Building Research & Information

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

The state of earthen housing worldwide: how

development affects attitudes and adoption

Alastair T. M. Marsh & Yask Kulshreshtha

To cite this article: Alastair T. M. Marsh & Yask Kulshreshtha (2022) The state of earthen housing
worldwide: how development affects attitudes and adoption, Building Research & Information, 50:5,
485-501, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2021.1953369

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1953369

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 01 Aug 2021. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2434 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION
2022, VOL. 50, NO. 5, 485–501
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1953369

The state of earthen housing worldwide: how development affects attitudes and
adoption
a b
Alastair T. M. Marsh and Yask Kulshreshtha
a
School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; bMaterials & Environment Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Housing is a cross-cutting issue that is crucial to achieving several of the Sustainable Development Received 15 April 2021
Goals. Earthen housing is found across the globe, particularly in developing countries, but there is a Accepted 4 July 2021
lack of up-to-date information about its distribution and trends. This knowledge gap is a barrier to
KEYWORDS
developing more effective research and policy for earthen housing. In this study, national Housing design; earth
demographic datasets were used to investigate the distribution, trends and attitudes towards construction; development;
earthen housing worldwide. Data was collected and analysed for the most populous 26 census; Sustainable
countries, which make up >75% of the global population. Globally, earthen housing is in Development Goals
decline relative to non-earthen housing, driven by demographic changes and negative
perceptions of earthen materials in developing countries. The proportion of households living in
earthen dwellings worldwide is estimated to be 8–10%, and the average across developing
countries to be 20–25%. There is a negative correlation between countries’ level of
development and prevalence of earthen housing. Whilst data is more sparse for highly
developed countries, the development of standards and commercial interest suggests more
favourable attitudes to earthen housing. A focus is encouraged on high-quality earthen
dwellings which can help meet housing needs in both developing and developed countries.

Introduction
to replace traditional and/or indigenous materials
Earthen construction has a long history in human habi- (including earth) with ‘modern’ materials (e.g. fired
tats, including cultural or communal buildings as well as bricks, concrete) in order to improve dwellings’ robust-
housing (Houben & Guillaud, 1994). It has been (and ness and their occupants’ quality of life. In contrast, in
still is) used in many regions around the world. There developed countries there has been a renewed interest
is great diversity in both the form and quality of earthen in traditional and/or indigenous materials (again,
buildings, ranging from poor quality housing (Kulsh- including earth) for a range of motivations including
reshtha et al., 2020) to luxury developments and show- culture, aesthetics, environmental impacts and health
piece ‘starchitecture’ buildings (Ramage et al., 2019). (Hall et al., 2012).
Housing is a key part of the United Nations Sustain- Despite earth being a major construction material for
able Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, housing, the global distribution of earthen housing is
2015), particularly SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and com- poorly understood. So far, understanding is limited to
munities’ (Smets & Van Lindert, 2016). It also strongly certain regions, including India (Kulshreshtha et al.,
relates to numerous other SDGs, including SDG 1 ‘No 2020), France (Leylavergne, 2012; Antoine & Carnevale,
Poverty’, SDG 3 ‘Good Health and Wellbeing’, and 2016), Germany (Lehmbau Atlas, 2012) and Europe as a
SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’. Hereafter, ‘housing’ will be whole (Akermann et al., 2011). A wide range of earthen
used to refer to residential building stock in general, buildings (not limited to housing) were included within
and ‘dwelling’ will be used to refer to an individual resi- a study on earthen structures in the UNESCO World
dential unit occupied by a single household. Over recent Heritage List, but this was restricted to 150 sites (Gan-
decades, the world housing stock has undergone rapid dreau & Delboy, 2012). The majority of these previous
change in both scale and material use (Okpala, 1992). studies focussed on describing construction method
In developing countries, there is a widely held aspiration and architecture of the earthen dwellings, rather than

