energy integrated in rural reconstruction: a case at...

Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2017Volume: 5 ISSN: 2350-8914 (Online), 2350-8906 (Print)

Energy Integrated in Rural Reconstruction: A Case at Laprak,Dharche Rural Municipality-4, Gorkha

Rukesh Suwal a, Sudharshan Raj Tiwari b, Sangeeta Singh c

a, b, c Department of Architecture, Pulchowk Campus, IOE, TU, NepalCorresponding Email: a [email protected], b [email protected], c [email protected]

AbstractQuality improvement of rural reconstruction, the need to consider the dimensions and effects of resettlementprojects on the sustainability and energy usage of rural communities is important. The present study wasconducted to analyze the elements of sustainability especially focusing on energy efficiency and natural resourcesin the settlements of Laprak and evaluate the sustainability of the existing Laprak settlement, newly constructedsettlement by local people and proposed model settlement by NRNA for the better redevelopment of Laprak. Theresearch methodology is descriptive and analytical and the required data were collected using the questionnaire,checklist and mapping tools. The study population was about 4500 people living in existing villages with 573household. The sample size was 100 household who were randomly selected. This report includes the aspectof land use pattern and energy smartness in the residential area of existing settlement and newly developmentsettlement whereas only the land use and energy smartness strategies of NRNA model settlement are discussed.Three basic aspects in rural reconstruction for a sustainable future: rural sustainability, energy efficient technologyand climate smart approach preserving natural, landscape and water resources ensuring universal access to foodwith a sustainable farming production have been described in this report.From the analysis of data, about 96% of houses have been constructed after earthquake as temporarily livingspace which occupies 24% of agricultural land in existing settlement. This seems to be settlement growth inthe village but due to landslide in 2056 BS, some household has been shifted to the upper parts of the village.After the earthquake 2015, the residential houses also shifted. About 94% of houses are built in agricultural landhaphazardly which shows the slow degradation of land use pattern of that place. Regarding the energy smartnessin the village, more than 90% of household use traditional fuel wood for cooking purposes while almost 6% usesfossil fuel. In newly made settlement around 76% of household uses traditional fuel and remaining uses fossilfuel. To project a future scenario for Laprak, observation from Barpak Bazar at present was assumed to offeras the likely direction of development. The developments in Barpak Bazar do not reflect high energy smartnessand therefore the development of energy efficient settlement is proposed on the basis of available literature andthe sustainable energy uses at Barpak. For NRNA model settlement, modifications recommended take variousprinciples of sustainable land use planning as well as energy efficient technology in consideration.

KeywordsReconstruction – Sustainability – Energy efficiency – Rural Settlement

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Nepal is one of the most disaster prone countries in theworld. It is affected by many different types of naturaldisasters each year, such as flooding, drought,landslides, wildfires, windstorms, hailstorms,thunderstorms, global lake outburst floods, avalanchesand earthquakes. The country is also at high risk from

climate change [1].Throughout history of Nepal, therehave been frequent occurrences of great earthquakescausing severe human and physical loss. The April 2015earthquake (also known as the Gorkha earthquake)killed nearly 9,000 people and injured nearly 22,000. Itoccurred at 11:56 Nepal Standard Time on 25 April,with a magnitude of 7.6M. Its epicenter was east ofGorkha District at Barpak, Gorkha, and its hypocenterwas at a depth of approximately 8.2 km. It was the

Pages: 603 – 612

Energy Integrated in Rural Reconstruction: A Case at Laprak, Dharche Rural Municipality-4, Gorkha

