Journal Pre-proof

Post-earthquake housing recovery with traditional construction: A

preliminary review

Jingying Wang, N.G. Edward Yang Yung

PII: S2590-0617(23)00010-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100283
Reference: PDISAS 100283

To appear in: Progress in Disaster Science

Received date: 25 August 2022

Revised date: 23 February 2023
Accepted date: 4 April 2023

Please cite this article as: J. Wang and N.G. Edward Yang Yung, Post-earthquake housing
recovery with traditional construction: A preliminary review, Progress in Disaster Science
(2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100283

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Journal Pre-proof

Post-earthquake housing recovery with traditional

construction: A preliminary review

of
Jingying WANG1, Edward Yang Yung NG1

ro
-p
re
lP

Author Note
1. School of Architecture, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
na

Abstract
ur

Post-disaster reconstruction requires not only an immediate response but also long-term consideration of
the recovery of local livelihoods, sustainability of technology transfer, and respect for sociocultural norms.
A top-down approach for post-disaster reconstruction, usually relying on external resources and
Jo

standardized prototypes, might strongly hinder the recovery process. To enhance community resilience, the
use of traditional knowledge in post-disaster reconstruction is highlighted in the Sendai Framework. This
study specifically focuses on traditional construction. A systematic literature review is conducted on post-
earthquake housing recovery with traditional construction, and a hierarchical analysis framework helps
categorize the review results at strategic, managerial, and operational levels. Drawn from the review, a
classification of traditional construction systems is proposed, corresponding to their varied seismic
performance. The results indicate the possibility of strengthening traditional construction with seismic
engineering and its successful implementation into reconstruction. Specifically, it includes timber-
reinforced masonry, wattle and daub, timber frame construction, reinforced rammed earth, and reinforced
adobe. However, we also find that the sustainable practice of traditional construction remains problematic,
and the replication of participatory reconstruction is difficult. This preliminary review serves to bridge the
discipline of vernacular architecture and disaster management and establish a solid common ground for
further argumentation.

1
 Journal Pre-proof

Keywords: Local seismic culture, vernacular architecture, community-based disaster risk management,
owner-driven reconstruction, people-centered reconstruction, housing assistance, earthquake

1. Introduction
The process of decision-making during post-disaster reconstruction is constantly confronted with
tradeoffs between speed and quality, roles of professional and lay people, temporary and
permanent housing, to name a few [1, 2]. In response to the Sendai Framework, it is believed that
local populations should be enabled to accomplish sustainable reconstruction by themselves, and
efforts should be made to fit in existing social, technical, and financial capacities, instead of
applying external solutions [3, 4]. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on the adoption of
traditional instead of modern construction systems in post-earthquake housing reconstruction
projects. This review aims to bridge the gap between the technical understanding and empirical

of
implementation of traditional construction for housing recovery. Accordingly, three research
questions are proposed:

ro
1) What is the decision-making process from recognition to implementation of traditional
construction in the post-earthquake context?
-p
2) Who are the main stakeholders that promote the use of traditional construction in reconstruction
re
projects?
3) Which traditional construction systems have been implemented so far in reconstruction projects?
lP

2. Conceptual Framework
na

2.1 Traditional construction and vernacular architecture

A mix of terminology regarding traditional construction can be observed from existing studies,
such as non-engineered, local, indigenous, traditional, and vernacular. Despite the similarities
ur

among the terminology, each can refer to different scopes of the subject across different contexts.
Whereas non-engineered construction focuses on the absence of engineering knowledge [5-7],
Jo

local building practices refer to all building techniques that are locally available [8, 9]. Neither of
them necessarily emphasizes the continuity of communities’ building traditions. 1 The term
“indigenous” [10, 11] was not used in this study due its specific focus on indigenous populations.
This study targets communities affected by earthquakes, and they might not be indigenous.
Transmitted through master–apprentice relationships, the traditional ways of building are the
products of the master builders’ knowledge and creativity in handling environmental features to
fulfill communities’ socio-cultural needs [12-14]. Traditional construction in the present study is
defined as construction systems of vernacular architecture. In contrast to monumental architecture,
vernacular architecture utilizes locally available materials and reaches an ecological balance
between the availability of a resource and its consumption [15]. Some researchers argued that
vernacular architecture disproves the technological sophistication of industrial essence [16]. Yet

1
The concept of local building cultures (LBCs), however, is an exception as explained in Section 2.3.

2
 Journal Pre-proof

we suggest that the development of vernacular architecture, like other technologies, is based on
constant hybridization and technological add-on, where old and new technologies form some sort
of symbiosis [17]. To ensure the sufficient seismic resistance of structures with scientific proof,
traditional construction must be incorporated with seismic engineering before its implementation
into post-earthquake reconstruction, as explained in Section 4.1.2. Thus, traditional construction
in this study refers to both engineered and non-engineered construction systems of vernacular
architecture. For example, engineered wattle and daub construction falls under the scope of the
study, although it involves the use of mechanical timber joints and cement mortar. However, the
use of foreign materials, as a sort of technological add-on, should be limited to specific structural
components, while the load-bearing structures are still made of locally available natural materials.
More importantly, the continuity of the building tradition should be ensured so that the local

of
artisans continue to have control of the technologies.

2.2 Participatory housing reconstruction

ro
The rising recognition of traditional construction in the post-disaster context is closely related to a
shift in reconstruction schemes from a top-down approach (e.g., donor-driven reconstruction

-p
[DDR]) to a participatory approach (e.g., owner-driven reconstruction [ODR] and people-centered
reconstruction [PCR]).
re
Under the DDR scheme, reconstruction programs can be contracted to professional construction
companies so that materials are often imported from outside the affected community [18, 19]. This
lP

method is considered the easiest and quickest way of reconstruction and can serve large numbers
of vulnerable people in a short time [18]. However, as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, it cannot
na

meet the specific needs of individual communities. The top-down planning mechanism also
hinders grass-roots participation, probably leading to inappropriate designs and a lack of
sociocultural and climatic adaptation [20, 21]. Furthermore, reliance on external resources can
ur

force local companies out of business, with limited spin-off into the recovery of local economy
[18, 20]. Moreover, introducing foreign construction techniques is associated with greater risks of
Jo

technology transfer. It can force residents to compromise on materials and lead to dangerous
buildings practices with improper modifications [18].
On the other hand, ODR refers to a reconstruction approach that enables homeowners to rebuild
their own houses and advocates the use of traditional construction systems [22]. The advantages
of ODR include: (1) Dweller control of the reconstruction process with customized designs [22,
23], (2) reduced costs through the short logistic chain of building resources [18, 22, 24], (3)
contribution to the local economy [18, 24], (4) restoration of a sense of pride in affected population,
and (5) strengthened community ties through shared participation [18]. As an extension of the
ODR scheme, PCR contests that all affected populations should have the right to make the
reconstruction decisions, not just property owners [20, 25, 26]. It has been pointed out that landless
populations, the most vulnerable before the disaster, can end up even more marginalized after
reconstruction because they are not entitled to technical and financial support under the ODR
scheme [20]. However, the success of participatory housing reconstruction largely relies on

3
 Journal Pre-proof

adequate technical guidance to meet building codes and guidelines [18, 20, 22]. Thus,
professionals with the ability to improve traditional construction and the capacity building of local
artisans, architects, and engineers are crucial for the success of participatory reconstruction,
especially in regions confronted with severe loss of labor due to reasons such as rural-to-urban
migrations [27].

2.3 Existing reviews

Studies regarding the seismic performance of vernacular architecture have been widely conducted
in seismically active regions, such as India [28], Iran [29], Japan [30], Nepal [31], and Pakistan
[32]. Some scholars argued that vernacular architecture in seismic regions is developed by
communities through a trial and error process to protect their built environment [13], so that it may
meet modern seismic requirements [33]. Following this perception, the concept of the local seismic

of
culture (LSC) was established in Europe. LSC refers to vernacular practices that are culturally
sensitive to local building tradition and effective in resisting earthquakes [13]. It emphasizes the

ro
valorization of traditional construction to reduce the vulnerability of buildings and offers technical
solutions for the retrofitting of built heritage [13, 34, 35]. However, not all vernacular architecture

-p
is seismic resistant and some can lead to a high number of death tolls during earthquakes [36].
Thus, in contrast to LSC, this study explains how the seismic performance of traditional
re
construction can vary among different construction systems and introduces the possibility of
strengthening traditional construction so that it can be applied to post-earthquake reconstruction.
lP

In addition, a similar concept of “local building cultures” (LBCs) was proposed by the
International Centre on Earthen Architecture (CRAterre). Scholars of LBCs highlight the capacity
na

of a community to adapt to environmental conditions and promote the use of LBCs to improve the
efficiency of housing programs [3]. Compared to dominant technical research under LSC, the
CRAterre team establishes a connection between academic and operational settings, aiming for
ur

direct contributions to local building activities [4]. A toolkit for assessing LBCs was developed
during the post-earthquake reconstruction in Nepal [3, 4, 37]. Under the same philosophy,
Jo

reconstruction programs have been conducted in the aftermath of the 2007 Cyclone Sidr in
Bangladesh [38, 39], the 2010 Haiti earthquake [38], and the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the
Philippines [40]. However, studies of LBCs cover various natural hazards, whereas the present
study focuses on an in-depth review of post-earthquake reconstruction.
In summary, this study works on the cutting edge between disaster management and vernacular
architecture and proposes a conceptual framework for studying post-earthquake housing recovery
with traditional construction (Figure 1).

Disaster Management Vernacular Architecture

Pre-Disaster Post-Disaster Disaster Heritage Sociocultural

Preparedness Reconstruction Resistance Conservation Diversity

Top-Down Bottom-Up Seismic Floods, Tsunamis,

DDR ODR 4
Resistance Landslides, Typhoons, etc.

Housing Recovery Engineered and Non-Engineered

 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 1 A conceptual framework for post-earthquake housing recovery with traditional construction

of
3. Methodology
The methodology for this study is divided into two parts: (i) A three-round document selection

ro
process conducted from January to July 2022 and (ii) a thematic analysis of review results based
on a hierarchical review framework. A flow chart was developed to provide an overview of the
review process in Figure 4.

3.1 Document selection -p

re
To cover both technical research and empirical post-earthquake studies, two search engines were
utilized in Step 1 and Step 2 individually, followed by a snowball search in Step 3.
lP

Step 1: Summarize traditional construction systems reported on the WHE online database
Technical research recorded in the World Housing Encyclopedia (WHE) database was first
na

reviewed to identify traditional construction systems that have been studied within the
international academic community. The WHE is a platform for sharing information on
construction systems in seismic regions worldwide, including their socio-economic, architectural,
ur

and structural features. It has been organized by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
and the International Association for Earthquake Engineering since 2000 [41, 42]. As of July 2022,
Jo

169 studies from 46 countries were found on the WHE online database [43].
Table 1 Traditional construction systems categorized from studies on WHE

Preliminary review In-depth review

Earth structures Adobe (sun-dried bricks)
Rammed earth
Stone/Brick structures Brick masonry
Stone masonry
Timber structures Log construction
Timber frame construction (post-and-beam)
Hybrid structures Timber reinforced masonry
Wattle and daub
As shown in Table 1, a broad category of traditional construction systems was defined first through
a preliminary review of report titles on the WHE database. The category is based on the building

5
 Journal Pre-proof

materials used for the load-bearing structures, including earth, stone/brick, and timber structures.
In addition, timber frames2 combined with stone or earth infills are defined as “hybrid” structures,
as more than one material is used for the load-bearing structures. Then an in-depth review of each
report, specifically the description of “type of structural system” and “building materials of
wall/frame structures,” was conducted to specify different construction systems using the same or
similar composition of building material(s). It includes adobe and rammed earth under earth
structures, brick and stone masonry under stone/brick structures, log construction 3 and timber
frame construction 4 under timber structures, timber-reinforced masonry, and wattle and daub
construction under hybrid structures (Figure 2). It was noted that further classification of
construction systems is possible—for example, timber-reinforced masonry can be divided into
timber-framed or timber-laced structures, as explained in Section 4.3.1. Load-bearing structures

of
made of industrial materials such as plywood, steel, and reinforced or precast concrete, were
excluded. However, fired bricks can either be imported industrial materials or traditional building

ro
materials, depending on local context [44]. For example, Report 22 indicates that brick masonry
is “a traditional construction practice followed in India for centuries;” thus, Report 22 was included
for further screening.
-p
Expertise involvement (e.g., architects, engineers) in the construction process was also confirmed
re
from the reports, under the section “enforcement of building codes” and “involvement of expertise.”
For example, it was described in Report 2 that “in the beginning, this type of (adobe) construction
was designed and built by engineers and general builders, but later the same construction began to
lP

be made by the owners” in Argentina. The uncertainty of expertise involvement represents the
dynamic nature of traditional construction and verifies the necessity to include both engineered
and non-engineered traditional construction systems under the scope of the review.
na

This category is particularly helpful for the review, as it closely relates to the seismic performance
of the construction systems, as explained in Section 4.1.1.
ur
Jo

2
In some regions, timber frames can also be replaced by bamboo frames.
3
Log construction refers to construction formed by vertically or horizontally stacked logs with ends interlocked by
notches.
4
In contrast to the use of stone or earth infills in hybrid structures, timber frame construction refers to timber frames
infilled with timber panels, such as itakura in Japan and ganlan in China, as explained in Section 4.3.3.

