototype implementation of the model has been initialized in 2010 in Bura Keble, Amhara region. This chapter is dedicated to the empirical study of the NESTown model. In the first section, the inception and antecedent contextual background of the prototype including locally specific dwelling habits are covered. Secondly, a conceptual and strategy-based discussion is elaborated on the model design in general and the implementation process of the first prototype.

3.2 Inception and context of the prototype implementation The model has been developed by a joint creative process of professionals from ETH Zurich, Switzerland, and Ethiopian stakeholders of the NESTown group. The NESTown group was founded and led by Professor Franz Oswald, who was Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Urban Design at ETH Zurich from 1993 to 2003, and has been guest Professor at numerous Universities in Africa, Europe, Israel, USA(“AMHARA Model Town,” 2018). Since 1974, in parallel to his practice, he specialized on Urban Housing and City Development, acquiring extensive experience in the field. He is currently chairman of the scientific board of the Swiss Forum “Landschaft” and an advisory expert of the engineering capacity building curricula reform in Ethiopia (Oswald et al., 2014). He is known for his concerns in perceiving, analyzing and interpreting basic patterns of organization, intervention and planning of urban systems. A set of workshops were organized in order to develop the first prototype of the model, named ‘BuraNEST’, with the participation of the Amhara Regional Administration, who was partners and collaborator throughout the process of inception and development of the model and the prototype since 2008. Some of the key partners involved in different aspects of the project are listed as key partners involved in the project development in the following table based on (Franz Oswald, Benjamin, & Fasil, 2017).

In Ethiopia

In Switzerland current partners

• ABAY Bank • ADA Amhara Development Association, Bahir Dar • ARNS Steering Committee Head BORLAU • BIUD Bureau of Industrial + Urban Development • BDU Bahir Dar University • Bura kebele • CPA Cooperative Promotion Agency • Libokemekem woreda •ORDA Organisation for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara • NESTown Group Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

• ABZ Allgemeine Baugenossenschaft Zurich • Arthur Waser Foundation, Luzern • Cooperative NESTown Friends Association, Zurich • Menschen für Menschen Schweiz, Zurich • NESTown Group Switzerland, Bern • Tesfa Ilg Foundation, Zurich In Switzerland former partners • Embassy of Switzerland, Addis Ababa • Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich • Future Cities Laboratory at Singapore ETH Zurich Centre • Green Ethiopia Foundation, Winterthur • Holcim Foundation, Zurich

Administrative structure of the case study area The typical structure of the formal administration in Ethiopia is illustrated in Figure 3-1. The smallest units of formal rural administration are called ‘kebele’, of which several neighboring ones together form a ‘woreda’. Woredas are varying in terms of population numbers and the areal extent which makes them very heterogeneous administration units for urban or rural areas. The woredas are grouped in administrative zones geographically with in a regional government.

Figure 3-1 Formal administration hierarchy in Ethiopia

The NESTown model, addressing the issues of rural-urban transformation from the very bottom of the structure, required interventions at the Kebele level in order to be able to deal with intralocal conditions in a community. In collaboration with the regional administration, the NESTown group identified a location for the first implementation of the model as prototype urban laboratory. The location was in the rural woreda ‘Libokemekem’ and the kebele ‘Bura’, situated to the east of lake Tana, near the small 34

town called Yifag, see Figure 3-2. The reason for selection of this specific site is mentioned unknown by the NESTown group on their concept and experiences booklet (Oswald et al., 2014, p18). The prototype was thus named as ‘BuraNEST’ after the kebele ‘Bura’ and the name of the model ‘NESTown’.

Figure 3-2 Location and site layout (Oswald, Fasil, & Benjamin, 2016)

Based on preliminary studies on the area by the NESTown group in 2008/2009, the following information about the site has been documented prior to the implementation of the ‘BuraNEST’ project. The area is defined by a river, a forest, farming plots and access pathways. Demographically, a total of 722 people were recorded in 2010, out of which 151 farmers (25 of which being at the age of retirement), 331 children, 153 students, 50 daily workers, 19 ‘Tella’ brewers, 8 sand traders, 5 church servants, 2 handcraft workers, 2 teachers, and 1 carpenter (Benjamin, 2010), see also Figure 3-3. Active farmers

Occupational distribution of Bura Kebele, 2010 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Inactive farmers Daily worker

17% 4% 7% 3% 1% 0%

46% 21%

Tella brewers Sand traders Chruch servants Handicraft workers Teachers Carpenters

Figure 3-3 Graphics of occupational distribution before implementation of NESTown (Data source (Benjamin, 2010))

Agriculture is the greatest sector of occupation, accounting for 63.5 % of the working population. Both livestock and cropping activities were reported on. The number of livestock was given as 1.750 farm animals, of which 914 hens, 606 cattle, 185 sheep, 38 donkey sand 7 goats (Stähli, 17/12/20). Based on information from the local administration, households in rural areas of Bura Kebele work on agricultural 35

land that is smaller than four hectares. The farms, like most of the agricultural lands in Ethiopia, are focused on cash crop production with an alternative cropping of cereals, pulses and oil crops. However, the production of crops are recorded to be relatively low based on Oxfam’s annual report (Benjamin, 2010)

Positioning of settlements From observations done by the NESTown group and situated knowledge, a hierarchical range of characteristics/preconditions can be listed that will determine the establishment of typical Amhara rural settlements: Availability of arable land, kinship, presence of the church, rivers, elevation and road accessibility. These are traditional prerequisites for dwelling in most rural areas of Ethiopia. In Bura kebele there is a river, a church (‘Bura-mariam’), agricultural plots and scattered, but interconnected households. Access roads and foot paths connect the main road with the churchs and settlemts (see Figure 3-4). Patches of dense forests and planted tree lines are composed on the landscape of the area. A close up map of the action area is illustrated below on Figure 3-10. The position of a family’s dwelling is always preferably located within walking distance from their agricultural parcel. And since acquisition of land is usually related to kinship and inheritance, settlements are usually formed between blood relatives. Religious monasteries and churches are the other historically and culturally significant factors in the structuring of the households in rural areas. As identified in the literature review, historically, the nobility and the churches are the central figures in the formation of a settlement. Both, aristocratic families and the churches, had large ownership of land which require high numbers of peasants working on it in early times. This has induced an intangible cultural and religious value in residing within proximity and clear orientation to church or monastery. In Libokemekem Woreda, where Bura Kebele is located, 95.57% of the population is Christian orthodox (Benjamin, 2010).

Figure 3-4 Existing landscape of rivers, access roads, settlements defined by tree lines. Self processed based on google earth map.

The location of rivers or springs represents the other significant factor for settlements, since these are still the main water sources in rural Ethiopia. With flooding hazards and wetlands at hand, settling on elevated ground is another factor for positioning settlements. Moreover, preference for higher ground is also related to safety and 2010). This occurred especially after the land reform in 1975 which had orchestrated mass resettlements because of drastic ownership shift from the feudal order to the peasants (Cohen, 1977). Although these are the main attributes of a rural settlement there can always be contextual variations and additional factors. Considering this, it is important to understand the limitations that kept rural spatial pattern from transforming through time. Lack of infrastructure is an important problem affecting the livelihood of the rural population in their daily lives. Particularly nonexistent service of clean water and electricity has limited the development of settlements and constraints living conditions. Lack of information is another significant issue in rural areas: In the current networked and globalized world, vast pockets of isolated rural areas exist in Ethiopia. Almost complete absence of basic infrastructure has led to the preservation of very primitive ways of lifestyle, holding development and transformation in leash, as illustrated by Figure 3-5 showing primitive ways of livelihood activities.

Figure 3-5 Traditional practices of farming and cooking (Benjamin, 2010)

Based on primarily recoded data of Bura Kebele by the NESTown group, it was documented that individual, household and communal cleansing and hygienic practice is fundamentally dependent on the water levels and seasonal variations of the river. The document also describes that the Bura Kebele inhabitants had access to public shower facility at a distance of 3km and the total absence of toilets (Benjamin, 2010). Therefore, lack of adequate water supply and sanitation can be considered to be the most serious issues.

Housing traditions Typically, but varying in function of the family size, household compound are constituted of a main house and (sometimes) a secondary house, a barn, a vegetable garden and a specially constructed raised storage for keeping the harvest throughout the season (Stähli, 17/12/20). Rural settlements are formed on an organic way by the clustering of these individual household compounds. Topography, tree lines and pathway orientations are also significant factors. Buildings in Bura kebele before the NESTown prototype ranged between 6 m² to 62 m². 34% of the households are still living in traditional huts as in Figure 3-6, whereas the remainder has rebuilt their house with corrugated iron sheet (‘modern’ typology) (Stähli, 17/12/20). 37

Figure 3-6 Improvised cloth washing and schematic plan of a traditional hut (Benjamin, 2010)

Traditional huts follow a generations old method of house construction which is completely handled by the community. Within a rural community, certain men are known to be skilled people in the construction of the round hut house. Due to their skills, these members of the community are incentivized by the owner of the house for their help in the construction of a house. With the help of the community and the handy men skills, houses can be built in a matter of days (Stähli, 17/12/20). Locally available material like wood, stone and mud are used for walling, and a conical roof frame is covered by grass, whereby knotting and plant fibers are used instead of nails. Given this, vernacular modes of designing and building are completely self-sufficient. The organization of space within a household settlement is dependent on the space requirement for the cattle, the family members and the storage of the harvest. Farmers in Amhara region have a very strong relation to their cattle and livestock. This relationship is manifested in the technique of cultivation and the multiple functionality of livestock for mobility, as source of milk for children as well as of quick cash or means of bartering and increased liability (Hurni, 2007). Recycling dung as fuel and construction material is a common practice. This highly valued attachment with cattle and livestock is expressed through the spatial layout of a household, where the barn is normally constructed as an extension of the house. Trees are used as windbreakers as well as boundary delineation for backyard gardens.