worst natural disaster to strike Nepal since the 1934Nepal–Bihar earthquake. Nepal one of poorest countrywith scarce resources now has a challenging task ofreconstruction ahead. The challenge can also be anopportunity in disguise if reconstruction is laid out withproper vision for sustainable, self-reliant and strongerfuture. In case of Nepal, Rural reconstruction is really achallenge due to difficult geography and infrastructureproblems. The massive destruction of rural buildingswrought by the Gorkha Earthquake is proposed to beresponded with an equally massive rebuilding of housesand settlements.Laprak is a Gurung community villageclose to Barpak, the epicenter of Gorkha earthquake2015. It lies in Dharche rural municipality-4, in thenorthern part of Gorkha district. There are about 624households in Laprak village and has around 4500population. It has its own culture, tradition and ritual.AsLaprak rural settlement has been heavily destroyed byGorkha earthquake 2015, most of the people are livingin their temporary shelters with hard and complicatedlifestyle. In extreme weather cases, people arecompelled to withstand the severe effects of climaticphenomena. However, in this post earthquake phase,people are mainly focusing on structural analytical part.Many of them are still not aware of building energyefficient homes which economizes the lifecycle cost oftheir household energy in future. To promote the rapidrural reconstruction, earthquake resistant and energyefficient buildings construction is indispensable. Hencefor the sustainable rural reconstruction, not onlystructurally safe but also the more resilient andself-reliant buildings in rural settlements have to beconstructed.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The main objective is to learn about ways to createsustainability through integration of energy and naturalresources in the planning and construction of ruralbuildings and settlements. To achieve the aim, thespecific objectives are as follows:

1. To study the elements of sustainability especiallyfocusing on energy, water and natural resources inthe settlements of Laprak

2. To evaluate the sustainability and energyefficiency of the existing Laprak settlement,

newly constructed settlement by local people andproposed model settlement by NRNA

3. To recommend ways of introducing climate smartvillage consideration

2. Methodology

Qualitative research methodology was used for theplanning of Laprak. Since, the main objective is tostudy the elements of sustainability in ruralreconstruction especially focusing on energy efficiencyand natural resources in the settlements of Laprak, insuch a way that the building settlement using localresources is not reduced but safer and energy efficientreconstruction is achieved. The study methodologyemployed was exploratory and descriptive which wasbased on both literature and observation. Therefore,both qualitative and quantitative approach has beenconsidered in the study. For this, the study was focusedon sustainable land use and smart energy issues intothree characteristic settlement and building of Lapraki.e. existing settlements, newly made settlement bypeople and the model settlement made by NRNA.Sustainability indicators of environmental, economicaland socio-cultural aspects such as land use, built form,orientation, open space, building materials and energywere used. The research method was case study.Observation and literature review were used as datacollection techniques. Post positivistic paradigm wasfollowed. The research was based on field visit andcommunity interaction through interview.

Data and information for sustainable planning of water,transportation, agriculture, reconstruction and tourismwere obtained from the local stakeholders of Laprak.Photographs, informal interviews, direct observationwere used as tools of data collection during the day offield visit. For this, 100 household samples wererandomly selected among the population of the villages’residents. The data collection tools were thequestionnaires, check lists and mapping survey thatwere prepared according to the research objectives. Inaddition to completing the questionnaire, a qualitativeapproach of field research, case and interviews with thevillages’ residents and local officials as well asreviewing available documents were used and theinformation was collected. Descriptive statistics were

604

Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2017

used to summarize the results of the survey using SPSSSoftware

Unit of analysis in my case are the sustainability landuse principles like open spaces, walkability, integrationof natural resources like water, forest, agriculture,animal husbandry, pasture land and local buildingmaterials, Household energy use and passive solarenergy are studied to develop energy efficiency in thesettlements of Laprak. The components of climatesmartness like water smart and energy smart have beenincluded in this study report. The methodologicalframework is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Research methodology process

3. Case Study of Settlement

3.1 Existing Settlement

The existing village is completely residential zone insloppy land and surrounded by agricultural field. It isthe compact settlement with narrow alleys and stonepathway entire the village. No motarable road but hasbeen planning to access 4 wheeler vehicles. Forest andagricultural areas are bit far from settlements.

Natural resources like forest for timber and firewoodcan be accessible through community forests. Sincestone is available people use stone for building wall andfoundation. Drinking water supply has been facilitatedby Care Nepal in the village through different naturalstreams.The traditional building of Laprak is made upof stone wall, roof with wooden plank and stone on it towithstand wind pressure. The typical house Openkitchen at ground floor and upper floor is used forbedroom.

The energy in the settlement is fulfilled by traditionalfuelwood for cooking whereas fossil fuel has been usedby minority of people. For lighting purpose electricityfrom MHP supply is being used from 5pm to 8am. Noelectrical appliances have been used for cooking. Solarpanel has been distributed throughout the village afterearthquake 2015.Use of ICS is also very low or almostno use in the village. Again due to low temperatureproper biogas cannot be produced.