6
 Journal Pre-proof

of
ro
-p
Figure 2 A Classification of Traditional Construction5
re
62 reports in 23 countries were selected from the WHE online database (Figure 3). The number of
reports in the database differs among countries due to the availability of corresponding documents.
lP

India, Italy, Pakistan and Iran are the top four countries with a relatively large number of reports
related to traditional construction. While many reports were conducted in Cuba, Chile, and
Kyrgyzstan, most of them are related to concrete structures and were, thus, excluded from the
na

review. In short, information drawn from the WHE database includes typologies of traditional
construction systems in different countries, their vernacular terms and regional variations, and the
availability of relevant building codes. This information was used to define keywords in the Scopus
ur

search engine in Step 2.

Jo

5
Although timber-framed structures under timber reinforced masonry commonly refer to timber frames infilled with
stone or brick, the use of earth infills can also be observed in Turkey and China.

7
 Journal Pre-proof

of
ro
Figure 3 Overview of total and selected studies from the WHE online database

-p
Step 2: Summarize post-earthquake studies collected from Scopus
To further identify studies on traditional construction in the post-earthquake context, a secondary
re
search was conducted in the Scopus search engine. Keywords were defined as a country name, a
type of traditional construction in the country, its vernacular term(s), and “earthquake.” Specific
lP

keywords for each type of traditional construction are summarized in Table 2. For example, based
on Report 72 in the WHE database, adobe construction is found in India, so keywords in Scopus
were defined as follows: TITLE-ABS-KEY ("India") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Adobe" OR
na

"Sun-dried bricks" OR "Bhonga") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Earthquake").

Table 2 Keywords for each type of traditional construction
ur

Traditional construction systems Keywords used in Scopus

Earth structures
Jo

Adobe TITLE-ABS-KEY ("adobe" OR "sun-dried bricks")

Rammed earth TITLE-ABS-KEY ("rammed earth")
Stone/brick structures
Brick masonry TITLE-ABS-KEY ("brick masonry")
Stone masonry TITLE-ABS-KEY ("stone masonry")
Timber structures
Log construction TITLE-ABS-KEY ("log")
Timber frame construction TITLE-ABS-KEY ("timber" AND "construction")
Hybrid structures
Timber-reinforced masonry TITLE-ABS-KEY ("timber" AND "masonry")
Wattle and daub TITLE-ABS-KEY ("wattle and daub" OR "wattle-and-
daub")

8
 Journal Pre-proof

Peer-reviewed documents were selected due to the rigorousness of their review process. Overall,
507 peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and book sections were obtained. The titles,
abstracts, and conclusions of each document were reviewed. Duplicated studies or those irrelevant
to the post-earthquake context were excluded. As the review specifically focuses on vernacular
architecture, studies related to monumental architecture (e.g., churches, temples, mosques) were
excluded. As a result, 104 documents from 15 countries were selected for the in-depth review of
the full text. During the in-depth review, case studies that were not mentioned in the WHE database,
but appeared in documents from Scopus, were added into the list of keywords, including stone
masonry in Bhutan, rammed earth in China, log construction in New Zealand, wattle and daub
construction in Nicaragua and Peru, and timber-reinforced masonry in Turkey. Therefore, 120
post-earthquake studies in 20 countries were included for the in-depth review. Among them, 32

of
studies involving post-earthquake reconstruction were used for a snowball search in Step 3.

Step 3: Snowball search of reconstruction projects

ro
In contrast to the database searches in Steps 1 and 2, a snowballing approach was used in Step 3.
Specifically, there are two types of snowball searches: Backward snowballing and forward

-p
snowballing. Backward snowballing refers to using the reference list of a paper to identify
additional papers, whereas forward snowballing means finding new papers based on the citations
re
of a paper [45]. In the present study, backward snowballing is utilized so that detailed information
about each reconstruction project can be examined, including stakeholders, reconstruction
lP

processes, and construction guidelines. The 32 studies of post-earthquake reconstruction found in

Step 2 were used as an initial set of papers for the backward snowballing procedure. Overall, 88
documents were reviewed, including 39 journal articles, 14 conference papers, 22 book sections,
na

12 project reports (six construction manuals inclusive), and one thesis. As a result, 16 post-
earthquake housing recovery projects were found to have utilized traditional construction in 12
countries (Table 3). These projects cover a time span of 312 years, from 1703 in Italy to 2015 in
ur

Nepal.
Jo

Table 3 Reconstruction projects based on traditional construction systems

Countries Earthquakes References
Earth structure
Adobe El Salvador 2001 El Salvador [46]
Peru 2007 Peru [47, 48]
Rammed earth India 2001 Gujarat [22, 49, 50]
China 2008 Wenchuan [51, 52]
China 2014 Ludian [53-55]
Timber structure
Timber frame construction Japan 2011 East Japan [24, 56, 57]
Hybrid structure
Timber reinforced masonry Italy 1703 L'Aquila [58, 59]
Portugal 1755 Lisbon [60-64]

9
 Journal Pre-proof

Italy 1783 Calabria [59, 61, 62, 65-67]

Greece 1825 Lefkada [68-70]
Pakistan 2005 Kashmir [9, 71-75]
Haiti 2010 Léogâne [14, 76, 77]
Nepal 2015 Gorkha [4, 37, 78]
Wattle and daub Peru 1746 Central Peru [79-84]
Peru 1990 Alto Mayo [81, 82, 85]
Colombia 1999 Armenia [83, 84, 86-88]

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

10
 Journal Pre-proof

Step 1: Summarize Traditional Construction Systems Reported on the WHE Online Database

Search Engine Total reports

Type of Construction Systems
WHE Online Database (n=169)

Preliminary Outcomes Related to

YES
Vernacular Traditional Include (n=62) traditional
terms construction construction?

Country names No
Exclude
Availability of building codes

of
Step 2: Summarize Post-Earthquake Studies Collected from Scopus

ro
Search Engine Peer reviewed Screen
Scopus
-p
papers (n=507) Titles/Abstracts/Conclusions
re
e.g. Keywords for Adobe Construction in Post-earthquake
India:
lP

context?
TITLE-ABS-KEY ("India") AND TITLE-ABS-
KEY ("Adobe" OR "Sun-dried bricks" OR
YES n=120
"Bhonga") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Earthquake")
na

Screen Full Texts

Thematic Analysis at Strategic Level

ur

Observation Assessment Legalization Marginalization

Jo

Step 3: Snowball Search of Reconstruction Projects

Reconstruction
Thematic Analysis at Managerial Level related?
Public Authorities Civil Societies
YES n=32
Thematic Analysis at Operational Level
Snowball Search (n=88)
Adobe Rammed Earth Wattle and Daub
(39 journal articles, 14
Timber Frame Construction conference papers, 22 book
sections, 12 project reports,
Timber Reinforced Masonry one thesis)

Figure 4 Flow chart of the literature review process

11
 Journal Pre-proof

3.2 Review framework

A hierarchical model of disaster management was adopted as the review framework for the
collected documents. The model originates from a framework drafted by an American system
theorist, Anthony (1965) [89], in analysis of management planning and control systems. It
categorizes management tasks or decisions into three levels—strategic planning, management
control, and operational control—in correspondence to a hierarchy in several dimensions: The time
span of the consequences, the level in the organization, and the importance of a single action,
among others [89].
The framework was introduced into the field of disaster management by Wallace & Balogh (1985)
[90] and further refined by Pezzica et al. (2021) [1] to fit into the context of post-disaster housing
reconstruction. According to Pezzica et al. (2021) [1], post-disaster decision-making at the

of
strategic level refers to meta-decisions taken by public authorities on a holistic vision, decisions at
the managerial level are taken by disaster managers and other professionals in charge of

ro
coordination, and decision-making at the operational level concerns technical decisions (e.g.,
construction systems) guided by architects, planners, and other professionals responsible for the

-p
execution of management plans (Figure 5). It was noted that the model is a simplification of reality,
as decisions can be taken at one or more levels simultaneously [1]. Nevertheless, it is helpful to
re
compare the decision-making process across different contexts, as well as to understand the multi-
faceted reasons why traditional construction was or was not applied to post-earthquake housing
lP

reconstruction.
na
ur
Jo

Figure 5 A hierarchical analysis framework [1]

Theme analysis was used to identify the common patterns drawn from the collected documents at
the three levels [91]. Theme analysis at the strategic level was to identify the meta-decisions taken
by public authorities toward traditional construction. It refers to the longest time span, covering
both non-disaster and post-disaster periods. Thus, the analysis was based on the in-depth review
of the 62 technical reports from Step 1 and the 120 post-earthquake studies from Step 2. Theme
analysis at the managerial level was to identify the main stakeholders in charge of reconstruction
projects, whereas analysis at the operational level was to identify the types of traditional
construction systems applied in the reconstruction. Both of the latter levels refer to specific post-
earthquake reconstruction projects. Thus, findings at the two levels are drawn from documents
related to the 16 reconstruction projects collected in Step 3 (Table 4).

12
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 4 Theme analysis at the three levels of disaster management

Levels of Disaster Decision- Theme Analysis Reference
Management makers
Strategic Public Meta-decisions toward traditional 62 technical reports, 120
authorities construction post-earthquake studies
Managerial Disaster Stakeholders in charge of 16 reconstruction projects
managers reconstruction projects
Operational Architects, Traditional construction systems 16 reconstruction projects
planners utilized in reconstruction projects

4. Review Results
The review results are explained at the strategic, managerial, and operational levels accordingly.

of
At the strategic level, a cyclic pattern of decision-making toward traditional construction was
identified. At the managerial level, two forms of coordination during housing reconstruction were

ro
noted. At the operational level, five types of traditional construction systems were found with
applications in post-earthquake reconstruction.