Figure 3-7 ' Corcoroo' house and its floor layout (Benjamin, 2010)

In the past decades the construction of houses in rural areas has seen a slight transformation because of the newly introduced construction material of corrugated iron sheet. This material is predominantly replacing the use of thatch(grass) roofing. This practice has also altered the shape of the typical round hut, which evolved into a rectangular house, see Figure 3-7. Ongoing urbanization is also an explanatory factor for this phenomenon, in two ways: Firstly, urbanization introduced mass production with imported technology of construction materials at affordable prices. Secondly, urbanization by itself is a new happening which is considered as progressive and ‘modern’ life style by the rural youth. In the older methods as well as in the recent ways of construction, the role of the handy man (carpenter) in a rural society is recognizable. However, the shift from very indigenes and vernacular materials and techniques has led to an outsourcing of construction skills from outside the community (Benjamin, 2010). This changes the dynamics of informal exchange (incentives) and self-sufficiency in indigenous rural communities as it involves extra local input out of the community. The new typology also transformed the formerly unified shape of the internal spaces into partitioned rooms with separate sleeping and living area. Households consist of 5.64 members on average, according to the preparation study of the NESTown prototype. During the participatory process that is taking place, the preference of the rural youth was more oriented towards partitioned and double story housing (Benjamin, 2010). This confirms the growing influence of urbanization in the rural population. Despite their increased durability, the adoption of the new housing construction techniques has a set of drawbacks: Primarily, the cost of construction is considerably much higher, due to the additional cost of transportation and skill from urban production sites to the remote rural locations. This creates immense financial pressure on the rural household. Moreover, from a community perspective, the outsourcing of skills has as effect to diminish the potentials for the community to actively contribute. Besides, farmers are even expected to pay from 600 to 1000 Birr (Ethiopian currency) per square meter of construction which is three folds of the price for the traditional hut (Benjamin, 2010). Secondly, the typology is generated to resemble the spatial configuration of the urban houses (modern house) in major cities of Ethiopia. Thus, most of the construction practices of the round hut typology are lost in the process of realization of the new corrugated iron sheet roofs. For example, the extensive use of wood and dung for fire in rural dwellings is not considered in the new typology. Passive ventilation systems and heat conservation techniques are also not present in the new typology. Thus, it turns out that different cultural habits and day to day practices are suppressed because of adopting to the new typology.

3.3 Design analysis of the prototype Concept and approach The other vital approach which is introduced in the model, is the notion of a cooperative as the driver of the transformation process. The combination of a technically laid out plan, animated by the synchronized activities of the settlement’s cooperative, is projected to implement a hybrid township which incorporates the dynamism of an urban area and the self-sufficiency of a rural community. It is argued by the NESTown initiators, this process would generate local rural to urban transformation in rural areas (Oswald, 2015). The four nuclei approach The fundamental essence of the model is based on a spatial concept and on cooperation. The spatial concept is referred to as ‘4E’ by the initiators. 4E stands for the four basic lenses of the model which are Ecology, Energy, Exchange and Education. Each of the four ideas is integrated in the model, determining the spatiality as well as the performances of the model. Spatially this is portrayed by the ‘Four Nuclei Approach’, where the NESTown model positions these four nuclei at the center of the settlement as the central engine of transformation, see Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-8 The 4E Neuclus (Oswald, Benjamin, & Fasil, 2016)

Ecology: The model starts with analyzing the flow and stocks of energy, people and matter. The main driving force of the model town are human activities. Based on the vast spectrum of activities, the town is realized as an overlapping coordinated system. The subsystems are dealing with the supply, consumption and waste disposal. The overlapping system obtains the physical resources like water, food, construction materials and energy locally for the consumption within the area. This calls for being part of the ecological domain and achieving a smooth internal ecology. Which makes it a self-sufficient system by itself (Oswald et al., 2014) Energy: is the driving force for creating, growing, structuring and shaping forms of life and things” (Oswald et al., 2014, p9). The project fundamentally secures a variety of opportunities for the production these energy sources for humans like agriculture for food production. The proposed town system also requires the use of electricity for consumption and production purposes. The project uses energy sources from regenerative sources like wind, water, sun, geo thermic and biomass. The energy distribution covers a wide range of scales in the spatial extents of NESTown plan (Oswald et al., 2014). 40

Exchange: Maintaining efficiency in the use of resources requires balanced exchanges within all the sub systems, groups and individuals which assures higher potential for of self-sufficiency. This explains the NESTown designed relationship between the available resources within a defined socio-economic scope and the resources which are being assimilated. Manpower, building materials and techniques are the basic medium of exchange at the initiation of the project (Oswald et al., 2014). Education: -The envisioned urban transformation can only take place with the help of education. ‘Learning by doing’ was the approach followed during the implementation phase. The education focuses on the basics of building, operating and maintaining a town including water management, cultivation systems and irrigation. The process of building and operating a NESTown prototype is also a learning as the experiences gained through building will be used on the next NESTown prototype based on the model. This progressive step by step building of the town will create job opportunities at various levels of construction for the local trainees who will pass through the education and process. Within this process, exchange of skills will take place between the individual neighborhoods (Oswald et al., 2014).

Components architecture and planning of the project as adapted from (Oswald et al., 2014) Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-11 shows the conceptual plan and the site layout of the project with the

following key components: •

•

The town core is a composition of a town square defined by the 4E centers. The public square, surrounded by trees for shade, also organizes the radial axis of the neighborhood in all four directions. The square will be the central nuclear space of the neighborhood providing a common access point to the four transformation centers. Three territorial perimeters of the radial town around the central square are identified based on circumference. Starting from 0500 m (small), 500-2500 m (medium) and 2500 to 10000 m (large). The spatial organization is based on four quarters around centers, defined by the main access and linked by the radial ring road access. The houses and the row of houses resembling structures, referred as the rain water units have an important role for the performance of the settlement. The modular houses offer multiple use, serving as a workshop and rain harvesting instrument equipped with a cistern and a relief trench. The urban structure is thought to use infrastructure as a resource to increase solidarity and communality. The urban neighborhood unit is a tract of the settlement encompassing 150-180 households or 1200-1400 inhabitants. It is thought as a unit of the greater settlement’s system. Two facing rows of housing define in between lying land for agriculture and constitute parts named ‘close’. Each close might have a different performance based on the cooperative intent of its dwellers. Building methods are characterized by four aspects: Resources, materials, craftsmanship and quality. All the aspects are referred to the contextual availability and appropriateness.

Figure 3-9 Conceptual plan (Franz Oswald et al., 2017)

Figure 3-10 Before BURAnest conditions of Bura area (Zegeye & Sascha, 2013)

Figure 3-11 Map of the planned future of BURAnest (Zegeye & Sascha, 2013)

The cooperative approach The NESTown model basically relies on integrating the different features of the design interventions to promote the idea of rural to urban transformation. The model is interpreted spatially to host the objectives catalyzing transformation. Agriculture, housing, infrastructure and urban spaces are coordinated to shape activities and functions, and to deliver the process of transformation based on the NESTown vision. The design implementation is used as a tool to start the process of urbanization. The realization of the model is deliberately dependent on the formation and smooth running of cooperatives. For this reason, the NESTown model provides a premade charter, where the responsibilities and the engagement of members of the cooperative are outlined. The charter is conceived as the starting point of all steps and it is supposed to enforce how the NESTown model will be realized and how it performs. The willingness of living in a legally-framed cooperative is a necessary precondition to be part of the model. For instance, the NESTown model defines signing the charter as the precondition to possess land rights. The ‘new town charter’, which is the guideline for its development, is derived from the following basic issues: emergence, development, implementation, construction, site location, scale and spatial context for any proposals of the model for a prototype (Oswald et al., 2014). The town charter sets seven points which are summarized below based on the ‘Amhara model town booklet of concept and experiences’ by Oswald et al., (2014)

The new rural town .. 1. … is an urban settlement planned and spatially organized with principles of density and self-sufficiency. 2. … is used as a strategic tool for sustainability, job opportunities and influence beyond its perimeter. 3. … is primarily focused on young rural population, natural resources and sharing. 4. … is based on the culture and tradition of common welfare in terms of food production, building shelter and infrastructure. Based on newly acquired knowledge; locals will attend thier their economic and administrative roles. 5. …. offers diversity of roles including agriculture, forestry, water management, energy production, energy management, building, recycling, transportation, maintenance, food processing, textile. This is based on application-oriented education and skills. 6. …. uses the exchange of resources to fulfill needs. There is a mandatory commitment to recycling and renewable resources. 7. … bears on participatory process based on the knowledge of the local inhabitants. These are points that every individual inhabitant is required to accept and act accordingly in order to be part of the NESTown settlement. Training is a complementary activity following the cooperative legal agreement by the members. Based on the town charter the inhabitants themselves are expected to become the actors building and operating the town ship autonomy. They should each play a role in the process in a balanced and regulated manner. Here are some roles that are necessary for the operation of township.

I solemn promise That I will use what I have learned wherever I am allowed to work for the best of my community: That I will improve my skills further for a better future of BuraNEST.; That I will teach others the knowledge I have acquired; So help me god! Source: - (Oswald et al., 2014) Members are expected to agree on a generation-long contract of cooperative membership in order to be part of the community and possess a role in the NESTown prototype. Quoted form (Oswald et al., 2014)

Strategies of NESTown model Based on the references about the NESTown model(Franz Oswald & Schenker, 2010),(Franz Oswald, 2015) and (Oswald f., Fasil G., 2014) Seven basic conceptual strategies emerge from the vision of the NESTown model. For this analysis the study is focused on six of them which targets social transformation. 1. Autonomy – Self governance The town is proposed as a self-administering and managing entity based on a local cooperative formed by the members. This cooperative assigns a coordinator and council, in charge to administer the NESTown model implementation phases, and especially the 4E (Energy, Ecology, Exchange and Education) issues. The 4E pillars are translated into units of public functions which serve the community and are located at the center of the settlement. A minimum of 12 households can start a prototype implementation, and it can grow up to 4000 as a small town and 20000 as a large town of participating households (“የአማራ ሞዳሌ የገጠር ከተማ ቡራ ኔስት ሊቦራቶሪ,” 2016). This makes the town very dynamic and ever changing. The contract is a commitment for an autonomous cooperation between households which will be passed from generation to generation. It is based on a will for subsidiarity and participation which is signed as a town contract at the start of the township. The concept of subsidiarity empowers the local cooperative members in their tasks as part of the cooperative. It leaves the larger power of action on the individual actors themselves while there is a communal level of engagement. This comes in the spotlight when realizing and maintaining the community facilities. It also accentuates the autonomy of the cooperative in internal decisions and actions. “It follows the principles of autonomy and self-reliance. Participation and the balancing of resources and yields are openly discussed and equitably governed through interaction between individuals and community” (Oswald, 2015, p116). Sharing responsibility among the members is intended to ensure the realization of ideas which are part of the NESTown prototype vision. The town contract (the charter) frames the range of individual and community level roles and responsibilities that are dependent on each other. It also determines the relation to an higher level of governance. It asserts the level of autonomy the cooperative possesses. Incentive of land use meaning the right to work on a piece of land is used to facilitate the initial stages of the cooperative formation. Based on this incentive, different roles and responsibilities are shared among the cooperative members in the realization of communal elements of the proposal. “The town is an enterprising corporation that produces income and resources from its own initiatives, competences, diversity and density of inhabitants” (Oswald, 2015, p116). 2. Self-sufficiency - Urban quality Self-supply is the most important aspect of the proposal. The NESTown model relies on producing and supplying energy, resources and water for its members from its own resources. The cooperative system is organized in a way it can create a sustainable coexistence. Energy is defined by the prototype as all types of energy needed for fueling urban quality. By this it also includes food and infrastructure. Food fuels human activities, while infrastructural energy like electricity fuels production and process. Integrated food production at a household level and at the community level are supplemented by water collection infrastructures and are thought to ensure food 45