CONTACT Alastair T. M. Marsh a.marsh@leeds.ac.uk

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1953369.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
486 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

a quantitative description of their numbers. Within The approach of this study was to use national demo-
SDG 11, earthen housing is crucial to achieving targets graphic datasets in order to interrogate the status and
11.1 (universal access to adequate housing) and 11.c trends of earthen housing. The aim was to fill knowledge
(maximizing use of local materials in construction). gaps around: the distribution of earthen dwellings
However, one of the barriers to achieving these targets around the world and within countries; the changes in
is information – and in particular, these two key knowl- prevalence of -and attitudes towards-earthen housing
edge gaps: a quantitative understanding around the at different developmental stages; and, the overall preva-
worldwide distribution of earthen housing; and, the lence of earthen dwellings around the world.
trends of adoption for earthen housing in both highly
developed and developing countries. Addressing these
knowledge gaps will enable more effective work on Methodology
earthen housing by many actors, such as researchers,
Countries investigated
policymakers and standards bodies.
The most commonly quoted global estimate is that 1/ A ‘fat tail’ exists in the distribution of global population
3rd of the world’s population lives in earthen dwellings, over the number of countries – >75% of the world’s
with that figure rising to ∼50% for the population of population lives within just 26 countries (Figure 1).
developing countries (Houben & Guillaud, 1994). National demographic datasets offer an efficient way
These estimates were first given in 1983, and continue to assess a large proportion of the global population
to be regularly restated, often without indicating from a relatively small number of countries. The scope
whether the whole world or just the developing world of this study is therefore focussed on the 26 most popu-
is referred to (Rael, 2008). Other sources give worldwide lous countries. These countries span a range of income
values of around 50% or above (Agarwal, 1982; Avrami groups and stages of development (Table 1), and hence
& Guillaud, 2008). While the estimate from 1983 may provide the opportunity to make comparisons between
have been a representative ‘ballpark’ figure at the time, countries based on these attributes.
substantial changes in global demographics and housing This approach was used in order to obtain a balance
stock have taken place in the subsequent >35 years. The between assessing a substantial proportion of the global
use of the best available data to revise these values for population, whilst also limiting the scope to a feasible
the 21st century is long overdue. number of national datasets. It was also sought to

Figure 1. Individual and cumulative populations for the 26 most populous countries. 2020 population data from United Nations
(2019).
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 487

Table 1. Key demographic data for selected 26 countries.

Country Population ranking Population (millions) HDI group HDI score Income group MDPI score
China 1 1439.3 High 0.758 Upper middle 0.016
India 2 1380.0 Medium 0.647 Lower middle 0.123
United States of America 3 331.0 Very high 0.92 High n/a
Indonesia 4 273.5 High 0.707 Lower middle 0.028
Pakistan 5 220.9 Medium 0.56 Lower middle 0.198
Brazil 6 212.6 High 0.761 Upper middle 0.016
Nigeria 7 206.1 Low 0.534 Lower middle 0.291
Bangladesh 8 164.7 Medium 0.614 Lower middle 0.198
Russian Federation 9 145.9 Very high 0.824 Upper middle n/a
Mexico 10 128.9 High 0.767 Upper middle 0.025
Japan 11 126.5 Very high 0.915 High n/a
Ethiopia 12 115.0 Low 0.47 Low 0.489
Philippines 13 109.6 High 0.712 Lower middle 0.024
Egypt 14 102.3 High 0.7 Lower middle 0.019
Viet Nam 15 97.3 Medium 0.693 Lower middle 0.019
Democratic Republic of the Congo 16 89.6 Low 0.459 Low 0.389
Turkey 17 84.3 Very high 0.806 Upper middle n/a
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 18 84.0 High 0.797 Upper middle n/a
Germany 19 83.8 Very high 0.939 High n/a
Thailand 20 69.8 High 0.765 Upper middle 0.003
United Kingdom 21 67.9 Very high 0.92 High n/a
France 22 65.3 Very high 0.891 High n/a
Italy 23 60.5 Very high 0.883 High n/a
United Republic of Tanzania 24 59.7 Low 0.528 Low 0.273
South Africa 25 59.3 High 0.705 Upper middle 0.025
Myanmar 26 54.4 Medium 0.584 Lower middle 0.176
Note: 2020 population data from United Nations (2019); groups and scores for HDI and MDPI from UNDP (2020); income groups from The World Bank (2020b).