4.1 Strategic level -p

re
Research on traditional construction commonly represents a positive approach, as it tends to focus
on the strengths instead of the weaknesses of traditions [13]. However, in reality, decision-making
lP

for traditional construction is complicated. It lies in the variety of traditional construction systems
and their varied seismic performance. In the post-earthquake context, a cyclic pattern of decision-
making for traditional construction can be identified. Specifically, it encompasses four stages:
na

Active observation, assessment, legalization, and gradual marginalization (Figure 6).

ur
Jo

Figure 6 A cyclic pattern of decision-making toward traditional construction

4.1.1 Observation
The initial recognition of traditional construction commonly derives from empirical evidence of
field observations in the immediate aftermath of earthquakes, usually accompanied by
geotechnical/geophysical investigations [92]. Specifically speaking, visual analysis of damage
mechanisms in traditional construction is conducted, and direct communication (e.g., interviews

13
 Journal Pre-proof

or questionnaire surveys) with local communities is established. Archival materials are of

significance to confirm whether the failure of traditional construction results from improper
maintenance and modifications [93, 94]. The possibility of using satellite images captured after
the earthquakes to detect damaged buildings is also under discussion [95]. The observation stage
contributes to the basic understanding of traditional construction for the preparation of
reconstruction projects, including available building materials, main construction systems,
production mechanisms, and cost management [14].
According to the observation results, seismic performance of different traditional construction
systems varies. For instance, hybrid structures, in general, were found to be exposed to limited risk
from earthquakes in India [96-98], Turkey [99, 100], Pakistan [73], Haiti [76, 77], Nepal [101],
and Colombia [102], where reinforced concrete frame buildings could be severely destroyed.

of
Regardless of the regional variations of the construction systems, the seismic resistance of hybrid
structures can be concluded as the result of the high ductility of timber structures that resists

ro
seismic loads in combination with stone/earth infills that help increase the lateral stiffness and
energy dissipation of the system [32, 62, 103-105]. On the contrary, the seismic performance of

-p
earth and stone/brick structures is generally less satisfactory [95, 106-109]. High mass, poor
connections, and low tensile strength of the brittle structures are the main reasons for their seismic
re
vulnerability [110, 111].
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 7 Observation results on the seismic performance of traditional construction

Among the 120 post-earthquake studies, 96 have evaluated the seismic performance of traditional
construction based on the observation of damage mechanisms. Observation results can be
classified as positive, negative, and mixed (Figure 7). Positive and negative remarks refer to good
and poor seismic performance of the structures respectively, whereas mixed remarks can result
from different levels of maintenance and retrofitting of one construction system [112]. For
example, whereas most earthen structures collapsed after the 2017 Tripura earthquake at the border
between India and Bangladesh, adobe houses with bamboo reinforcement performed well [113].

14
 Journal Pre-proof

Statistically, timber-reinforced masonry and wattle and daub have achieved the highest rates of
positive remarks at 80.6% and 90.0%, respectively, whereas only 8.6% and 16.7% of positive
remarks were found for earth and brick/stone structures. Thanks to the high tensile strength of
timber structures, they are generally resistant to earthquake forces, as shown in studies from China
[105, 114], New Zealand [115], and Indonesia [116]. However, factors such as humidity, improper
connection, and poor maintenance can cause the deterioration of timber; thus, proper care is
required to maintain its seismic resistance [117].

4.1.2 Assessment
Following the empirical observational surveys, quantitative research was required to further
examine the experimental characterization and seismic behavior of traditional construction. As
noted, “engineering practice shifted from a largely empirical process to one of rigorous

of
mathematics” [62, p.53]. This assessment stage stands for the integration of local and scientific
knowledge to ensure adequate seismic resistance of traditional construction before its

ro
implementation into reconstruction projects.

-p
Generally speaking, the assessment of traditional construction can be conducted through two types
of simulations—numerical modeling and shake table tests, usually with a full-scale building mock-
re
up. Simulations for traditional construction can be confronted with challenges presented by its
irregular nature. For example, stone masonry, poses distinct challenges due to its non-standardized
construction process and limited linear behavior. Non-linear finite element models for stone
lP

masonry buildings must be simulated, followed by static and shaking table tests [118]. Shake table
tests may closest reproduce the real structural behavior of structures and ensure the adequacy of
na

seismic reinforcement systems [119]. However, the assessment process always requires
simplification to a model that can be described from a numerical perspective [120]. Thus, even the
most advanced analysis tool can prove to be inadequate in explaining the stability of complex
ur

structures [120, 121].

Based on the experimental results, retrofitting techniques can be offered to strengthen existing
Jo

construction systems and meet seismic standards. For example, after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake
in Pakistan, a cost-effective retrofitting technique of applying reinforced plaster on the surface of
masonry walls for unreinforced masonry buildings was proposed [122]. In Nicaragua, inexpensive
measures were utilized to improve wattle and daub structures during devastating seismic events,
including cross-bracing, proper connections at corners, and a structural ring around the wall [123].
After identifying proper retrofitting techniques, illustrative construction manuals can be provided
to local artisans, architects, and inspection teams participating in reconstruction projects [124, 125].
Consequently, traditional construction systems must be standardized so that their seismic
resistance can be assessed with scientific proof [14]. Standardization also allows the necessary
regularity for quicker production [61] and enables the prefabrication of some structural
components in advance, as mentioned in Section 4.3.3.

15
 Journal Pre-proof

4.1.3 Legalization
After the scientific assessment, legalization can further internalize traditional construction into
existing construction norms and regulations. Legalization expands the recognition of traditional
construction from professionals to public authorities. For example, Nepalese construction norms
include stone masonry and timber-reinforced masonry [37]. In Portugal and Italy, anti-seismic
construction systems were developed by the governments based on timber-reinforced masonry
[62]. In India, construction guidelines are provided for adobe and rammed earth construction [126].
Legalization can contribute to prompt interventions and implementations of traditional
construction into post-disaster reconstruction to “build on existing standards at the national level,
while respecting local specificities” [37, p.63].
According to the 62 reports from the WHE online database, 15 countries have legalized traditional

of
construction, resulting in 23 case studies in total (Table 5). Timber-reinforced masonry is legalized
in six countries with the highest recognition, followed by stone and brick masonry in four countries.

ro
Adobe construction is dominantly well recognized in South America, with building codes
established in Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, and Peru. India and Italy are viewed as countries that

-p
most actively internalize traditional construction, where up to five and three types of traditional
construction are legalized, respectively. However, building codes might not be strictly enforced,
re
especially in economically less developed countries. For example, a lack of seismic shear band
was found in most masonry houses in rural Nepal, even though it was required in the national
lP

building code, resulting in massive loss of life during the 2015 Gorkha earthquake [78]. Although
the design of adobe houses was prescribed by the Peru Technical Standard of Building E080, the
implementation of the standards was problematic, and a high percentage of uncertified adobe
na

houses collapsed during the 2007 Pisco earthquake [109]. The lenient enforcement of building
codes is one of the reasons that lead to the marginalization of traditional construction
controversially.
ur

Table 5 Legalization of traditional construction in different countries

Jo

Traditional Construction Countries Building Codes Reference (WHE Report)

Availability Lenient
Enforcement
Earth structures
Adobe Argentina O - 2, 89
Chile O - 179
El Salvador O - 14
Peru O O 52, 107
Rammed earth India O O 23, 171
Stone/Brick structures
Brick masonry Bangladesh O - 91
India O O 20, 22
Italy O - 29, 31, 206

16
 Journal Pre-proof

Malawi O O 205
Stone masonry India O O 80, 172
Italy O - 28, 113, 120, 121, 206
Nepal O O 47, 74
Switzerland O - 119
Timber structures
Log Russia O - 56
Timber frame construction Belize O O 165
Japan O - 86
Hybrid structures
Timber reinforced India O - 146

of
masonry O O 18, 116
Italy O - 206

ro
Nepal O - 99
Pakistan O - 146
Portugal O
Switzerland O -p -
-
92
108
re
Wattle and daub India O O 147
Note: “O” stands for affirmation.
lP

4.1.4 Marginalization
The marginalization of traditional construction is a complex process involving factors that can
vary among different cultural, social, political, and institutional contexts. Therefore, we attempt to
na

elaborate the process in chronological order.

First, drawing from the case studies in Portugal and Italy, where the legalization of timber-
ur

reinforced masonry dates to the 18th century, one reason for marginalization can be identified as
the relaxation of regulations after the memories of earthquakes have faded away [60]. “Large
Jo

periods of times without earthquakes have caused those developed seismic resistant solutions to
be eventually abandoned and seismic cultures to disappear because of the loss of seismic
awareness” [64, p.110]. According to a survey of still-standing masonry dwellings in Lisbon,
barely 15% of the buildings maintain the seismic retrofitting techniques enforced after the 1755
earthquake [127]. Once the regulations were not implemented with rigor and respect, it led to
deliberate modifications, poor maintenance, and rapid degradation, further worsened by improper
hybridization between old and new structural components [33, 67, 128]. As a result, confidence in
the seismic performance of traditional construction was lost [60].
Another reason relates to the modernization process. The transformation from a rural and agrarian
society to an urban and industrial society has led to an immense change in people’s lifestyles and
perceptions toward housing. For example, communities across Latin America generally seemed to
prefer more modern-looking houses, such as masonry, to earth buildings, such as wattle and daub

17
 Journal Pre-proof

or adobe [84]. In addition, the emphasis of engineering ideas was rather on “strength” instead of
“displacement capacity” or “deformation capacity” in the early industrial era when traditional
construction was rapidly replaced by modern construction [129]. For example, timber-reinforced
masonry buildings in Lefkas, Greece, can be viewed as an early realization of the displacement-
based design. They may suffer cracks from low-intensity earthquakes, but they can avoid collapse
in a severe seismic event due to their high displacement capacity [103], which helps to avoid the
concentration of destructive loads [62]. However, the construction of these timber-reinforced
masonry buildings ended abruptly in the early 20th century when modern structures
overwhelmingly emerged [103].
Third, failing to institutionalize the participatory reconstruction approach (e.g., ODR, PCR) in
existing management systems can also lead to the marginalization of traditional construction. For

of
example, despite the positive outcome of the reconstruction projects with rammed earth houses
after the 2001 Gujarat earthquake (which represents the first case study of ODR), it was not

ro
replicated after the earthquakes in Tamil Nadu and Kashmir [22]. Barenstein et al. (2010) [22]
contested that unless ODR was institutionalized through a policy framework that clearly explained

-p
the meaning of ODR and guided decision-makers through the process, the benefits of ODR were
unlikely to be recognized in future reconstruction activities [22]. The institutionalization of ODR
re
may create an enabling environment to adopt traditional construction for reconstruction instead of
relying on tactical planning.
lP

The marginalization of traditional construction may be ended with the next occurrence of
earthquakes, forming a closed cyclic pattern. The framework serves as a reference for public
authorities to localize the current state of understanding of traditional construction. It emphasizes
na

the fact that legalization alone does not necessarily ensure the sustainable practice of traditional
construction.
ur

4.2 Managerial level

The occurrence of earthquakes serves as a trigger for either the recognition or disapproval of
Jo

traditional construction (Figure 8). The recognition of traditional construction is mostly thanks to
the good performance of traditional structures surviving earthquakes, whereas disapproval is
mainly due to the lack of scientific documentation or construction guidelines for traditional
construction systems. For example, after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan, the use of
traditional timber-reinforced masonry for reconstruction was prohibited by the government, until
UN-HABITAT managed to collect sufficient evidence and propose construction guidelines for
reconstruction [8, 9]. From the 16 reconstruction projects, we can observe two main types of
stakeholders in charge of coordinating reconstruction activities, namely public authority and civil
society. In particular, by identifying which stakeholder has taken the leading role in promoting
traditional construction, we divided the 16 projects into two groups, either under the strong
leadership of public authorities or under the active engagement of civil societies. Detailed
information on the stakeholders in each reconstruction project is introduced in Table 6. The
dichotomous category oversimplifies the relationships of stakeholders that are constantly changing