production around the year. Wind turbines and biomass processing generates electric energy for local consumption. “The town seeks to cover its resource needs with a high degree of self-supply” (Oswald, 2015, p116) Seed capital investment is of course required to jumpstart the process of self-supply. But the system and implementation phases are designed to ensure long term selfsufficiency. For the sustainable realization of this strategy, self-sufficiency in terms of skill transfer and experiences sharing should be introduced. Vocational education and training chains are used as a tool towards achieving this self-sufficiency. The NESTown model is a means to achieve “congruence between given resources within its own periphery and the required resources for its own existence” (Oswald, 2015). 3. Metabolism - Urban activities The activity of township is embarked by the construction of the town itself through phases. The first component is agricultural production on the communal fields in a form of integrated town agriculture. This will start the chain of metabolic activities in the township as it empowers the locals with revenue. Using the income gained from the first round of agriculture, it is financially possible for the locals to construct the rain water units as a part of the water supply infrastructure. A process of skill exchange for building activities, mobilization and execution, demonstrates the emergence of a metabolic system of activities within the community. Specific roles based on participants individual skills in the building process would be relayed to the running of township. When the normal day to day activities start to take place, each member would be involved in specific but strongly linked activities. “It develops its cooperative urban identity from continually balancing new enterprises and resources” (Oswald, 2015,117). The four nuclei approach defines an epicenter of the settlement, whereby it acts as a generative point of activity rippling in the whole settlement. The metabolism of the town is modeled to promote the sustainable running as well as the growth of the township. According to the model, the cycle of successful activities leads to the growth, densification and expansion of the township. 4. Renewable resource - Infrastructure The NESTown model basically relies on local resources for its implementation and continues growth. “The town transforms the forces of sun, water, soil and air to produce energy” (Oswald, 2015, p117) The model employs technological and strategical approaches to conserve and renew natural resources. Networks of distribution and alternative production define the essence of infrastructure in the model. Networks of resources and waste management are established within the community. Forestry, parallel to the use of eucalyptus wood for construction, is done to ensure sustainability. The housing units of NESTown have a double purpose as water collection infrastructure by integrating special roofing with a storage reservoir. The infrastructural network is integrated at a neighborhood level. Local energy is also produced by bio digesters and sustainable biogas production. Maximum utilization of natural resources for energy production is also one of the driving principles of the spatial design. 5. Exchange - Network The town center is a spatial interpretation of exchange. Exchange in all aspects is promoted as a driver of the NESTown prototype. The town core offers this opportunity for sustainability among 46

the four pillars of energy, ecology, education and exchange. It is a place where all types of networks overlap and originate to define the infrastructure. “The infrastructure is coordinated in a network and sustained cooperatively” (Oswald, 2015,p117). The primary role of the cooperative is to regulate and maintain the sustainability of exchange in all aspects. Exchange is considered as the process of making, relating and coexisting by means of multimodal interchange of resources and knowhow. “It swaps materials and goods, experiences and values. New ideas and opportunities, as well as renewed demand for goods and services emerge” (Oswald, 2015). The integration of different modes of payment and neutralizing debit is also another important approach integrated in the NESTown model. Means of exchange are also extra currency through services and material. The NESTown model is an attempt to fill gaps limiting exchange and coordinate them to run smoothly towards development and growth. 6. Education - Urban laboratory The town concept values skills as one of the most important resources to be disseminated, developed and exchanged. Starting from the implementation, education plays a crucial role due to training sessions of building skills and making use of sustainable building materials. “It incorporates production and application of knowledge, trial and development, imitation and invention. It offers permanent training” (Oswald, 2015,p.118). It is an urban laboratory that is expected to be the engine of synthesizing information gained from practice. This aspect helps building a knowledge reserve for upgrading itself. This will strengthen the relationship between neighboring prototypes as it creates networks of skill transfer and exchange. While the prototype is performing as a town, the dedicated central space for education will continue hosting different practical education sessions. Moreover, the town model is expected to be dynamically learning from its own experiences. Processes of each practical step are recognized as learning opportunity for the coming events and routine activities. 7. Open institutions and gardens – Identity In its true essence, “the town, cooperatively built by the inhabitants, grows from the town core with a center square and four nuclei based around ecology, energy, exchange and education” (Oswald, 2015, p.119). This approximates the emergence of the town from the existing environmental domain. The model postulates that the true identity of the place will be preserved, since its emergence and growth through time are the results of discussions and adjustments by the inhabitants themselves. The complete dependency on contextual resources of all kind is expected to forge the feeling of belonging and ownership by the inhabitants. This emotional construct shall deliver an expression of comfort and beauty in the settlement’s public spaces gardens and arcades. According to the NESTown model, the hierarchy and integration of space and activity is towards the establishment of a deep sense of place in each prototype.

3.4 Implementation of prototype and challenges The NESTown model aims to foster change in the community that goes beyond introducing utilities and housing. The model acknowledges the implementation itself as a process of transformation. Steps of implementation since 2010 are illustrated in the time line diagram of Figure 3-13. Benjamin Stahli, town project coordinator, asserts this notion as “the need for change and - most importantly - the faith in its own creative strength, can be injected in to the heart of a society like Bura” (Oswald et al., 2014), p.22). The contractual agreement for cooperative is meant as the introduction of this injection of faith in creative change. Steps in implementation and construction Based on the time line of the project for BuraNEST prototype (Figure 3-13), it is possible to summarize the different challenges and measures taken throughout the process in three basic categories: The first category is about implementation issues regarding the pre-construction preparations and procedures under the title of Foundation of legally required cooperative and transfer of land rights. Secondly, the overview of the Agricultural cultivation and training process in the implementation will be discussed. And thirdly, the actual construction procedures of buildings and infrastructure are discoursed under the title of Building houses for water harvesting. Foundation of legally required cooperative and transfer of land rights While initiating the activities leading to the construction of the prototype, the coordination with the existing inhabitants was a challenge for the NESTown group. Among the local inhabitants a project counterpart (a person who can mobilize and coordinate inhabitants) was needed to be assigned to take over the self-reliant cooperative unit. The NESTown task force started finding ways to facilitate large gatherings and means of reaching the local population. Benjamin Stalhi mentions a successful gathering of 600 inhabitants was possible in 2010 by involving a clergy member from the Bura-Mariam church with a title of a ‘Diakon’. It was a successful mobilization which raised curiosity among the local population. However, in was not convinced that the message hit the target of injecting creative will in the locals, especially after immediate departure of the Diakon from the project for unmentioned reasons. But he also articulates the unexpected success of involving a university graduate in the place of the ‘Diakon’ as a coordinator counterpart (Oswald et al., 2014)

Figure 3-12 Communal meeting under a tree (Franz Oswald et al., 2017)

Figure 3-13 Timeline based on data from (Benjamin, 2010), Self processed

Agricultural cultivation and training Once the land use rights are handed over, inhabitants are expected to start agricultural production to ensure continued supply of food and sufficient capital for expenses to come. Based on this sequence of activities the plots for integrated town agriculture as in Figure 3-14 were activated along with nurseries for forestry activities.

Figure 3-14 Picture of plant nursery (“የአማራ ሞዳሌ የገጠር ከተማ ቡራ ኔስት ሊቦራቶሪ,” 2016)

Training the first group of locals was the other method to facilitate the chain of education and execute the different tasks onsite. At the immediate start of the BuraNEST prototype implementation, training of carpenters and masons also started. The eleven trainees, pictured on Figure 3-15, learned how to implement the different parts of the prototype including details of the architectural strategies as well as infrastructural units. The yearlong training qualified them to be able to construct the housing units of BuraNEST without guidance. Their qualification was endorsed by certificates from the woreda of Libokemekem.

Figure 3-15 Picture of trienes (Bezuayhu & Daniel, 2015)

The town agriculture is the basic and the dominant source of income. However, for realizing a vision of urbanization based on the NESTown model, other modes of land use and generating income are also introduced. For instance, processing of raw materials and production of textile, or production of marketable craft works can be marketable with in the NESTown community where by large percentage of the population is involved in agriculture. Moreover, to minimize dependency on transporting goods and supplies in and out of the town, a system of self-sufficient economy and production is proposed. Therefore, the buildings also introduce shades which can serve as barns, workshop, food factories and many other household’s utilities. When the degree of self-sufficiency is set off balance in different occasions of varying internal demand and supply, the NESTown model suggests the following measures that can be based on the experiences of the prototype: • • • •

Territorial expansion Improving quality of production for maximizing supply Exchanging habitants between other NESTown rural towns Any combination of the above

Having other types of land uses is very crucial to guarantee an equilibrium between agricultural production and consumption. To maintain the equilibrium and to promote sustainability, it was also important to address resource preservation and maintenance. Three basic principles are set initially: Firstly, acceptance of the charter for rural towns, secondly, the use of local resources with an imported knowhow and thirdly, the reuse and innovation in recycling of resources. Building houses for water harvesting Modularizing the different components of the physical implementation was an important step for the validation of the proposed design. Each element of the construction (the structural frame, foundation, suspended floor, roof ….) is studied and modulated to have the maximum efficiency with a limited budget. The same principle is also applied for forming the right size of the cooperative with the right proportion of trained members who would lead the process of realization. Water works and water management are the first steps into the urbanization process. They are the basis of agricultural and gardening activities as well as of the household life in town. The implementation process is a highly engaging activity, involving every individual of the community. Water as a resource determines the extent of the infrastructure required to sustain the community. It is deeply embodied in the dwellers’ daily routine. Therefore, the NESTown model considers the water works of the prototype to be the pride of the community as the basic communal infrastructure made by everyone (Oswald et al., 2014). The sustainable system of water harvesting includes the RWUs (rain water units) and collection pits located underground. RWUs are wide roofs, supported by a wooden structure and double story high (Figure 3-16). At the stage of water works, only the structure is built to support the roof as a water collector. Later in the development of the town, the frame structure is to be filled up by locally produced adobe bricks, in order for the structure to become a complete home with two

stories. Therefore, the waterworks include the basic physical structure for the housing units called the ‘closes’.