provide a balanced assessment for the world as whole, Census reports are published by countries’ statistics
rather than risk a positive selection bias by intentionally authorities, and data are typically presented by the num-
focussing on countries where earthen construction is ber of dwellings (rather than population). This was the
widespread and/or well-documented. It is acknowl- first preference of data source as it offers the most com-
edged that this sample of countries excludes several prehensive data with minimal subsequent processing.
countries (i.e. those in the remaining <25% of world Within the housing and health research area, census
population) in which earth construction is widely data has previously been used to analyse trends in hous-
adopted and/or very well documented (e.g. Mali, ing in Sub-Saharan Africa from 2005 to 2015 (Tusting
Sudan, Yemen); at the same time, the sample also et al., 2019).
excludes many countries in which earth construction IPUMS is an open database which provides a sample of
is not widely adopted (e.g. Malaysia, Poland, Canada). census data (typically in the range of 10–15% of the popu-
lation), including for some countries whose census
reports are not readily accessible or available in English
Sources and limitations of national demographic
(Minnesota Population Center, 2019). However, the raw
data
census data are processed into universal categories and
Censuses and other national demographic datasets pro- so does not necessarily accurately represent the exact
vide valuable information but also present challenges. questions used in the original survey. It also sometimes
Census reports are not always publicly available, and are includes a conversion to numbers of people rather than
not always translated into English. To overcome the chal- numbers of dwellings. This was the second preference
lenges of limited access to census reports, three types of of data source when census reports were not accessible.
sources were used to provide national demographic data In the use of IPUMS data, it was assumed that the number
around housing materials and housing quality: of households and number of people are directly pro-
portional, so that values reported in terms of ‘proportion
1. Census reports of people living in earthen dwellings’ were equivalent to
2. IPUMS census data ‘proportion of households living in earthen dwellings’.
3. Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) question- Consequently, the latter term will be used throughout.
naire data Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data are
generated from household surveys undertaken every 5
A national census is the most wide-ranging and in- years, which include questions about housing character-
depth recording of data about a country’s population. istics and materials. They provide a snapshot of a
488 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