18
 Journal Pre-proof

during reconstruction. However, it indicates a common pattern of coordination that can be

observed across context.
Table 6 Stakeholders in charge of reconstruction projects
Countries Time Public Authority Civil Society
Government-led coordination
Italy 1703 Marchese della Rocca -
(Marco Garofalo)
Peru 1746 Bourbon government -
Portugal 1755 Lisbon city government -
Italy 1783 Bourbon government Neapolitan Academy of Science
Greece 1825 British administration -
Japan 2011 Fukushima prefecture Japan Institute of Architects Tohoku Branch,

of
Tsukuba University
Civil society engagement

ro
Peru 1990 - Intermediate Technology Development Group
(ITDG), Cáritas Peru, el Frente de Defensa de

Colombia 1999 -
-p los Intereses del Pueblo de Soritor (FEDIP)
Colombian Earthquake Engineering Association,
Coffee Growers Organizations (CGOs)
re
El 2001 - European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office
Salvador (ECHO), FUNDASAL (Foundation for
Salvadorean Development and Affordable
lP

Housing)
India 2001 Government of Gujarat Hunnarshala Foundation, Auroville Earth
Institute, UNDP (India), NCPDP (India)
na

Pakistan 2005 Earthquake Reconstruction and UN-HABITAT, French Red Cross (FRC), Swiss
Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) Agency for Development and Cooperation
(SDC)
ur

China 2008 Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Wu Zhi Qiao (Bridge to China) Charitable
Development of China (MHURD) Foundation, Lee Hysan Foundation
Jo

Peru 2007 SENCICO (government agency in Catholic University of Peru (PUCP), CarePeru
charge of construction codes and
training)
Haiti 2010 Ministry of Public Works, Transport CRAterre-ENSAG laboratory, 3SR-UJF
and Communication (MTPTC) laboratory, French national research agency
(ANR)
China 2014 Construction Bureau of Zhaotong City Kunming University of Science and Technology
(KMUST), the University of Cambridge, One
University One Village (1U1V), Chan Cheung
Mun Chung Charitable Fund
Nepal 2015 National Reconstruction Authority CRAterre-ENSAG, 3SR (UGA), LMDC (INSA-
(NRA), Ministry of Urban Development Toulouse), Caritas Luxemburg, Nepalese Red
(MoUD), Ministry of Federal Affairs Cross Society (NRCS), Swiss Red Cross (SRC),
and Local Development (MoFALD) Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform
(HRRP)

19
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 8 Opinion divergence after disasters

of
4.2.1 Government-led coordination
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the use of traditional construction in post-earthquake housing

ro
recovery was actively promoted by public authorities in Italy, Portugal, and Greece. The Baraccata
system in Italy and Pombalino system in Portugal from the 18th century are regarded as the earliest

-p
traditional construction deliberately developed in the post-disaster context by governments,
namely the Lisbon city government and Bourbon government, respectively [62, 67]. In addition, a
re
similar prototype was developed in Greece by the British government after the 1825 Lefkada
earthquake [70]. All three construction systems share structural similarities and can be viewed as
regional variations under timber-reinforced masonry, which is elaborated in detail in Section 4.3.1.
lP

The solutions were chosen most likely due to the observation of houses that survived earthquakes
[62] and to ensure prompt reconstruction with available materials [61]. Despite the marginalization
na

of timber-reinforced masonry buildings over the last century, attention is rising again regarding
the maintenance of historical buildings [93, 130]. New experiments of timber-reinforced masonry
structures are being conducted in the Portuguese government’s structures laboratory and the Italian
ur

National Research Council at the University of Calabria [62, 67].

Meanwhile, the use of wattle and daub construction was also promoted by the Bourbon rulers from
Jo

Spain in Peru. In 1746, after a strong earthquake hit central Peru, the Peru governors decreed that
structures with more than one story had to follow the wattle and daub construction [79, 80]. The
use of wattle and daub in Peru dates back well before the Spanish conquest of the Incas, yet its
seismic resistance was first recognized after two large earthquakes in 1687 when the Spanish
discontinued the use of brick and stone for roof construction [79]. Constant improvements of wattle
and daub structures were taken till the 1930s when wattle and daub buildings were replaced by
concrete, steel, and brick structures [79]. In recent years, not surprisingly, wattle and daub
structures have regained interest from researchers and NGOs after several strong earthquakes in
the 1970s, who strive to offer affordable solutions to strengthen the seismic resistance of houses
in low-income communities [79, 82].
The other government-led reconstruction was found in Japan in 2011. Japan is famous for its well-
established disaster recovery programs, which are almost exclusively funded by the national

20
 Journal Pre-proof

government [24]. Post-disaster reconstruction with traditional timber structures corresponds to the
“localized disaster housing recovery” policy in Japan, known as chiikigata juutaku fukkou in
Japanese. It indicates housing reconstruction with the assistance of local resources, including
building materials, artisans, and technologies [24]. Although Japan’s prefectural governments
have agreements with the Japan Prefabricated Construction Suppliers and Manufactures
Association, which provides prefabricated steel housing units in the immediate aftermath of a
disaster, the massive damage of the 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami has surpassed the
capacity of the industry, leading to the promotion of localized disaster housing recovery policy
[56]. Compared to steel units, timber housing generated a sense of familiarity and comfortability
for community members [56].

4.2.2 Civil society engagement

of
As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, the seismic performance of traditional construction systems varies,
and some are rather inadequate. Thus, reconstruction with traditional construction, especially in

ro
countries with poor socio-economic conditions, was promoted under the active participation of
civil societies and less favored by public authorities at the beginning. It was usually spontaneous

-p
and unplanned, serving as a compromise due to limited resources, poor or damaged road
infrastructures, roaring prices of industrial materials, and limited technical know-how, especially
re
in rural areas [9, 14, 53].
For example, after the 2001 Gujarat earthquake in India, the initial reconstruction program
lP

proposed by the government was the relocation of the most affected villages, a decision made only
several days after the earthquake [22]. The local NGO network Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan
na

(hereafter Abhiyan) then conducted a systematic public consultation in 468 villages, revealing that
over 90% of villagers disapproved of the idea of relocation [22]. Thus, the government was forced
to abandon its relocation plan and work with local NGOs in the policy-making process. As a result,
ur

72% of affected people managed to opt for financial compensation to reconstruct their houses on
their own under the ODR approach [22]. However, it was noted that ODR by itself could not lead
Jo

to a resilient built environment. Its success strongly lied with Abhiyan’s coordination. Several
information campaigns were initiated, and training campaigns for masons and homeowners were
organized. In 2004, follow-up research found that the ODR scheme has been the most satisfactory
approach with generally good quality of construction [22]. Therefore, civil society organizations,
especially those familiar with the local context, tend to advocate bottom-up reconstruction
strategies based on participatory approaches. Compared to government-led coordination, most
case studies relied on the engagement of civil society to ensure the successful implementation of
traditional construction, covering countries such as Colombia, El Salvador, India, Pakistan, China,
Peru, Haiti, and Nepal.
Different types of civil society organizations can be identified, from charity foundations and local
or international NGOs to academic institutions. Cross-national collaboration is observed,
especially in regions where the recognition of traditional construction is not well established [32,
62] or testing facilities are inadequate [46]. In the case of Pakistan, Haiti, and Nepal, one can

21
 Journal Pre-proof

observe the implementation of a similar construction system (timber-reinforced masonry) utilized

in Portugal, Italy, and Greece centuries ago. In China, experiments on rammed earth structures
were conducted under the cooperation between a local university KMUST and the University of
Cambridge [53]. In Peru, reconstruction with improved wattle and daub houses after the 1990 Alto
Mayo earthquake was guided by an international NGO, the Intermediate Technology Development
Group (ITDG; now known as Practical Action), in collaboration with local organizations Cáritas
Peru and el Frente de Defensa de los Intereses del Pueblo de Soritor [81, 82].

4.3 Operational level

The implementation of traditional construction into housing recovery must rely on sound scientific
proof, yet not necessarily require the completion of the legalization procedure due to the stringent
time limits in the post-disaster context. Thus, reconstruction projects can be initiated between the

of
assessment and legalization stages (Figure 9). For example, in China, if experimental results meet
the requirements of existing seismic codes, reconstruction with reinforced rammed earth was

ro
possible under an emergency situation [53].

-p
re
lP
na

Figure 9 Reconstruction initiated between the assessment and legalization stages

ur

Five types of traditional construction systems have been implemented during post-earthquake
housing recovery, including timber reinforced masonry, timber frame construction, wattle and
Jo

daub, reinforced rammed earth, and reinforced adobe construction. Meanwhile, timber-reinforced
masonry is the most implemented building technique, with case studies found in six countries—
Italy, Portugal, Greece, Pakistan, Haiti, and Nepal (Table 3).

4.3.1 Timber reinforced masonry

The first implementation of timber-reinforced masonry into reconstruction dates to 1703 in Italy
and 1755 in Portugal, whereas its recent applications can be found in Pakistan after the 2005
Kashmir earthquake, Haiti after the 2010 Léogâne earthquake, and Nepal after the 2015 Gorkha
earthquake. As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, the construction system generally shows high seismic
performance. The technique has been widely practiced in Nepal, Pakistan, India, Portugal, Turkey,
Haiti, France, England, Greece, Romania, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Scandinavia [131, 132].
Specifically, its regional variations are carefully compared among Portugal, Italy, and Greece. The
Pombalino system in Portugal refers to half-timbered structures or timber frame structures infilled

22
 Journal Pre-proof

with masonry, where the use of timber dominates in terms of quantity and performance [63]. The
Borbone system in Italy, however, is rather based on wooden framing wrapped up in masonry [63].
The Lefkada system in Greece represents a typology known as a dual system [103], where the
ground floor is mainly constituted by masonry with a supplementary timber structure, with the
upper level being characterized by half-timbered walls [68].
In the case of Pakistan, two variations of timber-reinforced masonry can be identified: Timber-
framed and timber-laced, locally known as dhajji-dewari and bhatar, respectively [133, 134]
(Figure 10). 6 Similar to half-timbered structures, dhajji structures refer to timber frames with
masonry infills [32]. However, bhatar refers to masonry structures with horizontal timber elements
placed along the perimeter of buildings at several levels [134]. The straining and sliding of the
joints between masonry and timber laces (also called ties or reinforcement) help dissipate seismic

of
energy [135].

ro
-p
re
lP

Figure 10 Two variations of reinforced timber masonry: timber-framed (left) and timber-laced
(right) [67]
After the 2005 Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan, a decentralized ODR strategy was adopted for
na

reconstruction in rural areas, considering the low accessibility of scattered rural settlements [8, 71,
136]. Besides seismic resistance, timber-reinforced masonry was praised for its economic
ur

efficiency, as stone, mud, and timber materials could be salvaged and reused [74]. The use of
salvaged materials reduced difficulties of transportation and its related costs for communities in
Jo

high-altitude areas [74]. Dhajji buildings were engineered with standardized patterns of timber
frames such as X braces, replacing the original random patterns (Figure 11). Within three years of
reconstruction, over 120,000 rural houses were rebuilt using dhajji construction [133]. Bhatar
houses (Figure 12), on the other hand, were rather adopted in the remote valleys with limited
availability of timber materials [72]. In addition, people there preferred to have their solid bhatar
houses with 60 cm thick walls instead of dhajji houses that were not considered bullet-proof [72].

6
A similar classification can also be found in Turkey, where timber-framed masonry is known as himis, and timber-
laced masonry is known as hatil. Specifically, himis refers to timber frames infilled with stone, brick, or adobe.