Figure 3-16 RWU structure and plan (Franz Oswald et al., 2017),

Based on the NESTown group study, one of the critical problems that are influencing the rural living conditions, is the limited space for households. As remedy, design solutions of the model intend to increase the space households’ functions and members. In the recent local typology, corrugated iron sheet roofing consumes about 40% of the total budget for construction work (Oswald f., Fasil G., 2014) and the NESTown model proposes a double story prototype to achieve maximum affordable space with small surface of roofing. Through this architectural strategy the model was capable of delivering 86.4 m2 of gross residential area for households, which is more than three folds the average area of existing dwellings (27.7 m2) (Oswald et al., 2014). The prototype also integrated local materials for the construction of the structural framework. Eucalyptus wood is used in most of the local constructions. Straight, slender segments of eucalyptus are used with the local knotting technique for the load transferring mechanism of RWU. The NESTown model claims that the connections are fundamentally adopted from local system of knotting joints without using any metal nails. The infill material is also made out of bricks which can be locally made by making a specific composition of the cotton soil in the area, as shown in Figure 3-17, left. They are referred to as adobe (sun dried bricks) (Oswald et al., 2014). .

Figure 3-17 Adobe bricks and construction of water reservoirs (Bezuayhu & Daniel, 2015)

Given the number of challenges due to the building foundation’s durability, a very different type of foundation is proposed in the prototype. As the NESTown group observed, decay and deterioration of foundation systems have caused recurrent problems for the local way of construction. Therefore, based on soil expansion analysis, the prototype proposes a concrete pile foundation with wire mesh to lift the whole structure high above ground, in order to avoid termite attacks from the eucalyptus frame of the building (Oswald et al., 2014). The prototype foresees a concentric growth of the town system, replicating the nuclear center radially. This is based on principles of economic efficiency and offers the opportunity to achieve rapid growth (Franz Oswald et al., 2017). It is also a way of promoting spatial cohesion and density by structuring the township towards urbanization. This approach is offered by the NESTown model as a method to contain uncontrolled sprawl of buildings and urban settlements, phenomena that were observed in the neighboring towns of Yifag and Addis Zemen. The linear town sprawls was recognized to have a set of drawbacks in terms of growth, efficiency and development. Thus, the NESTown model is a way of addressing this tradition of premature urbanization by using the following principles based on Oswald et al.,(2014). • • • •

The town center being located with a generous offset (750-1500m) form major traffic axes Consideration of topographical conditions The town growing by concentric rings, radially form the center Buffering forest land use on the areas facing the main access roads structuring the four quarters of Nestown plan.

Financial Strategies Alternative modes of payment and exchange for assets and activities are introduced as a part of the model. These methods are integrated as to allow for the exchange of materials, labor and cash based on communal understanding. This makes the internal relationship stronger and selfsufficient. However, to realize the BuraNEST prototype, different financial strategies are employed for the different purposes. The town center: Ideally, the continuous expenses and costs related to building, running and maintenance of these units for communal purposes shall be covered by the local community. But in the current condition and the reality of poverty, it is indicated that it is necessary to have continuous investments (Oswald et al., 2014). The infrastructure: All the communally used service routes are handled by the existing procedures of the local and federal administration. However, for the construction of the BuraNEST prototype, contributors were used which are involved as partners of the project (Oswald et al., 2014). The close: Every member of the cooperative is expected to contribute in terms of fees, individual and communal taxes. Financially, dwelling inside building is possible by payment in kind (materials and labor) aside to cash (Oswald et al., 2014). Management and Education: For the kick start of the NESTown prototype, project leaders were from Switzerland but working with local collaborators. However, the BuraNEST community is

expected to autonomously continue the development by managing and teaching based on the gained experience. Building shell and finishing: The building unit construction process is subdivided into building shell and seven finishing phases, whereby the owners can keep building in phases, while financially recuperating. Building shell includes the parcel of land, share of the arched, share of garden, foundation, load transferring structure, walls to neighboring houses and roofing. This defines the basics of the house; the rest of the steps are not absolutely necessary for inhabiting the building except finishing level one. At this stage, all the basic elements, floors and walls are completed, rendering the unit habitable. The next steps are done as to maximize the use of each space and customize each unit for individual use. For this reason, it is possible to complete the rest of the steps on long term. Different levels of finishing are also standardized for affordability. The ‘budget unit’ is for low cost shelter needs, the ‘standard unit’ with the highest level of finishing and ‘split unit’ provides housing on both floors of the unit (Oswald et al., 2014). Desired result and system: “The town is the place of production of common welfare and common welfare is the base for the welfare of the individual” (Oswald f., Fasil G., 2014). The number of activities producing income parallel to earnings, savings and funds, are expected to create different needs and opportunities for work and services which will facilitate the rural urban transformation. The plot: Lease of land is based on the legal parameters of the administration with the precondition of being a member of the cooperative. The lease would be handled by the current laws and bylaws. However, it is stated “we also don’t know the financial burden that the plot puts on the cooperative and individual household” (Oswald f., Fasil G., 2014, p.32). Therefore, the amount of the financial burden that would rest on the individual inhabitants was not clear. Due to the financial limitations of the BuraNEST prototype, external financial sources were included. The Cost Sharing Agreement has been signed between NESTown Group and BIUD, the first ANRS - authority responsible for BuLab implementation. Subsequently, the cost sharing for different components of the town is being applied on activities as follows based on (Oswald et al., 2017): Finances from Ethiopia

Finances from Switzerland

ADA - BuCTC- BuraNEST Community Construction site Bahir Dar re Model house Training Centre / school building cross frame construction Nucleus 1 re Design ITA model garden ANRS Government - constructing access plantation; BuCTC- Internet Centre roads; bridge; release channel + catchment Nucleus 2 re Design and building of model basin; cooperative promotion; Libokekem houses + timber plantation woreda administration Nucleus 3 re Market Square + tree plantation +Market stands + Market containers ORDA, in collaboration with GREEN Close one re organization of Cooperative ETHIOPIA - tree nursery; fencing; forestation Societies road; ITA model garden RWU 1 re house construction, including cisterns + stables + fencing RWU 2 re cisterns + stables + fencing + model toilets 54

4 Chapter IV -Theoretical discussion of NESTown innovation 4.1 NESTown prototype development

Social innovation is a successful marriage of actions- institutions- social systems dynamics and context-based history and cultural reference (Figure 4-1, Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Before looking at the changes that could be brought by the NESTown prototype, it is important to look at the socio-cultural context.

socially

innovative

community-based

Figure 4-1 Conceptual relationship of context and social system. Self processed

Looking at the community livelihood, it is possible to identify the progressive impact of urbanization from the past. It is evident to see the succession of diffused urbanization impacts manifesting in different aspects. For the pretext of this paper, these layers have been provisionally categorized as follows: • • •

Pre-urbanization rural livelihood Remote influence of urbanization on rural livelihood Indigenous urbanization (NESTown prototype)

Pre-urbanization rural livelihood Traces of traditional livelihood preceding the urbanization phase in the rural context are visible in the intertwined relationship with the natural habitat. Direct influence of natural elements like topography and water resource is evident in the patterns of sporadic settlements as a consequence of strong dependence on land fertility and access to rivers for water consumption. Livelihood activities are always inscribed within the domain of the local environmental resources. Household tasks and community relationships are the result of accessing and using the different natural resources. At the ‘Betesebe’ (household) level, members have different roles. Men are usually the household heads, responsible for farming activities on the household agricultural plots(Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Farming is usually dependent on the fertility of the land and the rainy seasons. Young boys are responsible for handling the livestock on communal grazing fields and along rivers where they meet fellows from different households and different community carry out social activities. As a result, grazing fields are also places of playing, expression and youth association. Young girls are mostly responsible for bringing water for household activities. For this purpose, they are expected to walk long distances to rivers. Through this activity they socialize with other girls in the community. Friendships and communication happens while fetching water and on the 55

long walks to and from the river. Intersection of these activities of boys and girls takes place at the river, which is a common water source, and creates ground for special relationships to emerge that can lead to the formation of new ‘Betesebe’. Women are often responsible for handling the household activities related to cooking food for the whole family, taking care of infants and maintaining the household. Moreover, means of transportation are limited to walking and riding donkeys, mules and horses (Hurni, 2007), which limits the extent of the accessible radius for a Betesebe. Community gathering happen under the shade of a tree in a very traditional way, that is respecting community and cultural values. Exchanges used to be limited to open markets which are organized traditionally on specific days of the week. Exchanges of products of farming, crafts and livestock happen to meet the needs of the households. Traditional healthcare was practiced by traditional masseuses and ‘wizards’ of the community. These individuals are believed to have mastered the healing power of herbs and wild plants to cure even complicated health problems of the modern world. Education, reading and writing was limited to clergy practices and religious study (Getahun, 2012). Other types of skills are usually transferred through kinship relations within a community (Getahun, 2012). The traditional strong faith requires frequent visit to the local church, which is also a big factor in determining the settlement structure and location. A normal household visits the closest church several times per week (Hurni, 2007). This makes the church an important rural gathering entity, since large majority of the community is a member of the congregation. The spatial and institutional interconnection between community members, as described, is depicted in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2 Interconnectedness of households and specific roles by age and gender. Self processed