3.2 Newly made Settlement

The settlement is mix of residential zone and agriculturalzone in sloppy land. It is the settlement along the roadand narrow pathway between the buildings. Motarableroad has been planned to access 4 wheeler vehicles. Thissettlement has been developed after earthquake 2015 bythe people. Most of the building has been constructed inagricultural field. No separation between residence andagricultural area in this settlement.

The building of this settlement is made up of stone infoundation and wooden wall, roof with CGI sheet. Openkitchen at ground floor and upper floor is used forbedroom as in existing village. Most of the buildingsare of temporary shelters of one storey only and manyof people seems just for waiting to stay in NRNA modelsettlement.

The energy in the settlement is fulfilled by traditionalfuelwood for cooking whereas fossil fuel has been usedby minority of people. For lighting purpose electricityfrom MHP supply is being used from 5pm to 8am. Noelectrical appliances have been used for cooking. Solarpanel has been distributed throughout the village afterearthquake 2015.The majority of people use solar energyfor charging mobiles.

3.3 NRNA Settlement

the master plan has been carried out for the overallutilization of a particular area, including its allocationfor residential or manufacturing uses and thecorresponding environmental impacts. To conserve thevernacular architecture of this area, the house has beendesigned to depict the traditional settlement of thevillage. In Gurung community, the no.12 is of greatimportance like 12 years, 12 names, etc. in theirlivelihood. So twelve courtyards have been provided in

605


the settlement along with the necessary spaces like openand green area, community area, residential area, forestarea, water springs and road are efficiently planned todevelop safer and sustainable model settlement. Theelectrical distribution line along road and sanitary pipelayout has been placed according to the site.

The prototype building plan is allowed to build samefor all 573 housing units. The rectangular plot size fordesigned housing is 10.6m x 9.8m each. The toilet,safety tank and soak pits are built at outdoor. Small areafor kitchen garden and grain drying also attached in theplot area.

The energy in the settlement is fulfilled by traditionalfuelwood for cooking whereas fossil fuel has been usedby minority of people. For lighting purpose electricityfrom MHP supply is being used from 5pm to 8am. Noelectrical appliances have been used for cooking. Solarpanel has been distributed throughout the village afterearthquake 2015.The majority of people use solar energyfor charging mobiles.

4. Data

4.1 Laprak settlements

The number of female respondent dominated over themale in overall observation. But in existing settlement ofLaprak, the number of male respondent was huge (56%)while that in newly made settlement was very poor (only40%). This result shows the socio-cultural limitationson social science research in a remote versus a moredeveloped locality, developed in the sense of economicactivities, social acceptance of womans’ role outside ofa family. The land use before building construction inexisting settlement and newly made settlement. It canbe inferred from the following figures that most of thebuildings have been reconstructed in existing land oftheir own in the existing settlement whereas about 24%houses have been built in the agricultural land. In newlymade settlement, about 82% buildings have been builton agricultural land which decreases the agriculturalproducts and food shortage.

The construction of massive stone wall upto attic isdrastically reduced after earthquake. Instead of heavywooden roof tile, the use of CGI roof having lightweight is increasing in the existing settlement. Theconstruction of wooden wall with CGI roof has been

Figure 2: Existing settlement

Figure 3: Newly made settlement

increased in newly made settlement by 14% and onlystone wall at ground floor with timber structure and CGIroof has been increased by 80%. The local materials inroof are being replaced by material brought from otherareas.

In existing settlement, about 94% of household usestraditional fuel and use of fossil fuel is 6%. In newlymade settlement, the fossil fuel users have beenincreased indicating 24% and the traditional fuel usersare found about 76%. This shows that the overallsettlement mainly depends on traditional fuel forcooking.

The monthly cost on fuel is maximum for the traditional

606




fuel in both the settlements but for fossil fuel, themonthly cost is usually upto thousand and somehousehold cross beyond three thousands due to energyconsuming activity like making of rice beers, alcohol,etc.