country, given that they collect data from a small sample Analysis methods
of the population. DHS data were used in a different way
The analysis of national demographic data is a novel
to the previous two sources, as described in the follow-
approach for interrogating the current state and his-
ing paragraphs.
torical trends of global earthen construction, which
These three source types have advantages and disad-
has not previously been used. Given that census ques-
vantages in terms of availability, comparability and
tions and response options are unique to each country,
transparency of data. To make best use of the data avail-
using census data presents challenges of making fair
able, the different source types were used for different
comparisons between different countries’ data. On
aspects of the analysis (Table 2). For comparing between
the other hand, a given country’s choice of questions
countries, the most recent census reports were used.
and response options itself provides information
When this was not accessible, the census data provided
about that country’s attitudes towards construction
by IPUMS was used as the best available substitute. For
materials. In order to identify common points of com-
countries for which either census data were not available,
parison and trends in countries’ surveys, a cascade of
or census data did not contain any data relevant to the
questions was used to assess how each census pre-
construction material of dwellings, other sources of
sented the relevant data (see Appendix A in Sup-
national or regional level data were obtained where poss-
plementary Information).
ible. For comparing trends over time, DHS surveys were
The following developmental indicators were also
used, along with the census and IPUMS data. Whilst
used to compare between countries:
DHS surveys only represent a small sample of each coun-
try’s population (typically <0.01% of the population),
. Human Development Index (HDI) – a compound
these have the advantages of being carried out at regular
measure of a country’s development (higher value
intervals, and having a set of questions which are com-
= higher degree of development) (UNDP, 2020).
mon across all countries and across years as the surveys
. Multidimensional Poverty Index (MDPI) – a com-
were carried out by a single organization. Historical
pound measure of a country’s poverty (higher value
population estimates from the United Nations World
= higher degree of poverty). Scores are only calcu-
Population Prospects (2019) were used to convert the
lated for countries outside of the highly developed
historical values for the proportion of population living
HDI grouping (UNDP, 2020).
in earthen dwellings into absolute numbers of people
. Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP) – an over-
(see Appendix B in Supplementary Information).
all measure of the average wealth of a country’s citi-
zens (The World Bank, 2020a).
Classification of earthen construction
For the purposes of this study, an earthen dwelling was Estimate of number of households living in
defined as a dwelling in which a majority of the external earthen dwellings
walls of the building are constructed using unfired earth
as a major component. This included wholly earthen In order to test the validity of widely-used estimates
wall construction (e.g. adobe blocks, rammed earth, about the proportion of the global population living
compressed earth blocks) as well as part-earthen wall in earthen dwellings, an approximate estimate was
construction (e.g. wattle and daub). Stabilized and made for these 26 countries. Depending on the avail-
unstabilized earth construction techniques were both ability of data for a given country, the following pro-
included. Flooring material was considered separately, cedures were used to make an estimate, in order of
as earthen floors have distinct functional requirements preference:
and risks compared to walls – this distinction is
explored in the section ‘Reduced prevalence of earthen 1. Use of census data.
housing and higher development – correlation or 2. Use of other national statistical data.
causation?’. 3. Estimation on the basis of partial or regional data in
research articles.
4. Estimation based on benchmark data available for
Table 2. Data sources used for different aspects of analysis.
comparable countries (in terms of region and devel-
Comparison between
countries Comparison within each country over time opment level)
Census reports Census reports
IPUMS census data IPUMS census data To aid sourcing of non-census data sources for the
DHS surveys
numbers of earthen housing and the availability of
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 489

standards, experts in the fields of earthen construc- Results

tion and local building materials in the respective
Availability of earth construction data in
countries were contacted. When the lack of other
censuses
data required the use of the latter two methods, an
upper limit and lower limit were also estimated, to A large proportion of the 26 countries enquired about the
provide a range of uncertainty. Full descriptions of type of walling materials in their census survey. However,
the estimation procedures used for each country are this was not evenly distributed between HDI groups – the
provided in Appendix C in Supplementary Infor- majority of very high HDI countries did not enquire
mation. Estimates were described in terms of house- about construction material (Figure 2). For the countries
holds, rather than the dwellings themselves, to reflect which did enquire about construction material, a
the fact that census data reports in terms of the num- majority included earth as an individual response option.
ber of households. This included most of the low or medium HDI countries.
For those countries which included earth as a
response option, there were differences in the number
Availability of standards and qualitative of options provided (Table 3). Several countries only
information on earth construction trends included a single generic option for earth construction,
whilst others (e.g. Tanzania, Ethiopia, South Africa)
As part of the investigation into trends in adoption of differentiated between earth blocks and wattle & daub.
earthen housing, experts in the fields of earthen con- For other countries, earth was not included as an
struction and local building materials in the respective individual response option. In some cases, earth could
countries were contacted. All were asked about the potentially have been included in broader categories
availability of standards, and experts in highly devel- (e.g. non-permanent materials). This seemed to be the
oped countries were also asked to provide other quali- case in countries where earth is not a strong part of ver-
tative or anecdotal evidence. This included the nacular architecture (e.g. Philippines, Thailand).
existence of policies to promote earthen construction
and the number of companies specifically working
with earthen construction. These extra questions were
Relative prevalence of earthen walling and
asked for highly developed countries because of their
earthen flooring
widespread lack of quantitative data, which will be
explained in the section ‘Availability of earth construc- For countries which obtained data for both floor and
tion data in censuses’. wall materials, the overall trend was that earthen