Remote influence of urbanization on rural livelihood Regardless of Ethiopia being one of the less industrialized countries, remote influence of urbanization on rural livelihood started to be visible in recent decades. Especially after the crash of the feudal order followed by the land reform of 1975, influences of the urbanized world started to make their way into rural livelihoods in terms of resettlement, villagization, politics, primary education etc. On present-day, the rapid urbanization is planting its roots in rural livelihood, due to interests of job opportunity, education, and access to industrial products. 60% of children’s attend formal school in 2007, which was only 15% in 1970 (Hurni, 2007). Significant rural to urban migration of youth is the result of emerging townships and cities, offering better quality of life (Hurni, 2007). Commuting to nearest towns for services like education, health care and market for industrial products is the new trend in rural livelihood (Hurni, 2007). The impact of urbanization is evident, among other, in the evolution of house construction as well as in the increased access to industrially produced tools for farming and industrial fertilizers for maximizing production. In some areas, access to means of transportation extended the accessibility radius. The pull factor of urbanized areas is also displayed in the phenomenology of rural livelihoods through the mutation of internal spaces in houses and abandonment of traditional cultures like clothing. As mentioned in the chapter 3 background study section, new typologies of house construction have become a trending element in the recent decades. This is a result of urbanization and industrialization making materials like corrugated iron sheet more affordable and available (corcoro). Along with the introduction of new construction materials, the traditional round hut is replaced by a new rectangular plan for the design of urban housing. Also, frequent traveling to nearby towns has become a new trend (Hurni, 2007). Seasonal migration to gain income in urban areas has become possible. Total immigration to urban areas has increased greatly, saturating barely urbanized areas. Related to this situation, dramatic population growth was also recorded with 4.1 % rate of urbanization (Alaci, 2010). In this mixed character there are also very essential elements of urbanization which did not extend to the rural condition as for instance, the access to information, clean water and electric energy. Absence of these critical elements limits the possible developmental merits of urbanization and its positive impact. In fact, conditions have worsened due to several shortcomings: Economic pressure on rural livelihood has reached its peak since the inflated urban market is challenging for the agrarian way of life (Dorosh et al., 2010). Due to the lack of information and infrastructural access, agricultural products at a rural household scale are being exchanged for very low prices for urban consumption, whereas industrial products including fertilizers and other agricultural inputs, are being sold to the rural population for a comparatively very high price (Endale, 2011). The aggregated impact of urbanization has left rural livelihood on a very deprived state, so that the youth is forced to migrate and change lifestyle (Hurni, 2007).

Indigenous urbanization (NESTown prototype) To address this situation, the NESTown approach developed a mechanism to inject a technological and social transformation whereby the rural is capable to reorganize and restructure itself to the merits of the urban. The NESTown model comes as a solution, promoting indigenous urbanization. Conceptually, the model is a plan to enforce rural community with rural to urban transformation of settlements and ways of life. The model claims to be a community-based development capitalizing on the merits of the community to address a multitude of problems. Hence, based on Cajaiba-Santana (2014), the model is constructed to archive a socially innovative result through asset building, addressing root opportunities towards social change and by reconfiguring rural dwelling culture. Moreover, to be a successful community-based system of settlement it needs to involve community rooted views (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Therefore, the innovative strategies are singled out as agencies of social innovation and discussed in relation to the contextual practices, values, habits, views and norms which are portrayed in institutions and structures of the context. What follows highlights the critical aspects of the ‘structuration’ process attempted by the NESTown model. In the dynamics of agents and institutions, the external agency of NESTown and its relations with the internal institutions and agencies of the local communities are considered. This approach is articulated as structuration perspective based on Cajaiba-Santana (2014). Here follows the brief discussions of the innovative strategies in the NESTown model.

Autonomous community The cooperative governance of the NESTown model ought to start with an initial charter of understanding. The charter promotes local capacity towards rural urban transformation. The town charter introduces a mechanism of cooperation and administration targeting gradual but comprehensive change in social dynamics from rural peasantry to urbanite livelihood. To this purpose, the town charter puts forward subsidiarity and participation in its own track of social

change towards autonomy in governance.

The diagram in Figure 4-3 synthesizes the correlation and expected coordination of this innovative strategy.

Figure 4-3 Autonomy through subsidarity and participation. Self processed

The town charter is a generation long agreement which declares a system of subsidiarity and participation involving each member of the community. It grants rights to land, infrastructure and advantages but also communal responsibilities. Through this subsidiary autonomy, individuals are

entitled to take part in the decision-making of the community. Therefore, the actors of this innovation are meant to be the inhabitants themselves. The goal of introducing an autonomous governance is to structure a new mode of coordination within the social fabric of the community. It is intended to promote a smooth system of social hierarchy and relation which embraces the NESTown model in all its attributes. This requires change in the existing traditional social hierarchy, which is based on the more hierarchical/traditional decision making system, where most power is in the hands of the elders and in some cases the clergies. “Communication and decision-making systems must involve community-rooted views of economic, social and cultural development. They should include constraints on the influence of dominant views and practices” (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005,p59). In contrast, the the NESTown cooperative organization selects individuals to be the coordinators and representatives of the community based on their education and communication skills. This narrows the candidates to educated youth in the area. Moreover, the cooperative charter adopts democratic poll-based decisions on relevant measures. For this reason, the new idea of a town charter is considered as agency since it promotes social change. The agency of community resistance towards new actions leading to settlement is the other agency which was evident in the first implementation of the NESTown model which is the BuraNEST. The history of previous governmental attempts of villagization after the 1975 land reform, which are considered unsuccessful in maintaining the different attributes of the community, has marked high level of skepticism and distrust of the community towards external ideas. In addition, a certain deterioration of governance relations had eroded and weakened the trust between the local communities and the administration. The abovementioned resistance manifested in the reluctance of community members to take part when the town charter was being introduced. The agency of community resistance was a consistent constraining feature challenging the smooth implementation of the NESTown model. Frequent negotiations and adjustments were made to harness the constraining agency of community reluctance.

Self-sufficiency and metabolism A balancing and self-monitoring development is introduced by the NESTown model to enable self-sufficiency. The codependency of individual strategies is regulated as the town grows and transforms by adopting a development and transformation strategy in terms of land utilization, community membership (population), functional diversity and infrastructural integration of the township. The combination of these strategies is expected to achieve a new format of social structure animating itself and its environment for its interest of transformation. The innovative approach followed by the NESTown model is an attempt to establish selfsufficiency within one settlement system using the 4E concept (Figure 4-4). Conceptually, the NESTown model organizes needs and demands as to create a cyclic chain of relationships to fulfill respective needs.0

Figure 4-4 Self-sufficiency by internal relationships. Self processed

To realize these strategies, it requires functional diversity in terms of occupation and activity of inhabitants. The production of ‘energy’ sources like food shall be complemented by exchange activities and education while being sustained by ecological actions. This requires assigning specific roles to the inhabitants, spaces as well as resources. The community is used to mostly rely on agriculture as a basic source of income and traditional social structures are organized on this premise. The rural livelihood is dependent on the remote but crucial relationship with urban areas in many aspects, including basic needs. This remote co-dependency between the urban and the rural has influenced the social fabric of rural communities in terms of agricultural dynamics and social hierarchy. Beyond the demand for agricultural products of the rural areas, urban areas are also influential in terms of education centers. The NESTown group promotes a new approach which changes the social structure to achieve a self-sustaining community. Looking at it as a social innovation, the agency of the NESTown model is promoting functional diversity and a balancing system between growth and land utilization. Therefore, the action of intervention was introduced as a NESTown spatial plan. The plan structures the growth of the town into concentric territories promoting and balancing functional diversity and infrastructural integration. Recently, many theories of technological innovation are being criticized for their limited economistic and efficiency-based interpretation (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). And the systematic regulation of NESTown model to maintain self-sufficiency potentially falls in this pitfall due to the lack of reference to the community traditions and practices. The existing community practices act as a constraining institution trough the sporadic character of settlement, based on arable land availability and kinship proximity. Social solidarity groups and work groups are the traditional ways of maintaining social welfare and modest self-sufficiency. These social institutions within the society will have to be reconfigured and reformed as a result of the intervention by the agency of the NESTown plan. Therefore, the new, structured format of a

NESTown settlement is coupled with training and information procedures that have to precede implementation in every step through the process as well as growth of the township.

The town is modeled to promote sustainable operation as well as the growth of the township. The cycle of successful activities leads to the growth, densification and expansion of the town ship.

Figure 4-5 Metabolic activities starting from ITA+ RWU for diversity densification and expansion. Self processed

The NESTown model is envisioned and formulated to be a system of continuously growing community by including new members through time. The model starts a system that originates from integrated agriculture and is promoting density and expansion. In metaphoric terms, agricultural infrastructure is the beating heart of the township providing an increasingly robust source of food and income as the town develops infrastructure and population (see Figure 4-5) The agency of a communally integrated agriculture may conflict with direct subsistence dependency on household level agriculture which used to be practiced. The leap from a social structure of individual production to communal production could only be successful through the good performance of innovative actions as a part of the Nestown model.

Exchange The NESTown model includes a strategy of recognizing a set of possible costs for promoting town development. Rights of land use, housing, infrastructure, information, knowledge and skills are part of the possible cost incurring elements. Within one single NESTown, these resources could be either local, or completely external resources. Conceptually the model also promotes exchange between a group of NESTown prototypes. Moreover, the model is structured to promote material and service exchange in addition to currency exchange. These concepts are pictured in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6 Alternative exchange moads of possible costs. Self processed

Different steps of the physical realization are associated with possible exchange methods involving inhabitants. Rural communities lack the financial capacity to practically realize the town model. Therefore, the model relies on on different modes of exchange to be an inclusive development. The agency of the NESTown model facilities and runs based on exchange networks between producers, processers, service and makers (builders, craft workers...). Integrated agriculture being the basic mode of production, different members of the community will be involved in processing raw material like cotton to textile and some are involved in the building of housing and other important development units. These roles can co-exist through multimodal exchanges between different actors given the limitation of financial capital. The NESTown model acts as an agency through its framework of implementation and growth. The community in the context is not new to multi-modal exchange. In fact, most of traditional communal exchanges take place based on mutual understandings about service and material exchange. In deprived situations markets do not reflect the needs of disadvantaged groups, hence this part of the community depends on local exchange routines (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). Wenfel (shared cropping and share raring) are exemplary types of social practices’ exchanges. Social institutions like Idir, Mahiber and Debo at a community level also embrace the basis of material exchange for community welfare. However, the motivation of exchange is directed towards communal transformation in the case of NESTown model, thus differing from the traditional motive of subsistence. The social innovation of exchange in the prototype relies on its system of structuring development.