4.2 Data on Land use and natural resources

4.2.1 Sustainable land use

Open spaces: There are different open spaces forcommunity interaction in the village. Some of them areThulo aagan, Phyapchet and Sano Renjilung. Thegatherings of people for community programme,meetings, resting and refreshing etc. are organized



Walkability: Since Laprak village situated in the steepslope, people have to commute almost 600m altitudedifference from existing settlement to new NRNAsettlement. The walking distance is around 2hr whilemoving up the hill and 1 hr while moving down thevillage. As all the necessary daily needs and otherservices are brought from Barpak, people use to walkmore than using any other mode of transport. Thoughthe village has been accessed by motorable road,vehicular transportation is difficult.

Water: The sources of drinking water in existing villagefrom Kalgang (2200m) and Burnigang (2000m),for 52common taps respectively, in new settlement made by

607


Figure 8: Cross section of slope of settlements

people called Sano Renjilung from Nyalako and Pusta(2500m) whereas the model settlement of NRNA willbe fed by Volmechet (3600m) drinking water project for573 houses launched by the effort of CareNepal andnational authority on drinking water. The water forirrigation depends on monsoon. All the drinking watersources are above the human settlement. Hence thewater pump and other mechanical equipment have notbeen used in the village.

Forest: Forest covers approximately 50% of total area.Gobre salla is indigenous tree of that area. Howeverthere is abundance of rhododendron as well. Along withtrees, there are some other herbs like Saduwa, Jatamasi,Panchaunle and Yarshagumba. The community forestsare Taramchar, Bhomemandali, Rupchet, Thalkim andNadang. People are allowed to collect timber forbuildings through purji system after paying NRs.1500 toDistrict Forest office (DFO). The consumption offorests for fuel wood is more in the village as most ofthe people use traditional fuel wood for cooking andpreparation of wine. The forests also serve as watercatchment area for different water resources that supplydrinking water in the village. The timber from nearbycommunity forests are used for constructing houses.

Agriculture: People cultivate the maize, barley, wheat,millet, beans, potato and other vegetables in betweenforest areas and in fields. But paddy is not grown due tosteep slopes and absence of irrigation. Rice is broughtfrom either lower village like Barpak or from GorkhaBazar. In the existing settlement, people have kitchengarden nearby their house whereas their agricultural

field are few kilometers far away from the settlements.In newly made settlement, as the settlement has beenformed in agricultural land, the mass of agricultural landhas been encroached slightly by building constructionafter earthquake.

Figure 9: Agricultural land nearby houses

In Laprak, according to ward chairman, Dharche-4, Mr.Raj Gurung, there are 250 animals’ shed. It requiresmany grazing land and people used to graze in nearbyhigh hills called lekh at the time of summer and aroundthe village during winter. So, Gupshipakha was one ofthe grazing areas for them. But due to snowfall occurs,significant animal grazing could not be done. Also thewalking distance from Laprak settlement is quite longthan other areas. Cattle grazing are also done round SanoRenjilung.

Local building materials: All the houses in the villagewere built before earthquake by massive stone masonarywall and foundation. Typical houses are of 2 storeyswith wooden plank roof and oriented mostly to the eastdirection for sunlight. The whole building is tied up bywooden posts and raftersin absence of seismic bands.After earthquake, the buildings were made with seismicbands and light CGI roof instead of using wooden planks.The post earthquake houses have massive stone wallwith bands in ground floor and wooden wall envelopein first floor or attic floor. The building materials arecollected from the nearby natural resource whereas forRCC building, all the materials are brought from outsidethe village.

608


Figure 10: House before earthquake

Figure 11: House with seismic bands after earthquake

4.2.2 Energy efficiency

Existing settlement Household energy used: More than90% of household use traditional fuel for cooking.About 6% of household use fossil fuel. The time takenfor collecting fuel wood from nearby forest is upto 2days for those who cannot go to forest and let other forcollecting fuel wood and 1 day for those whothemselves collect from forest. As the cost for fuelwood is Rs.100 to150 per doko or vari, people have tojust go to forest for collection. Even this, the daily coston fuel collection is mostly about Rs.100 to 150 whichseems expensive than using fossil fuel.

Passive solar energy: The constructed houses are builtwith passive solar techniques. According to the sundirection, most of the houses are oriented to east and

north direction with openings. The typical house isbasically of two floors. The average dimension of housein plan is about 6m x 4m. each height is of 6ft to 7ftwhereas the dimension of plan varies according to thesize of family.

