Risk knowledge among building professionals

Building professionals in Almora are a vital link between municipality and homeowners in the interpretation and application of safety measures in the built environment (see Figure 5.2). It is thus important to know what risk knowledge do building professionals possess and what is the source of this knowledge? Risk literature classifies between expert and lay knowledge (Wyanne, 1996) or scientific and local knowledge (Gaillard and Mercer, 2012). This classification works well when comparing knowledge between different set of actors. However, between building professionals, who are all considered to have building expertise, a classification of formally and informally acquired knowledge is explored. This builds on the classification established in Section 6.4 between formal and informal building professionals. Formal risk knowledge is describes as scientific knowledge concurrent with established land use and building regulations. Informal knowledge is acquired through practice and may stand in contravention to formal knowledge. The schism between scientific knowledge and practiced knowledge is brought forth through an example on the use of reinforced cement concrete in Almora by a civil engineer (Kakkar H 2017, personal communication, March 2):

“Few structures are engineered and around 99% contractors are masons. They take decisions based on convenience not structural design. E.g. a contractor asked the beam size to be reduced as he did not have shuttering material. Size is not related to structural design. Sometimes owner also side with the contractor.”

To understand the nature and source of risk knowledge among building professionals in Almora, a set of building professionals, active in Almora, were interviewed. It was difficult to establish the exact number of building professionals in Almora from the municipality as they only had a record of registered contractors. These contractors were involved in government projects and not residential construction. Residential construction was largely dominated by informal building professionals. Based on 150 household surveys, 25 building professionals were identified out of which eight participated in the interview. Risk knowledge was assessed vis-à-vis qualification, awareness of site and building safety measures, local, state and national

level building codes and guidelines (for interview question see Annex 8b and for responses collected see Annex 13). An analysis of risk knowledge is provided below in Table 7.2. First the source of risk knowledge among building professionals was established. The civil engineer and architect had university degrees and certification while the other building professionals has acquired construction knowledge on construction sites. Formal building professionals exhibited awareness of land safety measures and state, national and local level guidelines. Informal building professionals showed variability of awareness. Collaborations with specialists to substitute risk knowledge for residential projects was not practices by building professionals across the spectrum.

Table 7.2 Assessment of risk knowledge among building professionals in Almora

It can be seen that engineers and architects have higher awareness of formal risk knowledge and this progressively decreases with contractors and masons. These findings are not surprising as building construction is mandated to take place in a team where architects/engineers establish the basic guidelines which are then executed by contractors or masons (Ministry of Urban Development India, 2016). Local, state and national level regulations mandate the engagement of licenced engineers or architects for building construction as they would have acquired risk knowledge and would have a familiarity with building guidelines and codes (ibid.). However, as a majority of homeowners in Almora directly work with contractors and masons (see Table 6.4), low awareness of risk reduction measures among this group of building professionals is a cause of concern. This means that a large

Type of building professional (number interviewed) Building construction knowledge Awareness of Collaborati on with specialists (e.g. Geologist/ structural engineers) Land suitability

measures Local byelaws

State/national level safety

guidelines Civil engineer

(1) University degree Yes Yes Yes No*

Contractors (3) _experience Site No (1/3) Yes (2/3) No (0/3) No* (0/3) Local masons

(1) experience Site No Yes No No

Migrant

masons (3) experience Site

No (0/3) No (0/3) No (0/3) No (0/3) *Not for residential projects. Done for larger projects (>500 sq.m), if required.

segment of building professionals are not aware of the risk standards set forth at local, state or national level. This gap in knowledge would further translate in them not being able to pass on this expertise to their perspective clients.

Gaps in risk knowledge of one segment of building professionals can be substituted by collaborating with specialists in the area. However, as indicated in Table 7.2, this practice is neither mandatory nor practices for residential construction in Almora. Engaging with geologists to establish site safety or with structural engineers to establish building safety is not a prevalent practice in Almora. Building professionals, across scale, did not find this necessary for residential construction. Although, some building professionals would undertake such collaborations for larger (>500sq.m) institutional or commercial projects, for residential projects they relied on their own knowledge and expertise. Here, an opportunity of filling the expert knowledge gap is missed.

Further, one house constructed by each of the building professionals interviewed was taken up for study and checked for having established site suitability, following height and off-set regulations, including site safety features and ensuring connection to the municipal drain. The results are presented in below in Table 7.3. A detail of these observations is compiled in Annex 13 Part B.

Table 7.3 Risk reduction measures adopted by building professionals in Almora

There is a large variability in the results on the extent to which building professionals apply or do not apply risk knowledge while constructing houses in Almora. Though engineers and certain contractors were aware of local regulations as well as national and state level regulations, when it came to practice, it was found that they overlooked essential steps like establishing site suitability as it was not mandated in the local regulations. Hence, it cannot be said that possessing risk knowledge can translate into action by building professionals.