Education - Urban laboratory The strategic action of the NESTown model towards education deals with the physical context by promoting the baseline for converting resources to a supply system. This strategy is adopted in the implementation as well as the growth the town. Conceptually, external resources and know-how are injected in the local community for the implementation phase and they are expected to reproduce themselves through communal learning as the township grows. Education as an approach of the NESTown model is situated in all the aspects of the prototype, as illustrated in Figure 4-7. This makes the prototype an urban laboratory. The NESTown approach of urban laboratory is a method of development where the community transformation is facilitated by communal learning and practicing. New technologies are adopted for the sustainable implementation and growth of the prototype. Figure 4-7 Conversion of local resources to supply system by external resources of training. Self processed

This external method requires external efforts of educating to be assimilated by the community. The process of co-learning is induced in the social practice of the community to develop a selfsustaining township. This social approach towards education is promoted by the agency of NESTown model. The social system whereby knowledge is transferred by practice, is the envisioned goal by NESTown prototype. This makes the urban laboratory strategy of the NESTown model as an agency leading to social change. However, rural communities used to establish traditional dwelling with limited social transformation through time. This traditional education practices of church and kin-based transfer of knowledge in the pre-urbanization period has limited the assimilation of trending information. Nevertheless, it is the primary agency which sets moral and value standards in the community. Due to this established social norm, the rural has been mostly detached from influences of urbanization. Although remote impacts of urbanization are evident, with regard to modern education, it has little to do with social transformation in the context, since educated members mostly migrate to urban centers (Hurni, 2007). Hence, the overwhelming leap from a remote, rural livelihood to a self-transforming urban township is recognizable in the reluctance of the local community.

Open institutions and gardens – Identity The tradition of identifying oneself in terms of a specific culture and religion is common in the study area. However, people’s sense of belonging is also associated to the physical, social and demographic geography of their location. It is relevant to put together values and principles of local communities to understand their reference to spatial identity. Local values are imbedded in their social activities and practices. Routine activities of a casual day are constructed through negotiations of traditional values and commitments. Based on literature study and personal situated knowledge, three basic interactions happen in the daily life of the rural population in the context: interaction with environment, interaction with community and interaction with a religious center. These three interactions co-exist in the dwelling culture of each household. The three interactions are fundamentally different with respect to the reasons for interaction. Interaction with environment happen for acquiring resources for the livelihood whereas interaction with community take place with socialization purposes. Interaction to the center of belief, mostly the church, is for the purpose of experiencing personal fulfillment beyond the physical world. The spatial composition of these three interactions, landscapes of rivers and fertile ground, meetings under tree shades and open markets with religious spaces and worshiping venue, constitute the spatial identity of a rural settlement. It is more than just the spatial references but also the activities and long history of practicing traditions that take place to create the sense of belonging to the area. Vibrant, traditional open markets; large, white clothed congregation in churches; as well as singing shepherds and roaring farmers on the field bringing life to the open fields trigger a special sense of place. 63

At a household scale, peculiar elements exist, indicating phenomenological traits of the society. The privacy of a household is one of the spatial values of a traditional livelihood. Household territory is marked with fence-like elements which are traditionally made out of stone piles, wooden studs or tree lines. On the one hand, the fencing has the function of bounding the movement of domestic livestock, on the other hand it is also a means of defining one household territory from the rest of the community. This indicates psychological perception of selfsufficiency at a household scale. The NESTown innovation brings about a completely new structure of settlement driven by density and infrastructure supporting environmental interaction of inhabitants in their daily life. The model bases the achievement of identity and sense of place on community cooperation and context-based materialization of the settlement and thereby lacks to embrace the two other basic sorts of interactions and traditional attributes of the spatial identity in rural context. The implication of this could affect the livelihood of inhabitants.

4.2 Structuration in NESTown: Agents and institutions In order to understand the structuration in the NESTown model, the social innovation theoretical frame constructed by combination of Actors, Structures, Institutions and Discourse (ASID) model of Moulaert et al. (2016) and Cajaiba-Santana (2014), and the are used. The analysis recognizes the agency of NESTown model and local community agency. The specific innovative strategies of the NESTown model are incorporated in the framework of analysis as new ideas which are introduced as an innovative way of inducing social change. Figure 4-8Scheme of theoretical framework informed by case study analysis. Self processed

A focus on specific institutional aspects of society is made considering their significance as an element of dwelling culture. This institution has constraining and enabling capacity over the new ideas of the NESTown innovative strategies. The institutions also demonstrate and react in their own way to result agencies of social change. This institution holds the situational logic of community. Identities, values and interests are manifested both as a defense of new idea or in support of incoming identity, interests or values (Moulaert et al., 2016). Therefore, the agency institution dynamics is discussed as a dualism as well as a constrain -opportunity relationship. 64

Kinship for settlement The single most important element of rural dwelling in the local context is land ownership or the right to use land. And the most influential social institution determining the transfer of rights to use land is kinship (Crummey, 1980). In a conventional situation, the right to use land is obtained by inheritance. In both social norms and governance frameworks, kinship is recognized as a tool of ensuring land authority. It is also a main pillar for the sustenance of the community as it is the link between households in a settlement in several aspects. Kinship based settlement is a routine that has been followed in the organization of settlements throughout the feudal order (Crummey, 1980). Although the land reform of 1975 restructured and broken apart rural settlements, their growth and expansion after resettlement has still been essentially based on kinship. This kinship-based transfer of land rights keeps blood relatives in relative close proximity. It is coupled with the mutual communal benefit of maintaining social welfare among blood relatives through different relationships. Based on the AISD model, institutions defined as continuous practices and routines that determine action in one aspect(Moulaert et al., 2016). In this case the kinship-based transfer of land rights forming settlements has always been there in a community. It is a recurrent routine generation after generation and a social practice determining organization and actions in a rural settlement. Therefore, kinship is one of the institutions in rural society. In the NESTown model the institution of kinship has however only a limited capacity in determining settlement patterns since it is a preconceived plan that should be executed as the community grows. The community grows based on the rate of new cooperative membership and the NESTown principles of maintaining self-sufficiency. The capacity of kinship as an institution to govern action regarding settlement is restricted. There might therefor be conflicts or contradictions between the NESTown proposal and the kinship institution in the local context, which could constrain the capacity of the NESTown innovation to effectively catalyze social change.

Figure 4-9. Household proximity. Self procced

Traditional settlements are composed of kin related young, middle aged and old households which mutually compensate each other’s weaknesses, making the kinship factor the most determinant in 65

the formation of settlements. This kinship and settlement pattern is also referred as indigenous strategy to secure social welfare by maintaining a middle-aged household in the settlement who can offer and experience help and security to the young and old households. Cloke, (2013) asserts this fact as the complete self-sufficiency of original rural settlements referring to Bonham-Carter (1976). In the case of the NESTown model which is basically focused on the young members, this dynamic relation could not exist. The absences of kin-based support institution is a possible constraint for the innovative strategy of self-sufficiency. In other words, the NESTown model address self-sufficiency at a community level which is different to self-sufficiency as it has been traditionally practiced at a household level and which gets extended to kin households in close proximity. The new format of organization seems to strictly follow the ecological and infrastructural needs for transformation, instead of the social needs. This imbalance could challenge the social sustainability of the town towards an interrelated urban society. Support systems and unconditional partnerships in agricultural practices with related families may not exist or function as well, thereby reducing the intensity of social solidarity. In traditional communities, the transfer of skills usually follows kin lines through generations. Although this might be a limiting attribute, it is also a means of maintaining identity in a community as the family with specific skills. It is also a traditional way of maintaining the functional composition of skills in a community.

Formalizing the informal cooperative and savings The remote impact of urbanization has introduced a formal pattern of dealing with different social issues. According to this standard, the rural dwelling in the local context is primarily based on informal practices. Tradition, values and communal moral hold together the balance of practices. Communal cooperation is part and essence of rural livelihoods. However, these relationship are rather governed by traditional norms instead of formal cooperation principles. This trend indulges the community with a dynamic authority which is time and place specific. At the same time individuals maintain their status within a community based on their actions within informal relationship. This implicit subsidiarity among members holds the community bond together without any other formal requirement. The common traditional institutions like Idir, Ikub, Mahber and Debo are exemplary units in a community.

Figure 4-10 Informal Community institutions. Self processed

Although these institutions are essential for the sustenance of the rural community their capital assets are basically rooted at the household level. Community assets and capitals are not organized 66

in a way to build communal features, rather they provide service at household level in a sequential manner, or emergency cases. As a result, communities are unfamiliar with physically built settlements as a communal asset, despite the bonding of a community through the agency of informal social cooperation. Cloke, (2013) in his book of rural settlement planning suggests the preservation of aspects of rural living addressing human traditional background. According to the ASID model the social organization routine of informal cooperation is a social institution since it is a recurrent community feature. These informal units are strongly embodied in the rural dwelling culture of communities. New social innovation ideas could be conflicting with social practice if they do not incorporate their values. Some defining attributes of rural living shall be maintained and preserved since they are alterative of the urban. Moreover, as Cloke, (2013) put it policies of rural planning should be defined by peoples need in their traditional context besides the economic criteria. The NESTown model is fundamentally based on a formal system of cooperation and cooperative governance. This approach requires formal practices and actions. The cooperative capital is considered as an asset that all members are supposed to build. This concept is alien for a community which practiced community life based on household units, which can be factor of tension between NESTown innovation and the existing community’s norms and practices. Regarding exchange and social network innovation, the NESTown model incorporates an enabling approach with multimodal exchange possibilities. Although based on the model, the development is initiated with a formal loan; members have the option to contribute to their debt with different means like services and materials. This derives from traditional community practices, where different forms of social cooperation are created based on non-monetary exchanges. In conclusion, the contextual traditional and informal organization which deals with social and economic functions, has a very clear distinction in terms of purpose, members, action and time of cooperation. Contrastingly, in the NESTown model, this clear delineation is not articulated. Unless a method of synergy develops between the formal structure of NESTown and the informal practice of the existing community, this situation will potentially limit the possibility of social transformation. To demonstrate this point, in a traditional society ‘Idir’ handles emergency situations happening to households whereas ‘Debo’ is a scheme of working together for efficiency and motivation. Both are made with and by people in the same community and both require contribution of some kind; however, their separation insures their distinct performance. In case of practical problems or ideological conflicts happening in one of them, the other would not be affected.