Newly made settlement by people Household energyused: More than 70% of household use traditional fuelfor cooking. About 24% of household use fossil fuel.The time taken for collecting fuel wood from nearbyforest is upto 3 days for those who cannot go to forest andlet other for collecting fuel wood and 1 day for those whothemselves collect from forest. Open spaces: There aredifferent open spaces for community interaction in thevillage. Some of them are Thulo aagan, Phyapchet andSano Renjilung. The gatherings of people for communityprogramme, meetings, resting and refreshing etc. areorganized.

Passive solar energy: Almost all the houses areconstructed due to earthquake. The land use pattern hasbeen changing in fast rate. The constructed houses hereare also built with passive solar techniques. Accordingto the sun direction, most of the houses are oriented toeast and north direction. The typical house is basicallyof one floor. The average dimension of house in plan isabout 6m x 4m. Each height is of 6ft to 7ft whereas thedimension of plan varies according to the size of family.

4.2.3 Climate smartness

Water Smart Rainwater harvesting: Since the existingsettlement lies at the sloppy lower level of Laprak, therainwater harvested may be used in kitchen garden andin some field. But majority of agricultural field lies tothe distant upper hills. Also the newly made settlementlies just above the agricultural field. The harvestedwater can be accumulated in plastic pond for irrigationpurpose to its downward agro land. Similarly, the waterharvested from NRNA settlement which lies at upmostpart of Laprak if accumulated, it can serve as sources ofirrigational water as well as water for cattle.

Water collection and irrigation in agricultural land: AsLaprak receives more precipitation, the reservoir ofharvested water can be proper alternatives for watersupply and irrigation during dry season. Thus collectedwater enhances sustainable agriculture. The communitymanagement for water from natural resources can playmajor role to distribute drinking water to both human

609


and cattle. The reuse of kitchen waste water collectioncan be used for irrigating kitchen garden as well.

Energy Smart The energy in Laprak is fulfilled bytraditional fuelwood for cooking whereas fossil fuel hasbeen used by minority of people. For lighting purposeelectricity from MHP supply is being used from 5pm to8am. No electrical appliances have been used forcooking. Solar panel has been distributed throughoutthe village after earthquake 2015. The majority ofpeople use solar energy for charging mobiles. For thespace heating inside the building, fuelwood is used andclothing for warming body. Hence, the demand offuelwood is more in the villge.

The quantity and collection time for firewood consumeshigh cost and lasts only for few days. The more energyefficient technology has not been used by the people.Use of ICS is also very low or almost no use in thevillage. Again due to low temperature proper biogascannot be produced. In this case, the energy smartnessis quite under developed.

Future Energy Scenario: One of the major projectsnamed Gham Power already initiated in Barpak. Sincethe different renewable energy practices have been donein Barpak which is the closest village of Laprak, thefuture energy scenario of Laprak will be influenced bythe renewable energy technology (RET) established inBarpak even though the energy scenario in Barpak doesnot meet high energy smart.

Figure 12: Technicians from Gham Power, installing a120-watt solar PV system kit on top of one of the fewhouses in Barpak, Gorkha, that are still standing.

5. Analysis and Discussion

Figure 13: Landslide zone in Laprak

Following a continuous rainfall for more than 24 hours,Laprak Landslide took place on 3rd July 1999 (19 Ashad, 2056) sweeping away one woman, 5 houses and some2 hectares (40 ropanies) of cultivated land along sidesof the Chhelong Khola and ever since, the Landslide isposing a great threat to the entire Laprak village.

[2] A is area of planar rock slides at the head ofChhelong gully B is quartzite boulder field C is activeheadscrap, D is area of stable shallow bedrock and thevillage school E is typical Translational slide developedin thin soil on a foliation dip surface F is recentrotational landslide component associated withwidening of Chhelong gully G is older stable landslideof unknown age L1 through L4 mark the approximatelocations of soil samples collected for laboratoryanalysis

Present situation of the Landslide Though the LaprakLandslide first took place in July 1999, it is still activeand continuously expanding, especially during themonsoon period. According to the classification ofLandslide, it is a complex one. There are rotational aswell as translational Landslides. Particularly the soildeposit along the sides of the Chhelong Khola ismoving down year after year and the houses at thevicinity of this Khola are more vulnerable.