Figure 2. Breakdown of how many countries census data provided relevant information to earth dwellings, grouped by Human Devel-
opment Index (HDI) group.
490 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

Table 3. Response options for countries which included earth as a survey option for construction material of dwellings.
Country Data source Earth response options Non-earth response options
India Census 2011 Mud/unburnt brick Grass/thatch/bamboo; plastic/polythene; wood; stone not packed with mortar;
stone packed with mortar; G.I./metal/asbestos sheets; burnt brick; concrete; any
other walling material
Pakistan Census 1998 Unbaked bricks/earth bound Baked bricks/blocks/stone; wood/bamboo; others
Brazil Census 2010 Rammed earth (without coat/plaster), Brick masonry (coated), Brick masonry (uncoated), Equipped wood, harnessed
rammed earth (with coat/plaster), wood. straw, other material (plastic etc)
Nigeria Census 2006 Mud/reed Wood/bamboo; stone; cement/blocks/bricks; metal/zinc sheet; other
Bangladesh Census 2011 Mud/un-burnt bricks Straw/Bamboo/Polythene/Plastic/Canvas, Tin (C.I Sheet), Wood, Brick/cement,
others
Mexico Census 2010 Adobe; Mud or Adobe Cardboard, scrap, and miscellaneous materials; Waste, scrap, or discarded material;
(IPUMS) Cardboard sheet; Wood; Reed, bamboo, or palm; Brick, block, stone, or cement;
Metal or asbestos sheet
Ethiopia Census 2007 Unburnt brick with mud; Mud or adobe; Wood; Bamboo or cane; Brick, block, stone, or cement; Brick with plaster exterior;
(IPUMS) Mud with wood/wattle Brick; Cemented stone; Metal or iron sheet; Others
Egypt Census 2017 Bricks or clay (i.e. earth) Red bricks or their alternatives and other ceils; red bricks or their alternatives and
concrete ceils; prefabricated materials; concrete ceils and pillars
Vietnam Census 2009 Wood and earth adobe; Netted bamboo Brick, stone, concrete; Concrete; Mixed material; Others
(IPUMS) or cane with mud;
Iran Census 2016 Adobe and wood; Adobe and clay Reinforced concrete; Brick and steel or stone and steel; Brick and wood or stone and
wood; Cement block (kinds of roof); All brick or stone and brick; All wood; others
Tanzania Census 2012 Poles and Mud; Sundried bricks; Stones; Cement bricks; Timber; Timber and Iron sheets; Grass; tent
South Census 2011 Cement and adobe bricks; Mud with Cardboard sheet; Plastic sheeting, cardboard; Wood, formica, and other; Wood or
Africa (IPUMS) wood/wattle bamboo; Grass, straw or reed; Bricks; Cement blocks; Asbestos; Metal or Iron
sheet; Others
Myanmar Census 2014 Earth Tiles; Concrete; bricks; Wood; Bamboo; Corrugated sheeting; Non-woody
vegetation

flooring was at least as widespread as earthen walling in demonstrated a high degree of similarity. In Brazil, a
each country (Figure 3). The exception to this is Mexico similar trend of earth construction mostly being in
– however, it only deviated by a small amount. rural areas was also seen, albeit this was much less
obvious given that for the country as a whole, the
majority of the population is urban (85.9%).
Rural–urban distribution of earthen dwellings
Several censuses made a distinction between dwellings
in rural and urban areas. However, only a small number Earthen construction and development status
included data for earthen dwellings as well as a rural– For the countries reporting data for earthen dwellings, a
urban breakdown. Within this sample (Figure 4), weak negative correlation was observed between HDI
earth construction was consistently more prevalent in and the proportion of earthen dwellings (Figure 5),
rural areas. The overall distributions within the South meaning that higher levels of development are associ-
Asian region (i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) ated with a lower proportion of a country’s population
living in earthen dwellings. For MDPI, a weak positive
correlation was observed (Figure 6), meaning that
lower levels of poverty are associated with a lower pro-
portion of a country’s population living in earthen
dwellings. The overall narrative trend observed is
hence the same for both metrics. The clearest outlier
on both plots is Myanmar, which has a very low pro-
portion of households living in earthen dwellings
(0.2%) and a relatively low level of development (i.e.
low HDI and high MDPI scores).