23
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 11 An engineered dhajji house with standardized timber braces, Pakistan [72]

of
ro
Figure 12 Bhatar houses in Battagram [72]

4.3.2 Wattle and daub -p

re
Wattle and daub construction is one of the most widespread forms of earth construction, with earth
plastered onto a framework made of interwoven wattles out of timber, bamboo, or branches [44].
lP

In spite of poor thermal properties compared to other earth building systems, such as adobe or
rammed earth, the woven structure can be highly earthquake resistant and is, thus, commonly
found in seismic zones such as Latin America and Indonesia [137]. Although it is classified under
na

the category of timber-reinforced masonry in some research due to its structural similarities [62,
131], it is still viewed as a separate category in this study due to the differences in materiality and
retrofitting techniques. Wattle and daub construction can be further improved with mechanical
ur

connections and reinforced by plastering cement mortar [83]. Chicken wire mesh can be added to
aid rendering [104]. Arup, in corporation with the NGO Fundación REDES in El Salvador, has
Jo

developed an engineered wattle and daub system that can be constructed in stages [104]. At the
early stage, only the underlying structure (foundations, frames, and roofs) needs to be constructed
within two-thirds of the total cost. Afterward, cane and mortar can be added to the core shelter for
transformation into permanent dwellings (Figure 13).

Figure 13 An engineered behareque house in El Salvador (left: before plastering, right:

completed) [83]

24
 Journal Pre-proof

The implementation of wattle and daub construction in post-earthquake reconstruction was found
after the 1990 Alto Mayo earthquake in Peru and the 1999 Armenia earthquake in Colombia [83],
locally known as quincha and bahareque structures, respectively. In Peru, quincha structures were
improved for housing reconstruction by the ITDG, as mentioned in Section 4.2.2, and the main
focus was on the poorest population [82]. The popularity of engineered quincha structures
increased significantly after all 70 reconstructed quincha houses survived another severe
earthquake in April 1991, while 17,000 building units were damaged [81, 82]. The reconstruction
activities lasted till March 1994, and 558 quincha houses were built in the Alto Mayo province
[81]. As contested by Langenbach, “a disaster may galvanize political and social will to take action
to improve environmental management” [138, p.144]. The reconstruction plan in Peru also
includes reforestation activities to help reduce the informal cutting of timber, not only to ensure
the availability of hardwoods necessary for quincha structures but also to reduce the region’s

of
vulnerability to flooding [82]. In Colombia, a program of 300 self-help bahareque houses was
developed by a local rural guild, known as Coffee Growers’ Federation, in a joint venture with the

ro
German government [86]. Under the efforts of the Colombian Earthquake Engineering Association,
the construction of two-story bahareque houses has been included in the Colombian Building Code
(NSR-98) [124, 139]. -p
re
4.3.3 Timber frame construction
Timber frame construction is based on the post-and-beam principle, in which the beam transfers
lP

vertical loads to posts, exploiting the tensile strength of timber instead of its mass [44]. This
category specifically refers to construction systems that utilize sophisticated timber joint
techniques and timber panel infills to enhance seismic resistance [140]. It has been experimentally
na

proved that timber panel infills (with or without openings) largely improved the load-carrying
capacity, lateral stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity of the structures [105, 114].
ur

In the post-disaster context, the use of traditional timber frame construction has been promoted in
Japan for both temporary and permanent housing after the 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami
Jo

[24]. Known as itakura in Japanese, timber frame construction derives from the construction
system of traditional warehouses in rural Japan, where slotted timber frames are built to insert
solid timber panels as wall construction [56] (Figure 14). With itakura construction, 198 units of
temporary housing were completed within three months under the given budgets [56]. Whereas
the timber joints were handcrafted, timber panels were prefabricated for swift reconstruction. The
flexibility of the joinery further helped the recycling of temporary housing to permanent housing
[141]. According to a case study on the recycling of itakura houses, the demolition of one itakura
house could be finished within one day, and the recycling rates of building materials reached about
66.7% [57]. The massive usage of timber for reconstruction was possible due to the abundant
domestic wood stocks in Japan as a result of the increasing competition for timber imported from
overseas [142]. Given that the income generated by forest management in Japan is too low to
permit forest owners to conduct sufficient forest cultivation [142], the utilization of domestic wood

25
 Journal Pre-proof

for housing reconstruction was regarded as an opportunity to help bolster local forestry
management in return [56].

of
ro
Figure 14 Reconstruction with itakura timber construction [56]

4.3.4 Reinforced rammed earth

-p
As its name indicates, rammed earth construction refers to earth materials rammed or tamped
re
within a wooden framework until it is compacted, often mixed with straw bonded by lime or
linseed oil [44, 143]. As explained in Section 4.1.1, rammed earth buildings are often susceptible
lP

to earthquake damage due to their heavy weight, low tensile strength, and brittle behavior.
Retrofitting methods are developed to improve their seismic performance, such as adding materials
with relatively high tensile strength, including fiber (e.g. canvas, bamboo, and tarpaulin) and
na

adhesives [144, 145]. Mechanical equipment can be adopted to ensure the efficiency of rammed
earth construction, such as generators, compressors, mechanical rammers, or steel formwork [146].
In addition, cement can be utilized to stabilize rammed earth walls. For example, Portland cement
ur

is utilized during commercial construction with rammed earth in Australia [146].

Jo

Reconstruction with the rammed earth technique was conducted in India after the 2001 Gujarat
earthquake [49, 50] and in China after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [51] and the 2014 Ludian
earthquake [55]. In China, a strategy termed “high-science and low technology” was proposed by
the Chinese University of Hong Kong, advocating sustainable rural development by scientifically
improving traditional construction systems [53]. Considering the low accessibility and
affordability of affected communities, reinforced rammed earth was viewed as the most
appropriate self-build solution for Guangming Village after the Ludian earthquake [53, 55].
Besides the use of fiber and cement to increase the stability of earth walls, steel-reinforcing bars
were placed in the earth walls especially at corners [54, 147]. Technical assistance was offered to
villagers so that they could self-build their houses and regain their confidence in earth houses [53]
(Figure 15). After the reconstruction, a comparison between a reconstructed rammed earth house
and a nearby confined masonry house was conducted [55]. Rammed earth construction required
more manpower and time for construction, resulting in a higher labor cost, about 1.3 times more

26
 Journal Pre-proof

than that of confined masonry [55]. However, the labor costs have directly contributed to the
income of affected communities, and the total cost of a rammed earth house was still about 33%
lower, with much better thermal performance than that of a masonry house [55].

of
ro
Figure 15 A reinforced rammed earth house reconstructed in China [53]

4.3.5 Reinforced adobe

-p
Another type of earthen building is adobe houses, where adobe refers to sun-dried bricks. Sun-
dried bricks are made of a mixture of compacted earth and straw, which can be shaped into desired
re
forms when wet and left to dry in the sun [44]. Similar to rammed earth structures, adobe houses
are easy to construct without professional intervention, possibly resulting in poor construction
lP

quality and inadequate seismic performance [148]. However, earth is the most available material
for low-income communities, so retrofitting techniques are developed to mitigate seismic risks.
For example, bamboo cane mesh can be used as internal reinforcement in courses of mud mortar
na

[149], and electro-welded mesh can be used on the surface of earthen walls to avoid separation by
seismic action [150].
ur

Reconstruction with reinforced adobe houses was done after the 2001 El Salvador earthquake [46]
and the 2007 Pisco earthquake in Peru. In Peru, a successful system of adobe houses with geomesh
Jo

reinforcement was developed by the Catholic University of Peru (Figure 16). Anchored to the
concrete foundation, geomesh was firmly tied to both sides of the adobe walls with plastic strings
[47]. The mesh provided confinement and stiffness to the walls, simultaneously prohibiting
cracking and maintaining stability [48]. The estimated cost of the selected geomesh was about 1.5
US dollars per square meter [47], and an economic incentive was offered by the Peruvian
government to encourage building reinforced adobe houses with geomesh reinforcement [47].
Furthermore, a training program was organized and two booklets were drafted to explain the
construction of reinforced adobe houses in a simple way [47]. Overall, 883 persons attended the
lectures, 276 received training, 102 were certified as artisans in reinforced adobe construction, and
nine families received new reinforced adobe houses [47].

27
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 16 Reinforced adobe houses reconstructed by communities in Peru [47]

5. Limitations
Four limitations of the study were identified.

of
First, different phases of post-disaster housing recovery programs [151], from emergency,

ro
temporary sheltering to temporary, permanent housing, are not clarified in the present study.
Although a transition from temporary to permanent housing was observed in Japan, most

-p
reconstruction projects referred to the construction of permanent housing. Thus, the possibility of
adopting traditional construction for sheltering and temporary housing is little discussed.
re
Second, considering the fact that each disaster proposes different challenges to housing recovery
programs [25], the study merely focuses on post-earthquake reconstruction, regardless of the large
lP

variety of natural hazards and the increasing possibilities of hybrid disasters. Therefore, disaster
resistance of traditional construction is not fully presented.
na

Third, the study mainly focuses on the post-disaster context to verify the possibilities of utilizing
traditional construction into housing recovery. However, the sustainable practice of traditional
construction rather requires long-term efforts during non-disaster times [22]. The continuum
ur

between the pre-disaster context and post-disaster response should be given further attention.
Finally, the study mainly utilizes the WHE online database and Scopus search engine for document
Jo

collection. Countries that are not recorded on the WHE database and studies not presented on
Scopus might not be properly covered by the review.

6. Discussion and conclusion

To bridge the gap between the technical understanding and practical implementation of traditional
construction, the study has conducted a review of technical reports from the WHE online database
and empirical post-earthquake studies from the Scopus search engine. It is possible to prove the
hypothesis that traditional construction can be successfully implemented into post-earthquake
reconstruction.
Review results were categorized according to a hierarchical analysis framework, from the strategic
and managerial to the operational level. At the strategic level, four stages of decision-making for
traditional construction were identified. After earthquakes, traditional construction may be

28
 Journal Pre-proof

qualitatively observed, quantitatively assessed, and finally legalized into construction norms. Yet
legalization does not necessarily ensure its sustainable practice. The marginalization of traditional
construction can occur due to varied reasons, such as relaxation of regulations, change of lifestyles,
and the lack of institutionalization. At the managerial level, the main stakeholders that promoted
traditional construction for housing recovery were identified. Although public authorities used to
play a vital role in the early era, most countries rely on the coordination of civil society that
supports participatory reconstruction, commonly with cross-national collaboration. At the
operational level, five types of traditional construction systems were adopted into housing recovery,
including timber-reinforced masonry, wattle and daub, timber frame construction, reinforced
rammed earth, and reinforced adobe.
Nevertheless, the review dominantly focused on the perspectives of external stakeholders

of
(authorities, civil societies, architects, engineers), and less on the viewpoints of beneficiary
community members. Problems caused by disasters require rather social solutions instead of

ro
technological ones [152]. As can be concluded from the review results, the application of technical
solutions alone is not sufficient to solve the issue of seismic risks for vulnerable populations. In

-p
less developed regions, seismic safety might be better promoted through public awareness rather
than legal systems [153]. Thus, social dimensions under the issue of seismic vulnerability need to
re
be further addressed [148]. In addition, reconstruction programs identified in the review were
mainly found to be spontaneous without strategic planning. Methods to properly institutionalize
lP

participatory reconstruction into existing management systems need to be further examined.

Moreover, traditional construction can be viewed as knowledge of a hybrid nature, that requires
the successful integration of local and scientific knowledge. Profound theoretical grounds of
na

traditional ecological knowledge [154-156], in anthropology, ecology, environmental

management, and environmental philosophy, among others, might serve as references for the
ur

conceptualization of traditional construction in the discipline of disaster management on a

theoretical basis.
Jo

Reference
[1] C. Pezzica, V. Cutini, and C. Bleil de Souza, "Mind the gap: State of the art on decision-making
related to post-disaster housing assistance," International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol.
53, p. 101975, 2021/02/01/ 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101975.
[2] I. Davis and D. Alexander, Recovery from disaster. Routledge, 2015.
[3] A. Caimi et al., "Assessing local building cultures for resilience & development. A practical guide
for community-based assessment," ed: CRAterre, 2015, pp. 5-26.
[4] E. Crété et al., "Promoting vernacular architecture, a basis for Building Back Safer? A Case study
from Nepal," presented at the SAHC 2018, Cusco, Peru, 2018-09, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01877189.
[5] K. Okazaki, K. S. Pribadi, D. Kusumastuti, and T. Saito, "Comparison of current construction
practices of non-engineered buildings in developing countries," in Fifthteenth world conference
on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 2012.
[6] T. Narafu, "Towards resilient nonengineered construction: a guide for risk-informed
policymaking," ed: UNESCO, 2016.