Presumably because of the Landslide, before earthquake2015 almost more than 90% existing houses in Laprakvillage have suffered many cracks on the floor and walland the foundation has gone under the differential

610


settlement. Since the landslide is deep and is slippingfrom the interface between the rock and soil mass,controlling it at this stage means investment of a hugesum of budget and if the measures are not appliedcorrectly, there is a high probability of such landslideswhich may occur in the future. On the contrary, theyshould be encouraged to displace in order to enjoyhigher living standards so that they are ensured thatresettlement is on their behalf to improve theirconditions. To that end relocation of village is also apossibility.

NRNA settlement The planning of NRNA settlement isbased on scientific planning of settlement withintegration of revised building construction act of Nepalafter the earthquake 2015. During the planning phasethe basic infrastructures and services have been plannedwith approved width of road to the settlement and openspaces for social interaction to save the rural livelihoodand culture.

Although the NRNA settlement planning is wellengineered settlement it has some weakness to toleratethe local architectural style which may be due togeographical situation. The connection with the existingvillage is also affected by the longer walking distance.Due to this, the villagers get difficult to go and returnfrom their fields which are nearer from the existingvillage. Gupshipakha was one of the grazing area forthem. But due to snowfall occurs, significant animalgrazing could not be done. Also the walking distancefrom Laprak settlement is quite long than other areas.

The sustainability approaches in this settlement are:

1. Proper use of open land into residential area withstandard norms approved by Nepal government

2. Local natural resources utilization to promote thenatural environment of Laprak as the water springroutes are preserved according to their naturalflow.

3. Building design with more energy efficienttechnology as well as earthquake resistant

4. Opportunity of small business entrepreneurshipfor the people

5. Local people are engaged in building constructionwhich creates the harmony among the existing

village and NRNA model village

6. Conclusion and Recommendation

6.1 Conclusion

The natural resources found in the natural environmentstill provide an important base for many livelihoods inLaprak. This is most obvious in relation to farmingactivities that still characterize much of the rural space.In Laprak, the harvesting of water can be thealternatives of irrigation in the sloping lands which liesbelow the settlement areas and promotion of alternativeforms of irrigation like sprinkler and drip irrigation.Agriculture is the priority sector of the ruralcommunities in Laprak. The need to encourage farmersto adopt suitable farming system technologies forsustainable agricultural production and for soil andwater conservation and rehabilitation of degraded landsis important.

The basic role of the building is to provide comfortableindoor environment protecting occupants from harshexternal environment. Thus the energy integrated ruralreconstruction will fulfill its vision if there isconsideration of rural sustainability, energy efficientsustainable building design along with the concept ofclimate smart village. For the holistic development ofclimate smart village, buildings should be run throughefficient energy technology using passive solartechniques in economic way that enhance the balancebetween social and natural environment.

6.2 Recommendation

6.2.1 Existing Settlement and Newly MadeSettlement

1. Dissemination of ICS for cooking and spaceheating than with traditional fuel wood

2. Provision of technical knowledge of passive solartechniques

3. Water supply and irrigation should be planned tooptimize the water collection from naturalresources and rainwater harvesting

4. Ecotourism development is necessary likedeveloping homestay and other economic

611


activities as it lies in the trekking route ofManaslu

5. Pathways, alleys and open spaces should bemanaged properly for easy access to all

6. However the geological condition is inappropriatefor settlement, efficient disaster risk managementtechnology should be maintained.

7. Traditionally, agenu (open fire with an irontripod) and chulo (closed mod/stone stovewithout chimney) stoves have been used forcooking and heating purposes in Nepal

6.2.2 NRNA Settlement

1. Buildings with nature friendly in material andtechnology should be constructed

2. Climate responsive building orientation andbuilding insulation should be adopted.

3. Less energy consume and more benefits to thehousehold in buildings is necessary to achievesmart energy integrated rural reconstruction

References

[1] WHO. Nepal: Disaster Management ReferenceHandbook. WHO, 2015.

[2] Narayan Gurung, William C.Haneberg, G.V. Ramana,and Manoj Datta. Engineering geology and stabilityof the laprak landslide, gorkha district, westernnepal. Environmental and Engineering Geosciencevol.xvii,No.1, 2011.

612

energy integrated in rural reconstruction: a case at...

Documents