Positioning of hierarchical attributes: Elders and the church Rural communities abide to the traditional hierarchical status of prominent community members. It is a traditional cultural practice to respect and serve elders. It is culturally widely acknowledged that elders know better due to their long-life experience and maturity. Problems and decisions involving a set of households are usually consulted to elders of the community. The community refers to elders as ‘Yhager Shmaglewoch’ which is referring to their wisdom and belongingness to the community. Community members involve elders in social happenings like the formation of a marriage bond between two families and conflict resolutions between disputes. The position of elders and their words of resolution in the community matters are strictly respected. Elders are important actors in the social organization and their actions have an effect across households. The relationship of a community with elders and the social practice of obedience towards them could be referred to as a social institution based on the definitions of ASID model by (Moulaert et al., 2016). The church and the clergy are the other very determinant agency in rural society. In history the Ethiopian orthodox church has been the most influential element, especially in the northern part. Specifically, in the context of Bura where more than 95% of the population is recorded to be orthodox, the influence is significant. The church has been one of the important pillars of rural settlements throughout the feudal times as well as after the 1975 land reform. The clergy in the church has a very high position in rural community. Out of this respect, the clergy has undeniable influence in mobilizing the rural society as a is a place of charity, unity and identity. In history, the church has been perceived as a safe haven where people could seek shelter, including for mediation when they had committed intolerable actions in a community. In the rural society where the legal contract, has no place the church is the place to make promises and deals that will be respected by the negotiating parties. Actions endorsed by the church have more strength and acceptance. The routine interaction of the rural community with the church is another defining institution of the local society. Traditionally, rural settlements practice self-governance in their internal matters by a combination of these hierarchical values and roles (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007). Figure 4-11 Social hierarchy. Self processed

Considering

that

the

NESTown prototype’s cooperative administration and mobilization are carried out by educated youth rather than recognized community leaders, the missed opportunity of systematically integrating hierarchical social institution in the implementation of the prototype is evident. To illustrate this claim, it be can reminded that an intervention from a clergy member was required to start the mobilization of the BuraNEST prototype implementation (Oswald et al., 2014). In the same case, conflicts regarding land issues were resolved by involving elder community representatives. Despite this improvisation on the prototype, the model itself did not succeed in efficiently making use of the community hierarchical attributes. Over centuries of non-existent formal education, the church was the only institution which used to teach how to read and write (S. A. Getahun, 2012). Of course, the church offers the tools to follow religious education; but it was also the starting point of most of Ethiopia’s writers, poets, singers and historians. The value of the church goes far beyond religious services to the community. The social institutions towards the church could have been a great enabling factor for the NESTown model had it been tuned as a part of it. Especially with the implementation of the prototype on a on a context of 95% Ethiopian orthodox church followers. The active involvement of each housing in the church could have been a very influential tool for transformation since it is a phenomenological asset and a way of establishing one’s identity and belongingness. Churches are important landmarks in the vast rural landscape. Their location in the territory usually reflects their hierarchical prominence, as they occupy large pieces of land with higher elevation. The NESTown model is relying on the emergence of local identity and a sense of place through the assimilation of local environmental inputs in the local domain. However, the missing link with the church as an agency in the model is a constraint for the success of the NESTown model.

Informal social security and freedom of occupation Life in the rural communities of the study area is completely tied to the fruits of nature. The practice of crop cultivation, livestock raring, milk production, wood production, labor, pottery and other crafts are the basic occupational activities. However, within that domain of possibilities, individuals take up single or multiple roles to support their families and earn their living. Their duty is bound to the needs of their household. In recent years due to urbanization pressures, people also migrate to earn income in urban centers (Hurni, 2007) especially during the dry seasons when there is no cultivation or harvesting going on. This underlines the freedom of engaging in any possible activity to earn income. Through this practice and way of life, rural dwellers are more able to pass through difficult conditions and unbearable deprivation. Moreover, households perform a number of occupational activities at the same time by involving every member in the activities. For example, common households owning agricultural plots also keep some livestock for quick cash, cows for milk, and production of crafts for sale. Each member engages in one or more of the tasks. This is an accepted institution of practice and routine.

Figure 4-12 General procedures taken towards BuraNEST. Self processed

On the contrary, when households are incapable of generating enough income to sustain themselves due to various reasons, the other households in the community intervene by providing an alternative option like share cropping, share raring, Wenfel, etc. This practice creates an informal social security system where individual households are supported in a mutually beneficial arrangement. These traditional practices are intertwined with the community routine and practices; thus, they can be considered as institutions.

The autonomous nature of the NESTown model substantially lays on the formal contract of the cooperative. This approach of community formation is new when comparing to the traditional, rather informal aspects of a community. The element of subsidiarity in the autonomous governance strategy defines the responsibilities of individuals. However, the quality of flexibility regarding cooperation in the traditional methods is missing in the agency of NESTown model. Therefore, the path to follow towards self-sufficiency is based on the imposed agency of the NESTown model, which is based on a formal cooperative agreement which clearly lines out member roles and functions through its framework and training (see Figure 4-12). The model promotes a structured development of a township with communal efforts. Building communal assets and infrastructures are steps taken to promote communal transformation. It is an approach where an individual’s duty is formally bound to the community beyond their own household. This motive of the model can be constrained due to the contextual trend of self-sustaining households. The will based unconditional interaction and relations for mutual benefits are missing in the innovative strategy of the metabolism fostered by the NESTown model that energy production and consumption shall be balanced at a community level; which mandates individuals with specific function to complete the metabolism of community. Moreover the community level responsibility of individuals beyond their household, constrains their freedoms of occupation which had been freely exercised in the traditional dwelling culture.

5 Chapter V- Conclusion and recommendation The need for urbanization is getting stronger through this trend of globalization. Ethiopian rural settlements which are still very much traditional and primitive in some ways will need to join in to the global trend in one way or another. However, perusing the global standard of development don’t necessarily mean passing through the process of development drafted from somewhere else but also molding physical and social context based means and mechanism of progress and development. For the context of Ethiopia whereby the social assets and the human capital are overwhelming, it would be strategic to capitalize on the social attributes to lead the development. It will also better insure that identity and social values and norms can be preserved since they are peculiar assets of society. Effects of urbanization are becoming prominent in one way or another through the very high rate of migration and the remote influences transforming the rural (Atsede, 2016). Through this scenario one can question the dichotomy of rural and urban and explore the diversity of transformation possibilities to achieve technologically equipped, informed and contextual urbanization processes. Scholars have been dealing with this phenomenon from a multitude of perspectives in recent decades, especially in the in highly industrialized regions of the world . Besides, these issues are not sufficiently explored within developing countries like Ethiopia where labor intensive rural agriculture is still being practiced by the majority of the population. The innovation of NESTown is a pioneering approach directed to livelihood transformation to achieve social, spatial, environmental and economic means of urbanization. Innovative strategies of NESTown model are expected to mediate the transformation from indigenous rural livelihood to an urbanized system of sustenance generating a township. It employees social and technological transformation which strives towards social change by promoting indigenous urbanization. The model promotes extensive technological interventions regarding water resources, agriculture efficiency, building construction and energy recycling. These interventions are planned to augment the settlement resilience and sustainability as technological innovations. The model develops a social approach where by implementation and smooth running of the town ship with all its component systems of sustainability and efficiency; This calls for social change. By theoretical definition, the goal of social change makes it a social innovation approach. With the social innovation framework and theories in mind, there is a question of anchoring an induced process of change into the socio-cultural as well as phenomenological context of reference. Applying a social innovation perspective, which looks at the agency of NESTown and its institutional and structural context, allows to reveal the dimensions of constraints and opportunities determining the possible success and limitations of the NESTown project. In conjunction, local institutions and agencies are in tension with actions of external agency of NESTown. The NESTown innovation as an agency has multiple dimensions. The actions through NESTown agency promote schemes of urbanization as a unique township system. Regarding governance, the 71

model promotes an autonomic community governance through the specific action of a cooperative charter. With respect to land use, NESTown acts as agency of diverse means of income generation and interrelated functions feeding each other in a dense environment. Sparsely settled rural settlement is reorganized to become a small rural township based on the agency of settlement plans determining spatial extents and means of activities. Education is the essence since the model adheres sustainability and environmental soundness through its techniques and practices which are technological innovations. Knowledge transfer through practical learning is one of the priorities for the success of the model. Through this fundamental action the NESTown agency potentially drives systematic social change. Parallel to this, based on the theoretical framework, it is relevant to analyze the existing community institutions in relation to the actions of the NESTown agency. Institutions are formed in a given rural community based on long-traditional practices, historical premises, values and beliefs. It was evident through previous studies by (Bevan & Pankhurst, 2007; Bevan et al., 2006; Crummey, 1980; Getahun, 2012 and Girma, 1978) that kinship has a high significance in rural settlement formation, growth and community relationships. The formal and market-based nature of current urbanization trend seems to be conflicting with the rural lifestyle of the context. Besides, informal local collaborations have proven to be practical and vital in the traditional social values. Informal contextual community hierarchy is the ladder of decision making, mediation and conflict resolution. The phenomenological identification of local households and communities is crucial to analyze the effectiveness of social innovation processes in the context. Social solidarity, security and celebration are mainly orchestrated by the institutional values and beliefs of the community. Therefore, transformation processes that aim to be empowering forms of innovation, can only be conceivable by mediating and synergizing with local institutions and opportunities with enabling factors. Rural to urban transformation is postulated to happen through the NESTown model by introducing an innovative system of leaping from an informal cooperative organization to a community of formal subsidiarity and participation that promotes autonomous communal agency. Expansion of household subsistence farming to community self-sufficiency is considered to strengthen actors in their respective roles and to be transforming a static, agriculture based rural livelihood into dynamic, continuously growing and diverse ‘urban’ livelihoods through practical education. All this is assumed to be possible by empowering the contextual society with education and formal organization. However, three fundamental institutional constraint root causes were identified in the framework of this investigation which are summarized below. Top down mechanism - bottom up vote: NESTown relies on the dissemination of the ‘how’ towards transformation and it requires acceptance of the community. This entails top down mechanism validated by bottom up vote. One of the primary motives of social innovation is to create a system of bottom up strength by empowering individual actors through bottom-linked types of development. Horizontal mode of participation in the process of innovative decision making is relevant (Moulaert & Nussbaumer, 2005). However, in the NESTown innovation model, 72