29
 Journal Pre-proof

[7] World Bank Disaster Risk Management Hub (Tokyo), Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer
Built Environment (Other Infrastructure Study). World Bank, 2018.
[8] A. van Leersum and S. Arora, "Implementing seismic-resistant technologies in post-earthquake
Pakistan: A process analysis of owner driven reconstruction," Habitat International, vol. 35, no. 2,
pp. 254-264, 2011.
[9] J. K. Bothara and K. M. Hiçyılmaz, "General observations of building behaviour during the 8th
October 2005 Pakistan earthquake," Bulletin of the New Zealand society for earthquake
engineering, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 209-233, 2008.
[10] R. Sinha, S. Brzev, and G. Kharel, "Indigenous Earthquake-Resistant Technologies—An Overview,"
in 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2004, pp. 1-7.
[11] S. Saraswat and G. Mayuresh, "Koti banal architecture of uttarakhand: Indigenous realities and
community involvement," in Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 2017, vol. 66, pp. 165-
177, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-3521-0_14.
[12] Ö. Karakul, "An Integrated Methodology for the Conservation of Traditional Craftsmanship in

of
Historic Buildings," International journal of intangible heritage, vol. 10, pp. 135-144, 2015.
[13] J. Ortega, G. Vasconcelos, H. Rodrigues, M. Correia, and P. B. Lourenço, "Traditional earthquake

ro
resistant techniques for vernacular architecture and local seismic cultures: A literature review,"
Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 27, pp. 181-196, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.015.
[14]
-p
A. Caimi et al., "Traditional and scientific knowledge for a sustainable vulnerability reduction of
rural housing in Haiti," presented at the Structures and Architecture: Concepts, Applications and
Challenges, Minho, Portugal, 2013, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-
re
02004484.
[15] P. Oliver, Built to meet needs: Cultural issues in vernacular architecture. Routledge, 2007.
lP

[16] G. Carlos, M. Correia, S. Rocha, and P. Frey, "Vernacular architecture," in Seismic Retrofitting:
Learning From Vernacular Architecture: CRC Press, 2015, pp. 11-16.
[17] F. W. Geels, "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1257-1274, 2002/12/01/ 2002,
na

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
[18] S. Barakat, "Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster," vol. 43, ed. London: Humanitarian
Policy Group, 2003, pp. 1-40.
ur

[19] I. Davis, "What have we learned from 40 years’ experience of Disaster Shelter?," Environmental
Hazards, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 193-212, 2011/12/01 2011, doi: 10.1080/17477891.2011.597499.
Jo

[20] T. Schilderman and M. Lyons, "Resilient dwellings or resilient people? Towards people-centred
reconstruction," Environmental Hazards, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 218-231, 2011, doi:
10.1080/17477891.2011.598497.
[21] C. P. Hou and H. R. Wu, "Learn from Tradition: Utilizing Traditional Building Materials in the Post-
Earthquake Reconstruction," in Advanced Materials Research, 2014, vol. 834: Trans Tech Publ, pp.
683-686.
[22] J. D. Barenstein and S. Iyengar, "India: From a culture of housing to a philosophy of
reconstruction," in Building Back Better, vol. 163, M. Lyons, T. Schilderman, and C. Boano Eds.,
2010, pp. 183-186.
[23] E. Maly and Y. Shiozaki, "Towards a policy that supports people-centered housing recovery—
learning from housing reconstruction after the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Kobe, Japan,"
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 56-65, 2012.
[24] E. Maly and T. Iwata, "The evolution of localized housing recovery in Japan," in IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, vol. 273, no. 1: IOP Publishing, p. 012055.
[25] A. K. Jha, Safer homes, stronger communities : a handbook for reconstructing after natural
disasters. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010.

30
 Journal Pre-proof

[26] E. Maly, "Building back better with people centered housing recovery," International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 29, pp. 84-93, 2018.
[27] Y. Zhao, "Leaving the Countryside: Rural-to-Urban Migration Decisions in China," American
Economic Review, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 281-286, 1999, doi: 10.1257/aer.89.2.281.
[28] S. Lala, N. Gopalakrishnan, and A. Kumar, "A comparative study on the seismic performance of
the different types of bamboo stilt houses of North-East India," J. Environ. Nanotechnol, vol. 6, no.
2, pp. 59-73, 2017.
[29] M. R. Maheri, F. Naeim, and M. Mehrain, "Performance of adobe residential buildings in the 2003
Bam, Iran, earthquake," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 21, pp. 337-344, 2005.
[30] K. Fujita, I. Sakamoto, Y. Ohashi, and M. Kimura, "Static and dynamic loading tests of bracket
complexes used in traditional timber structures in Japan," in 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, Article, 2000,
no. 0851.
[31] D. Gautam, "Observational fragility functions for residential stone masonry buildings in Nepal,"

of
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 4661-4673, 2018.
[32] Q. Ali et al., "In-plane behavior of the dhajji-dewari structural system (Wooden Braced Frame with

ro
Masonry Infill)," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 835-858, 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1193/1.4000051?casa_token=YSK2m4FmvGAAAAAA%

[33]
QYrfE8Up22P0RPpMuoHGXeTRo. -p
3ATpPWWY0srZFMVIA0zP9F7xz0qfp3w3tUbTbKcLdTcA4GXxqNHIsYC-

P. Gülkan and R. Langenbach, "Chapter 3 "Traditional timber-laced masonry construction in

re
Turkey known as himiş"," in Masonry Construction in Active Seismic Regions, R. Rupakhety and D.
Gautam Eds.: Woodhead Publishing, 2021, pp. 61-97.
lP

[34] F. Ferrigni, "Vernacular architecture: A paradigm of the local seismic culture," in Seismic
Retrofitting: Learning from Vernacular Architecture: CRC Press, 2015, pp. 3-9.
[35] B. Helly, "Local seismic cultures: a European research program for the protection of traditional
housing stock," 1995.
na

[36] F. Taucer, J. E. Alarcon, and E. So, "2007 August 15 magnitude 7.9 earthquake near the coast of
Central Peru: analysis and field mission report," Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 1-70, 2009.
ur

[37] J. Hosta, A. Caimi, M. F. Mendes, O. Le Gall, P. Garnier, and O. Moles, "Assessment Tools for Local
Building Cultures: A Case Study in Nepal," presented at the International Conference on
Jo

Earthquake Engineering and Post Disaster Reconstruction Planning Bhaktapur, Nepal, 2016, 57-
67.
[38] A. Caimi and O. Moles, "Disaster risk reduction through local knowledge and capacities
enhancement. Local resources and multilevel cooperation: towards long-term prevention
strategies," in Terra 2012, XIth International Conference on the Study and Conservation of Earthen
Architectural Heritage, Lima, Peru, 2012-04-22 2012. [Online]. Available: https://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-00787496.
[39] O. Moles, M. S. Shariful Islam, T. R. Hossain, and R. K. Podder, K, "Improvement of vernacular
housing for disaster prone areas in Bangladesh: a six year experience," in Vernacular Heritage and
Earthen Architecture, M. Correia, G. Carlos, and S. Rocha Eds., 2013, pp. 683 - 688.
[40] T. Joffroy, E. Cauderay, F. Dejeant, and O. Moles, "Reconstruction with local architecture, Panay
Island, Philippines, 2014-2017 ", ed: CRAterre, 2018.
[41] S. BRZEV et al., "The web-based world housing encyclopedia: housing construction in high seismic
risk areas of the world," in 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, 2004, no. 1677.

31
 Journal Pre-proof

[42] C. S. Brzev S., A.W. Charleson, L. Allen, M. Greene, K. Jaiswal, V. Silva, "GEM Building Taxonomy
Version 2.0 ", 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.707.8165&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[43] "World Housing Encyclopedia Online Database." http://db.world-housing.net/ accessed
2022.07.20.
[44] M. Vellinga, P. Oliver, and A. Bridge, Atlas of vernacular architecture of the world. Routlege 2007.
[45] C. Wohlin, "Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in
software engineering," in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2014, doi:
10.1145/2601248.2601268.
[46] D. M. Dowling, "Adobe housing in El Salvador: Earthquake performance and seismic
improvement," Special Paper of the Geological Society of America, pp. 281-300, 2004.
[47] M. Blondet, J. Vargas, and A. Rubiños, "A training program to build safe and healthy adobe houses
after the Pisco 2007 earthquake in Peru," in 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering 2010, Including Papers from the 4th International Tsunami Symposium,

of
2010, vol. 4, pp. 2563-2571. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-

ro
84867173431&partnerID=40&md5=84ed63bbb48c7bd0bda005d45954d9f7.
[48] M. Blondet, J. Vargas, P. Patron, M. Stanojevich, and A. Rubiños, "A Human development

[49]
-p
approach for the construction of safe and healthy adobe houses in seismic areas," in 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October, 2008, pp. 12-17.
K. Vaghela and T. Kotak, "Innovations in Construction of Cement-Stabilized Rammed Earth
re
Dwellings Post Bhuj-2001 Earthquake," in Earthen Dwellings and Structures: Current Status in their
Adoption. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 225-234.
lP

[50] Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA) and Government of Gujarat. "GSDMA
Guidlines for Construction of Compressed Stabilized Earthen Wall Building in Earthquake-Affected
Areas of Gujarat." https://issuu.com/hunnarshala/docs/gsdma-cseb accessed 2022.03.25.
[51] J. Mu and T. Zhou, "Demonstrative study of the ecological post-quake reconstruction of dwellings
na

in poor rural regions of China," in Advanced Materials Research, 2012, vol. 374-377, pp. 339-345,
doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.374-377.339.
[52] T. Zhou, J. Mu, and H. Yang, "Application and practice of a new earthquake resistance rammed
ur

earth dwelling in the post-disaster reconstruction (in Chinese)," World Information on Earthquake
Engineering, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 145-150, 2010. [Online]. Available:
Jo

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
78650327437&partnerID=40&md5=e1d1cf36d421f528c8c79e06cd81a1fe.
[53] L. Wan, X. Chi, E. Ng, and W. Bai, "Use of Innovative Rammed Earth Construction Technology in
Rural Areas of Southwest China – with Post-Earthquake Reconstruction Project in Guangming
Village as a Demonstration," in Innovation in Construction Research Journal 2018 ed, 2018, pp. 33-
39.
[54] The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Kunming University of Science and Technology, and The
University of Cambridge, Introduction of earthquake resistant rammed earth construction and
demonstration project for post-earthquake reconstruction in Ludian (in Chinese) 2015.
[55] X. Chi, E. Ng, and L. Wan, "How to provide “Better” rammed-earth buildings to villagers after
earthquake in Southwest China - A case study of Ludian Reconstruction project," in Proceedings
of 33rd PLEA International Conference: Design to Thrive, PLEA 2017, 2017, vol. 1, pp. 1479-1486.
[Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
85085943947&partnerID=40&md5=0c590ff29f133944af7344a0021d15f2.
[56] K. Ando, "Temporary Wooden Housing with Itakura Construction (in Japanese)," Finex, vol. 26, no.
157, pp. 19-29, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.14820/finexjournal.26.157_19.