Type of building professional (number interviewed) Conducted site suitability test Maintained height regulation Maintained building offsets Established connection to municipal drain Had legal contract with homeowner

Civil engineer(1) No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Contractors (3) No (0/3) No (1/3) No (0/3) Yes (1/3) No (0/3)

Local masons (1) No Yes No No No

Migrant masons (3) No (0/3) No (1/3) No (0/3) No (0/3) No (0/3) own compilation

Furthermore, in areas where regulations do exist, like height regulations and earthquake safety norms, their application was diluted owing to weak implementation mechanism.

The glaring absence of legal contracts between homeowners and building professionals adds to the complexity of the situation (see Table 7.3.). Building professionals worked on verbal contracts and periodic payment schedules. It creates an environment where the building professionals cannot be held accountable for the development choices that they make. Lack of accountability on part of building professionals is identified as a barrier for them to gain risk knowledge and then be accountable to put it into practice. Furthermore, absence of legal contracts also proved to be troublesome for one local mason who reported non-payment on part of the client after construction (Bhatt J 2017, personal communication, 21 March). As a large number of building professionals acquired risk knowledge informally, the next question was to check if there any measures or practices, outside the codes and guidelines that they practiced to address risk? Risk literature points towards the existence of local knowledge and practices among communities to address disaster risk (Sudmeier-Rieux, 2011). These include traditional building practices or skills learnt outside the formal education process, rather acquired through practice. Understanding and incorporating these good practices is encouraged for building codes in particular (World Bank, 2015) and in disaster risk reduction framework in general (Gaillard and Mercer, 2012) to make risk knowledge relevant to the context in which it is practiced. However, risk literature also points towards a critical assessment of these practices as in some cases they may exacerbate the existing risks (ibid.). Contemporary building practices in Almora do not display a continuation of traditional building material or practices. Rather a clear transition to RCC and brick construction is observed (see Table 4.5). The local masons and local building techniques are shrinking and have been replaced by standard RCC construction. Contrary to good local practices, there were several examples of mal-practices in terms of large scale site modifications and drainage obstructions (Sah and Pande, 1987; Pushpa and Joshi, 2016). The narrative thus shifts from traditional good practices to contemporary local practices that exacerbate risk. The prevalent building practices take away from the positive romanticising attributed to local knowledge and shift the narrative towards questioning its capacity to address the risks endemic to the region. The current situation is well surmised by a practicing contractor in Almora (Joshi A 2017, personal communication, March 6):

“In the beginning, there were stone houses with mud mortar. However, now if people get buildings properly structurally designed it will work. However only a minority get things done professionally. Rest are on the mercy of God.”

It can thus be summarised that a large segment of building professionals in Almora are informal with limited knowledge of established urban risk measures. Furthermore, with a breakdown of

traditional built practices and systems to knowledge transfer, contemporary knowledge acquired on worksites does not address risk. While recommendations put forth by Sendai Framework talk of improving building regulations to include disaster risk reduction (UNISDR, 2015), it is important to note that in a town like Almora a large segment of building professionals do not draw risk knowledge from building codes nor do they collaborate with professionals that possess this knowledge. While efforts to improve building regulations are in the right direction, they have to be supplemented by training and educating all groups of building professionals. At the time of this research, the municipality did not have a scheme for registration of the informal building professionals nor did they have projects in their pipeline for training them in this direction (Joshi PC 2017, personal communication, 20 February). Similar plans and schemes were also absent at the state level planning institution (Anonymous 2017, personal communication, 22 February):

“We are focused on our employees. We educate and sensitise ward members and municipal chairpersons. Honestly, we have not thought of contractors. Mason training on earthquake exists. We can make some training modules for masons and contractors Environment impact assessment has to be introduces.”

Here, cues can be drawn from the Uttarakhand State Disaster Management Authority that has made a headway in training and certifying masons for earthquake resistant design. It recognises that there has been a shift in building techniques from stone to concrete and brick and training masons on working with these materials adds to capacity building for disaster risk reduction. They have trained around 1400 masons and constructed 52 demo units (Uttarakhand State Disaster Management Authority, 2018). Similar projects can be attempted at the local level in coordination with the District Disaster Management Authority, Almora to bridge the risk knowledge gaps. Recommendations in this direction are made in Chapter 8. However, training professionals to address risk cannot exist in isolation. Residents, who employ building professionals, need to be made aware of the availability of trained professionals and the importance of employing them. Furthermore, the recognition of these trained professionals in the local level bye-laws as well as in state level and national level guidelines and policies is necessary. This two-pronged approach can help raise awareness on the issue as well as provide a market for trained professionals. Though the government has made a headway in this direction by accepting maps made by certified professionals, it solves only half of the problem (Hindustan, 2018b). A similar move has to be made to ensure that trained professionals are involved in all stages of execution of the building plans.