pre-determined means of action and organization are introduced to channel activities towards a premeditated direction. These actions are essentially directed towards ensuring the technologyand resource efficiency of the implementation. The practicality of subsidiarity and the autonomy of a community is thereby questionable. Although the model envisions a system of collaboration for urban transformation which runs autonomously by its cooperative inhabitants, the ability of the community to shape its future (community as agency) may be limited by the premeditated agency of NESTown plan and charter of cooperative. Eventually, the ultimate actors of the innovation are the inhabitants themselves. In order to achieve a successful marriage of technological innovations and social innovations the community itself shall be part of the processes of innovating solutions. The mechanism of delivering this goal can only be derived from the community itself. Hence starting a transformation process with a predetermined and rigid model, stifles community generated innovation before flourishing, therey potentially compromising the envisioned goal. Informal institutions - legal cooperative: Rural communities traditionally practice informal collaboration and cooperation of households. The concept and the need for a legally signed contract has not penetrated the informal system of moral rules and values for community interaction. Moreover, experiences of trauma and distrust due to bad governance has planted attitudes of reluctance towards a formal system. Therefore, the NESTown model with all its formal cooperative charter and guidelines faced resistance from the local community. The model prototype struggled in the first years and still is struggling to plant its roots in the community. The success of the model depends on the capacity of the community to launch the development and growth of the prototype by itself. However, There is a dynamic implicit mode of social structure in the rural society of Ethiopia molded by long historical and cultural sequences. This structure is also manifested through settlement dynamics in rural villages. Rural settlements are implicitly organized for times of crisis as well as times of celebration. Hence it could be conducive if the introduced formal system could be softened by integrating means to embrace and build upon traditional informal relations established by the community. This kind of approach could also help to preserve local values and identities, constructing the birth of indigenous contextual structuration towards urbanization. Alien value system - exclusion of important institution: The model is introducing a unique urbanization scheme with a totally new approach of transformation. For this reason, education is referred as one of the fundamental pillars. However, given the contextual conditions, urbanization is a new paradigm of livelihood. The transformation and the active roles of inhabitants as actors is very critical to achieve the desired indigenous urbanization. Therefore, it is relevant to consider the value systems of the local community and to include important local institutions. Since the wil power of inhabitants is critical for the success of the transformation. The institution of community hierarchy has a significant impact in what takes place in a community. Elders and the Church are at the top of the hierarchy of community acceptance. 73

However, the NESTown innovation is not fundamentally capitalizing on these institutional enabling opportunities to accelerate the transformation process. Though not formally included in the innovative model, the clergy involvement in mobilization was in practice admitted by the NESTown group in the case of the Bura prototype implementation. Had this institutional aspect been assimilated on the model of transformation, it would have been able to integrate values and beliefs of the local society; which increases its credibility and facilitated the transformation process. In conclusion, the NESTown model, as an initial technology and social innovative intervention to promote indigenous urbanization, has created a learning opportunity in rural Ethiopia. Both the model and the prototype played an important role in demonstrating and starting the process of planning local rural urban transformation. However, following the start of the implementation of the first prototype, a set of challenges and difficulties arose that were not foreseen during the planning stage. For a successful future implementation of the model as an agency of a new idea for transformative social innovation, it needs however to foresee and integrate the institutional dynamics of the context. As a reflection upon the process, the NESTown group recognizes the need for “more involvement of local people, their cultural values and knowledge in the project development phase” (Oswald et al., 2014, p.35). This study concludes, that the NESTown model can be a promising approach if its setup can be revisited through a context specific participatory planning and innovation process, before the physical implementation starts. Limitations of the study This study was an attempt to investigate the possibility of social transformation from rural to urban in the context of Amhara region of Ethiopia at hand of NESTown model and realization in Bura kebele. Possible limitations of this study relate to the following aspects: The first concerns the availability of information regarding the influences of the intervention on the context and the actual reactions of the community. Lack of well recorded information through the intervention may constrain the deep understanding on the process of transformation . The second aspect regards the social innovation theories and normative references which are basically developed in and for societies of the Global North. Direct and strong understanding could be better constructed by adapting the theories to diverse contextual realities. Thirdly, the early nature of the study on the ongoing project, which is still in initial phases development, limits the amount of empirical information that can be analyzed in order to make valuable critical recommendations. However, doing this kind of research at this stage of development is justified, so as to be able to reflect on the findings before replicating the prototype in Amhara region and to allow for adaptation.

6 Bibliography Alaci, d. S. A. (2010). Regulating urbanisation in sub- saharan africa through cluster settlements: lessons for urban mangers in ethiopia, (5), 15. AMHARA Model Town. (2018). Retrieved August 5, 2018, from http://academiaengelberg.ch/en/programm/amhara-model-town/ Asfaw, W., Tolossa, D., & Zeleke, G. (2010). Causes and impacts of seasonal migration on rural livelihoods: Case studies from Amhara Region in Ethiopia. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 64(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950903557696 Atsede, D. (2016). Population change in rural Northwest Ethiopia: A transdisciplinary mixed methods approach. University of natural resources and life science, Vienna. Benjamin, S. (2010, December 17). Buranest preparation : Human resource and needs. Bevan, P., & Pankhurst, A. (2007). Paper Prepared for the Empowerment Team in the World Bank Poverty Reduction Group, 171. Bevan, P., Pankhurst, A., & Tom, L. (2006). Ethiopian Village Studies, 66. Bezuayhu, J., & Daniel, K. (2015). Bura NEST Training and capacity building program. Buranest: Nestown Group. Biggam, J. (2010). Succeeding with your master’s dissertation: a step-by-step handbook. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press. Butzer, K. W. (1981a). Rise and fall of Axum, Ethiopia: a geo-archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity, 46(3), 471–495. Butzer, K. W. (1981b, July). Rise and Fall of Axum, Ethiopia: A Geo-Archaeological Interpretation. https://doi.org/10.2307/280596 Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008 Chetty, L. (2013). Innovative Interpretive Qualitative Case Study Research Method Aligned with Systems Theory for Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Research: A review of the methodology. African Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, 5(1–2), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajprs.v5i1.7 Chilisa, B., & Kawulich, B. (2012). Selecting a research approach: paradigm, methodology and methods. Doing Social Research, A Global Context. London: McGraw Hill. Cloke, P. (2013). An Introduction to Rural Settlement Planning (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. Cohen, J. M., & Koehn, P. M. (1977). Rural and Urban Land Reform in Ethiopia. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 9(14), 3–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1977.10756232 Crummey, D. (1980). Abyssinian Feudalism. Past & Present, (89), 115–138. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/650660 75

Dorosh, P., Schmidt, E., & others. (2010). The rural-urban transformation in Ethiopia. Citeseer. Endale, K. (2011). Fertilizer Consumption and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3450.6009 Englebert, P. (2000). Solving the Mystery of the AFRICA Dummy. World Development, 28(10), 1821–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00052-8 Ethiopia Poverty Assessment. (2014). [Text/HTML]. Retrieved August 10, 2018, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/ethiopia-poverty-assessment Fattovich, R. (1977). PRE-AKSUMITE CIVILIZATION OF ETHIOPIA : A PROVISIONAL REVIEW. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 7, 73–78. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41223301 Fattovich, R. (2009). Reconsidering Yeha, c. 800–400 BC. African Archaeological Review, 26, 275– 290. FEATURE-Does a struggling Ethiopian model town offer lessons for... (2017, November 22). Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-landrights-towns/feature-does-astruggling-ethiopian-model-town-offer-lessons-for-the-future-idUSL8N1NS3FE Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. Getahun, A. (1978). Agricultural systems in Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems, 3(4), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(78)90014-8 Getahun, S. A. (2012). Urbanization and the Urban Space in Africa: The Case of Gondar, Ethiopia. Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 45, 117–133. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44325777 Girma, B. (1978). The Economic Role of Traditional Savings and Credit Institutions in Ethiopia. Economics and Sociology, Occasional Paper(No. 456). Hailemariam, A., & Adugna, A. (2011). Migration and Urbanization in Ethiopia: Addressing the Spatial Imbalance. The Demographic Transition and Development in Africa, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8918-2_8 Hurni, H. (2007). Building Ethiopia: “Engineering for Development and Change”. Identity and Modern Development. Lerner, A. M., & Eakin, H. (2010). An obsolete dichotomy? Rethinking the rural–urban interface in terms of food security and production in the global south. The Geographical Journal, 177(4), 311– 320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00394.x McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Suny Press. McGEE, T. G. (1971). The urbanization process in the third world. The Urbanization Process in the Third World. Retrieved from https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19721803990

Moulaert, F., Jessop, B., & Mehmood, A. (2016). Agency, structure, institutions, discourse (ASID) in urban and regional development. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 20(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2016.1182054 Moulaert, F., & Nussbaumer, J. (2005). The Social Region: Beyond the Territorial Dynamics of the Learning Economy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776405048500 Oswald, F. (2015). Looking Back on a Radical Idea: The Buranest Cooperative Rural New Town, Amhara, Ethiopia. Architectural Design, 85(4), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1938 Oswald, F., Benjamin, S., & Fasil, G. (2016). Amahara model town. Bern. Oswald, F., Benjamin, S., & Fasil, G. (2017). Nestown Guide. Bern. Addis Ababa: Nestown Group. Oswald, F., Fasil, G., & Benjamin, S. (2016). Amahara Model town. Bern, Addis Ababa: Nestown Group. Oswald, F., & Schenker, P. (2010). NESTown: New Ethiopian Sustainable Town A Real Life Experiment, 7(1), 9. Oswald, Fasil, G., Benjamin, S., Zegeye, C., & Peter, S. (2014). Amahara madel town-Buranest laboratory concept and experinces. Addis Ababa: Master printing press P.L.C. Research methodologies. (2018). Retrieved August 5, 2018, from http://www.socscidiss.bham.ac.uk/methodologies.html Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Selamawit, W., & Fasil, G. (2011). The history of Ethiopian Architecture Art & Urbanism (First). Addis Ababa: EiABC. Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn052 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17, 273–85. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.be/books?id=AvYOAQAAMAAJ Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method, 6. Zegeye, C., & Sascha, D. (2013). ETH-EiABC Workshop Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar, Ethiopia 1828 February 2013. Zurich | Addis Ababa: ETH, EiABC, NESTown. የአማራ ሞዳሌ የገጠር ከተማ ቡራ ኔስት ሊቦራቶሪ. (2016, February).