32
 Journal Pre-proof

[57] Y. Omi, "A Case Study of Dissolution and Rebuilding from Emergency Temporary Housing to
Disaster Recovery Housing by Itakura Timber Construction Method (in Japanese)," The AIJ Journal
of Technology and Design, vol. 24, no. 57, pp. 775-778, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/aijt/24/57/24_775/_article/-char/ja/.
[58] A. Aloisio, M. Fragiacomo, and G. D’Alò, "The 18th-Century Baraccato of L’Aquila," International
Journal of Architectural Heritage, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 870-884, 2020, doi:
10.1080/15583058.2019.1570390.
[59] A. Aloisio, M. Fragiacomo, and G. D’Alò, "Traditional T-F Masonries in the City Centre of L’Aquila–
The Baraccato Aquilano," International Journal of Architectural Heritage, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 437-
454, 2021, doi: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1624874.
[60] M. Lopes, H. Meireles, S. Cattari, R. Bento, and S. Lagomarsino, "Pombalino constructions:
description and seismic assessment," in Structural rehabilitation of old buildings: Springer, 2014,
pp. 187-233.
[61] A. Tavares, D. D’Ayala, A. Costa, and H. Varum, "Construction systems," in Structural rehabilitation

of
of old buildings: Springer, 2014, pp. 1-35.
[62] R. Langenbach, "From “Opus Craticium” to the “Chicago Frame”: earthquake-resistant traditional

ro
construction," International Journal of Architectural Heritage, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29-59, 2007.
[63] S. Stellacci, N. Ruggieri, and V. Rato, "Gaiola vs. Borbone System: A Comparison between 18th

[64]
-p
Century Anti-Seismic Case Studies," International Journal of Architectural Heritage, vol. 10, no. 6,
pp. 817-828, 2016/08/17 2016, doi: 10.1080/15583058.2015.1086840.
J. Ortega, G. Vasconcelos, H. Rodrigues, and M. Correia, "Local seismic cultures: The use of timber
re
frame structures in the south of Portugal," in Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol. 1, 2016, pp.
101-111.
lP

[65] N. Ruggieri, "Seismic strengthening criteria and techniques in the Regno di Napoli during the
eighteenth century," Journal of Architectural Conservation, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 64-76, 2016, doi:
10.1080/13556207.2016.1210927.
[66] N. Ruggieri, "An italian anti-seismic system of the 18th century decay, failure modes and
na

conservation principles," International Journal of Conservation Science, vol. 7, no. Specialissue2,

pp. 827-838, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84994310332&partnerID=40&md5=940132659b5396b5298b04025ccbe9fe.
ur

[67] L. Dipasquale, D. Omar Sidik, and S. Mecca, "Local seismic culture and earthquake-resistant
devices: Case study of casa baraccata," in Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future:
Jo

CRC Press, 2014, pp. 255-260.

[68] S. Tonna, N. Ruggieri, and C. Chesi, "Comparison between Two Traditional Earthquake-Proof
Solutions: Borbone and Lefkada Timber-Frame Systems," Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol.
24, no. 4, 2018, Art no. 04018030, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000336.
[69] S. Tonna and C. Chesi, "Implications of earthquake return periods on the building quality," in
Proceedings of the XII international forum “Le vie dei Mercanti”, Best practice in Heritage
conservation and management, Aversa and Capri, Italy, 2015.
[70] S. Tonna, C. Chesi, E. Vintzileou, and K. Katopodis, "Traditional building criteria in the Lefkada
island: peculiarities of the foundation system," in SAHC2014—9th international conference on
structural analysis of historical constructions, Mexico City, Mexico, 2014.
[71] ERRA, "Building Back Better: Rural Housing Reconstruction Strategy of Earthquake Hit Districts in
NWFP and AJK," 2006. [Online]. Available: https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/pakistan-
building-back-better-rural-housing-reconstruction-strategy-earthquake-hit
[72] T. Schacher, "Good Engineering without Appropriate Communication doesn’t lead to Seismic Risk
Reduction: some thoughts about appropriate knowledge transfer tools," presented at the The

33
 Journal Pre-proof

14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_S23-006.PDF.
[73] R. Carabbio, L. Pieraccini, S. Silvestri, and M. Schildkamp, "How can vernacular construction
techniques sustain earthquakes: The case of the Bhatar buildings," Frontiers in Built Environment,
vol. 4, p. 18, 2018.
[74] UNHABITAT, "Toolkit The ERRA Experience 2005 Earthqake Case Studies Volume 2," 2010.
[Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.org.pk/category/publications/page/3/
[75] UNHABITAT, "Toolkit The ERRA Experience 2005 Earthqake Guide for Managers Volume 1," 2010.
[Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.org.pk/category/publications/page/3/
[76] J. F. Audefroy, "Haiti: Post-earthquake lessons learned from traditional construction,"
Environment and Urbanization, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 447-462, 2011, doi:
10.1177/0956247811418736.
[77] CRAterre, "Disaster-resistant Building Cultures: The Ways Forward," in Intertional scientific
seminar organised by CRAterre and Building Cultures laboratories, 2014.

of
[78] S. Yadav, Y. Sieffert, E. Crété, F. Vieux-Champagne, and P. Garnier, "Mechanical behaviour of
different type of shear band connections being used in reconstruction housing in Nepal,"

ro
Construction and Building Materials, vol. 174, pp. 701-712, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.121.
[79]

[80]
-p
F. Carbajal, G. Ruiz, and C. J. Schexnayder, "Quincha construction in Perú," Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 56-62, 2005.
C. F. Walker, "The Upper Classes and Their Upper Stories: Architecture and the Aftermath of the
re
Lima Earthquake of 1746," Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 53-82, 2003,
doi: 10.1215/00182168-83-1-53.
lP

[81] L. Lowe. "Earthquake resistant housing."

https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/PA_EarthquakeResistantHousi
ngPeru.pdf accessed 2023.
[82] T. Schilderman, "Disasters and development. A case study from Peru," Journal of International
na

Development, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 415-423, 1993, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380050407.

[83] S. Kaminski, A. Lawrence, and D. Trujillo, "Design Guide for Engineered Bahareque Housing,"
2016b.
ur

[84] S. Kaminski, "Engineered bamboo houses for low-income communities in Latin America," The
Structural Engineer, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 14-23, 2013.
Jo

[85] A. Maskrey, "Disaster mitigation in a social vacuum the Alto Mayo earthquare, Peru, May 1990,"
1991.
[86] G. Lizarralde, "Reconstruction management and post disaster low cost housing; the case for social
reconstruction," Master Thesis, School of Architecture, McGill University, Montreal, 2000.
[87] G. Lizarralde, "Decentralizing (re) construction: Agriculture cooperatives as a vehicle for
reconstruction in Colombia," in Building Back Better, vol. 191, 2010.
[88] The Word Bank, "Implementation completion report (FSLT-70090) on a loan in the amount of
US$225 million to the government of Colombia for the earthquake recovery project," 2003.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/Earthquake%20Recovery%20Project%20(Colombia)%2
0ICR%20new.pdf
[89] R. N. Anthony, Planning and control systems; a framework for analysis (Harvard University.
Graduate School of Business Administration. Studies in management control). Division of research,
Graduate school of business administration, Harvard University: Boston, 1965.
[90] W. A. Wallace and F. De Balogh, "Decision Support Systems for Disaster Management," Public
Administration Review, vol. 45, pp. 134-146, 1985, doi: 10.2307/3135008.

34
 Journal Pre-proof

[91] V. Braun and V. Clarke, Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, 2012.
[92] S. Cattari, M. Angiolilli, S. Alfano, A. Brunelli, and F. De Silva, "Investigating the combined role of
the structural vulnerability and site effects on the seismic response of a URM school hit by the
Central Italy 2016 earthquake," Structures, vol. 40, pp. 386-402, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.istruc.2022.04.026.
[93] P. Touliatos, "Cooperating timber and stone antiseismic frames in historic structures of Greece,"
in Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 3-15.
[94] B. I. O. Dahunsi and A. K. Mittal, "Earthquake resistant characteristics of traditional Khasi houses
in Shillong, India," WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, vol. 113, pp. 159-168, 2008,
doi: 10.2495/ARC080161.
[95] Y. Maruyama, F. Yamazaki, S. Matsuzaki, H. Miura, and M. Estrada, "Evaluation of building damage
and tsunami inundation based on satellite images and GIS data following the 2010 Chile
earthquake," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28, no. SUPPL.1, pp. S165-S178, 2012, doi:
10.1193/1.4000023.

of
[96] H. B. Kaushik, K. Dasgupta, D. R. Sahoo, and G. Kharel, "Performance of structures during the
Sikkim earthquake of 14 February 2006," Current Science, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 449-455, 2006.

ro
[Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
33748637796&partnerID=40&md5=01411c2f4aa4a1afab2f231313d2b5c7.
[97]
-p
H. B. Kaushik and K. Dasgupta, "Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Structures in Sikkim, India,
Based on Damage Observation during Two Recent Earthquakes," Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 697-720, 2013, doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
re
5509.0000380.
[98] H. B. Kaushik and S. K. Jain, "Impact of great december 26, 2004 sumatra earthquake and Tsunami
lP

on structures in port blair," Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
128-142, 2007, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:2(128).
[99] X.-C. Zhang, J.-Y. Xue, H.-T. Zhao, and Y. Sui, "Experimental study on Chinese ancient timber-frame
building by shaking table test," Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 453-469,
na

2011.
[100] Y. D. Aktaş, "Seismic resistance of traditional timber-frame hımış structures in Turkey: a brief
overview," International Wood Products Journal, vol. 8, no. sup1, pp. 21-28, 2017/08/21 2017, doi:
ur

10.1080/20426445.2016.1273683.
[101] K. Shakya, D. Pant, M. Maharjan, S. Bhagat, A. Wijeyewickrema, and P. Maskey, "Lessons learned
Jo

from performance of buildings during the September 18, 2011 earthquake in Nepal," Asian
Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 14, 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84881277436&partnerID=40&md5=9be8b028ab04e838f6d5579e7a02534d.
[102] D. Trujillo, "Bamboo structures in Colombia," The Structural Engineer, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 25-30,
2007.
[103] L. A. S. Kouris and A. J. Kappos, "Fragility curves and loss estimation for traditional timber-framed
masonry buildings in Lefkas, Greece," in Computational Methods in Applied Sciences, 2015, vol.
37, pp. 199-233, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16130-3_8.
[104] S. Kaminski, A. Lawrence, K. Coates, and L. Foulkes, "A low-cost vernacular improved housing
design," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, vol. 169, no. 5, pp. 25-
31, 2016a, doi: 10.1680/jcien.15.00041.
[105] Q. Xie, L. Wang, S. Li, L. Zhang, and W. Hu, "Influence of wood infill walls on the seismic
performance of Chinese traditional timber structure by shaking table tests," Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, Article vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 5009-5029, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-
00886-0.

35
 Journal Pre-proof

[106] H. Azizi-Bondarabadi, N. Mendes, P. B. Lourenço, and N. H. Sadeghi, "Empirical seismic

vulnerability analysis for masonry buildings based on school buildings survey in Iran," Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3195-3229, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-9944-1.
[107] M. Astroza, S. Ruiz, and R. Astroza, "Damage assessment and seismic intensity analysis of the 2010
(Mw 8.8) maule earthquake," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28, no. SUPPL.1, pp. S145-S164, 2012, doi:
10.1193/1.4000027.
[108] H. Ramazi and R. Haghani, "The 22nd June, 2002 Avej (Iran) earthquake: Engineering seismology
and earthquake engineering perspectives," Journal of the Geological Society of India, vol. 70, no.
4, pp. 610-618, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-
s2.0-38649090093&partnerID=40&md5=d807ee092a1d38213f6e6e4f871b095e.
[109] D. Hopkins, D. Bell, R. Benites, J. Burr, C. Hamilton, and R. Kotze, "The Pisco (Peru) earthquake of
15 August 2007 NZSEE reconnaissance report, June 2008," Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 109-192, 2008, doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.41.3.109-192.
[110] S. S. Mahini, A. Eslami, and H. R. Ronagh, "Lateral performance and load carrying capacity of an

of
unreinforced, CFRP-retrofitted historical masonry vault - A case study," Construction and Building
Materials, Article vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 146-156, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.013.

ro
[111] N. Tarque, H. Crowley, R. Pinho, and H. Varum, "Displacement-based fragility curves for seismic
assessment of adobe buildings in Cusco, Peru," Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 759-794,

[112]
2012.
-p
D. Gautam, N. Chettri, K. Tempa, H. Rodrigues, and R. Rupakhety, "Seismic vulnerability of
bhutanese vernacular stone masonry buildings: From damage observation to fragility analysis,"
re
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 160, 2022, Art no. 107351, doi:
10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107351.
lP

[113] R. Saha, R. Debnath, S. Dash, and S. Haldar, "Engineering Reconnaissance following the Magnitude
5.7 Tripura Earthquake on January 3, 2017," Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, vol.
34, no. 4, 2020, Art no. 04020052, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001446.
[114] E. Crayssac, X. Song, Y. Wu, and K. Li, "Lateral performance of mortise-tenon jointed traditional
na

timber frames with wood panel infill," Engineering Structures, Article vol. 161, pp. 223-230, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.022.
[115] A. Buchanan and D. Moroder, "Log house performance in the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake," Bulletin
ur

of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Article vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 225-236, 2017,
doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.50.2.225-236.
Jo

[116] A. D. Hariyanto, S. Triyadi, and A. Widyowijatnoko, "A Simple Stilt Structure Technique for
Earthquake Resistance of Wooden Vernacular Houses in Bima, Sumbawa Island, Indonesia,"
International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Article vol.
12, no. 4, pp. 1491-1497, 2022, doi: 10.18517/ijaseit.12.4.12848.
[117] E. Kalkan Okur et al., "Dynamic response of a traditional hımış mansion using updated FE model
with operational modal testing," Journal of Building Engineering, Article vol. 43, 2021, Art no.
103060, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103060.
[118] J. K. Bothara, I. Giongo, J. Ingham, and D. Dizhur, "Numerical study on partially-reinforced semi-
dressed stone masonry for build-back-better in Nepal," in Proceedings of the International
Masonry Society Conferences, 2018, vol. 0, 222279 ed., pp. 698-711. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
85062311634&partnerID=40&md5=e0091761baa5389fd22c85db7a5c3713.
[119] M. Blondet, N. Tarque, F. Ginocchio, and G. Villa-García, "Shaking Table Testing of Adobe Masonry
Structures," in Structural Characterization and Seismic Retrofitting of Adobe Constructions:
Springer, 2021, pp. 121-151.

36
 Journal Pre-proof

[120] D. Foppoli, "Inspections and NDT for the characterization of historical buildings after seismic
events: 2012 Emilia earthquake," in Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions: Anamnesis,
diagnosis, therapy, controls - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Structural
Analysis of Historical Constructions, SAHC 2016, 2016, pp. 1497-1504. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
85002388886&partnerID=40&md5=dbc87f99be52c959c25016e39e34100f.
[121] P. Gülkan and R. Langenbach, "Traditional timber-laced masonry construction in Turkey known as
himiş," in Masonry Construction in Active Seismic Regions, 2021, pp. 61-97.
[122] M. Ashraf, Q. Ali, A. N. Khan, B. Alam, and A. Naseer, "Experimental study on the performance of
brick masonry piers before and after retrofitting with reinforced plaster," in 9th US National and
10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2010, Including Papers from the 4th
International Tsunami Symposium, 2010, vol. 3, pp. 2024-2033. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84867180279&partnerID=40&md5=8f2b4fa98c210a046fd92e3f1d338828.

of
[123] L. Holliday, T. H.-K. Kang, and K. D. Mish, "Taquezal buildings in Nicaragua and their earthquake
performance," Journal of performance of constructed facilities, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 644-656, 2012.

ro
[124] S. Prieto, S. Mogollón, F. Farbiarz, and L. Yiping, "Manual for Earthquake-Resistant Construction
of One and Two Story Houses with Cemented Bahareque," in Proceedings of the International

[125] -p
workshop on the role of bamboo in disaster avoidance. Guayaquil, Ecuadaor, 2001, pp. 140-148.
M. F. Mendes;, J. Hosta;, and O. L. Gall, "Technical guide for master trainers: earthquake resistant
buildings using local materials in Dolakha, Ramechhap and Sindhuli - Nepal," ed: CRAterre, 2015.
re
[126] Bureau of Indian standards. "Indian Standards on earthquake engineering."
https://bis.gov.in/other/quake.htm accessed 2022.04.20.
lP

[127] S. Stellacci, V. Rato, and E. Poletti, "Structural Permanence in Pre- and Post-Earthquake Lisbon:
Half-Timbered Walls in Overhanging Dwellings and in Pombalino Buildings," International Journal
of Architectural Heritage, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 363-381, 2017, doi: 10.1080/15583058.2016.1233297.
[128] A. M. N. Goncalves, L. M. C. Guerreiro, P. Candeias, J. G. Ferreira, and A. Campos Costa,
na

"Characterization of reinforced Timber Masonry Walls in “Pombalino” buildings with dynamic

tests," Engineering Structures, vol. 166, pp. 93-106, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.036.
[129] M. Priestley, G. Calvi, and M. Kowalsky, "Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures,"
ur

presented at the Earthquake Spectra 05/01, 2008.

[130] Y. D. Aktas et al., "Traditional Structures in Turkey and Greece in 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea
Jo

Earthquake: Field Observations and Empirical Fragility Assessment," Frontiers in Built Environment,
vol. 8, 2022, Art no. 840159, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.840159.
[131] M. Bostenaru Dan, "Timber frame historic structures and the local seismic culture—an
argumentation," in Earthquake hazard impact and urban planning: Springer, 2014, pp. 213-230.
[132] A. Dutu, G. Ferreira, L. Guerreiro, F. Branco, and A. Goncalves, "Timbered masonry for earthquake
resistance in Europe," Materiales de construcción, vol. 62, no. 308, pp. 615-628, 2012.
[133] T. Schacher and Q. Ali, Dhajji Construction for One and Two Story Earthquake Resistant Houses: A
Guidebook for Technicians and Artisans. UN Habitat Pakistan, 2009.
[134] Swiss Agency of Development and Cooperation SDC and the French Red Cross, Bhatar
construction, Timber reinforced masonry: An illustrated guide for craftsmen. MansehraXXX:
Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority 2007.
[135] C. Mouzakis, C.-E. Adami, L. Karapitta, and E. Vintzileou, "Seismic behaviour of timber-laced stone
masonry buildings before and after interventions: shaking table tests on a two-storey masonry
model," Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 803-829, 2018.
[136] U. Quzai, "Pakistan: Implementing people-centred reconstruction in urban and rural areas," in
Building Back Better, vol. 113, 2010.

37
 Journal Pre-proof

[137] H. Niroumand, M. Zain, and M. Jamil, "Various types of earth buildings," Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 89, pp. 226-230, 2013.
[138] International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), "Chapter 5 “Culture, Risk
and the Built Environment” " in World Disasters Report, 2014, p. 144.
[139] J. Correal, "State-of-the-art of practice in Colombia on engineered Guadua bamboo structures,"
in Modern Engineered Bamboo Structures: CRC Press, 2019, pp. 23-32.
[140] M. Maeno, Y. Suzuki, T. Ohshita, and A. Kitahara, "Seismic response characteristics of traditional
wooden frame by full-scale dynamic and static tests," in 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
[141] M. Kaijima, "Im Notfall-Das Itakura-Haus-Notunterkünfte des Architekten Kunihiro Ando für die
Opfer des Tohoku-Erdbebens in Japan," Werk Bauen und Wohnen, no. 11, p. 4, 2012.
[142] Y. Fuchigami, K. Hara, M. Uwasu, and S. Kurimoto, "Analysis of the mechanism hindering
sustainable forestry operations: A case study of Japanese forest management," Forests, vol. 7, no.
8, p. 182, 2016.

of
[143] S. B. Castells and E. H. Laperal, "Infomes de la Construcción, Nº 523 Monograph Earth as building
material, a contemporary approach," in Rammed Earth Conservation, Valencia, Spain, 2012: CRC

ro
Press, p. 467.
[144] K. Liu, M. Wang, and Y. Wang, "Seismic retrofitting of rural rammed earth buildings using

[145] -p
externally bonded fibers," Construction and Building Materials, vol. 100, pp. 91-101, 2015.
S. Raj, S. Mohammad, R. Das, and S. Saha, "Coconut fibre-reinforced cement-stabilized rammed
earth blocks," World Journal of Engineering, 2017.
re
[146] G. J. Treloar, C. Owen, and R. Fay, "Environmental assessment of rammed earth construction
systems," Structural Survey, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 99-106, 2001, doi: 10.1108/02630800110393680.
lP

[147] L. Wan and E. Ng, "High Science and Low Technology for Sustainable Rural Development,"
Architectural Design, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 74-81, 2020.
[148] M. Blondet, "Mitigation of seismic risk on earthen buildings," in Environmental Earth Sciences,
2011, pp. 391-400, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-95991-5-37.
na

[149] M. Blondet, D. Torrealva, G. V. Garcia, F. Ginocchio, and I. Madueño, "Using industrial materials
for the construction of safe adobe houses in seismic areas," in Proceedings of Earthbuild 2005,
Sydney, Australia, 2005, pp. 76-90.
ur

[150] J. C. Cárdenas-Gómez, M. B. Gonzales, and C. A. Damiani Lazo, "Evaluation of reinforced adobe

techniques for sustainable reconstruction in Andean seismic zones," Sustainability (Switzerland),
Jo

vol. 13, no. 9, 2021, Art no. 4955, doi: 10.3390/su13094955.

[151] E. L. Quarantelli, "Patterns of sheltering and housing in US disasters " Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 43-53, 1995, doi:
10.1108/09653569510088069.
[152] E. Y. Y. Chan, Public health humanitarian responses to natural disasters. Taylor & Francis, 2017.
[153] R. Spence, "Saving lives in earthquakes: successes and failures in seismic protection since 1960,"
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 139-251, 2007.
[154] F. Berkes, "Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective," in Traditional ecological knowledge:
Concepts and cases, vol. 1, J. Inglis Ed. Ottawa, Ont., Canada: International Program on Traditional
Ecological Knowledge : International Development Research Centre, 1993, pp. 1-9.
[155] C. M. Raymond, I. Fazey, M. S. Reed, L. C. Stringer, G. M. Robinson, and A. C. Evely, "Integrating
local and scientific knowledge for environmental management," Journal of environmental
management, vol. 91, no. 8, pp. 1766-77, Aug 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023.
[156] J. Briggs, "The use of indigenous knowledge in development: problems and challenges," Progress
in Development Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 99-114, 2005, doi: 10.1191/1464993405ps105oa.

38
 Journal Pre-proof

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

39
 Journal Pre-proof

Jingying Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data

curation, Writing – Original Draft

Edward Ng: Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

40
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

41
 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights
1. This study explains how and why the seismic performance of traditional construction varies among
different construction systems.
2. After earthquakes, traditional construction may be qualitatively observed, quantitatively assessed,
and finally legalized into construction norms. Yet legalization does not necessarily ensure its
sustainable practice. The marginalization of traditional construction can occur due to varied reasons,
such as relaxation of regulations, change of lifestyles, and the lack of institutionalization.
3. The engagement of civil society is of significance for economically less developed countries, to
promote the implementation of traditional construction in post-earthquake context.
4. Five types of traditional construction systems have been adopted into post-earthquake housing
recovery, including timber-reinforced masonry, wattle and daub, timber frame construction,
reinforced rammed earth, and reinforced adobe.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

42