Changes in earthen dwellings with time and

wealth

Figure 3. The proportion of households living in dwellings with For some countries, comparable earthen data were avail-
earth floors and earth walls (for countries which provided both able for different time points (Figure 7(a)), which was
sets of data). then plotted against changes in each country’s wealth
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 491

Figure 4. The proportion of households living in earthen and non-earthen dwellings in urban and rural areas.

(using GDP per capita as an indicator) for the same years Current global prevalence of earth construction
(Figure 7(b)). A clear overall trend was observed between
The number of households living in earthen dwellings
increasing wealth and a decreasing proportion of the
was estimated for the 26 countries (together represent-
overall population living in earthen dwellings over recent
ing >75% of the world population), in order to interro-
decades. Despite differences in absolute values between
gate the validity of two widely used statements around
countries, the overall trend is common for all the
the global prevalence of earthen dwellings.
countries for which data were available.
The first widely used statement, that ‘one third of
Presentation of these values in terms of absolute
the world’s population lives in earthen dwellings’ is
population, rather than simply proportions, revealed
now shown to be a substantial overestimate. From esti-
more nuanced trends (Figure 8). With the exception
mates for the 26 countries, the real range is expected to
of South Africa, the populations living in earthen dwell-
be 8–10% (Figure 9(a)). Whilst this is a small pro-
ings in these countries have remained fairly constant
portion relative to the remainder of the population liv-
over time (India, Mexico), or have even undergone a
ing in non-earthen dwellings, earthen dwellings are
fairly modest increase (Bangladesh, Tanzania). In con-
nonetheless estimated to provide shelter for around
trast, all these countries underwent large increases in
650–700 million people worldwide. The second widely
the population living in non-earthen housing.

Figure 6. Correlation between multi-dimensional poverty index

Figure 5. Correlation between human development index (HDI) (MDPI) and proportion of households living in earthen
and proportion of households living in earthen dwellings. dwellings.
492 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

Figure 7. Changes in proportion of households living in earthen dwellings for India, Bangladesh, Mexico, Tanzania and South Africa
plotted against: (a) time, (b) GDP per capita (current USD$).

used statement, that ‘half of the population of develop- Availability of national standards for earthen
ing countries lives in earthen dwellings’ is also a sub- construction
stantial overestimate. Choosing here to classify
Whilst the census survey questions (Figure 2) indicated
developing countries as either low or medium HDI
attitudes towards earth construction and the importance
group, the real range is expected to be 20–25% (Figure
of construction materials in different countries’ surveys,
9(b)). Nonetheless, there is still a clear difference in
attitudes are also reflected by how well-developed
prevalence between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global
countries’ national standards are (Niroumand et al.,
South’ (Figure 10).
2017). Normative documents were excluded from con-
Despite the difficulties involved in some of these
sideration, due to their lesser influence relative to standards
estimates, the magnitude of uncertainties are relatively
and greater difficulty of finding. The most recent review of
small. This arises from the fact that quantitative data
national standards and normative documents for earth
exist for several of the world’s most populous
construction was given by Schroeder (2012). The relevant
countries, namely China (4.2%), India (28.2%), Paki-
national standards for the countries considered in this
stan (34.5%), Brazil (1.6%), Nigeria (36.6%), Bangla-
study are given in Table 4. Comparing the availability of
desh (16.7%) and Mexico (16.4%). This helps to
national standards with the HDI group (Figure 11), it
compensate for the higher levels of uncertainty in
can be seen that these are more widely available for the
other, less populous countries. Furthermore, many of
very high HDI countries compared to other groups.
the census datasets are now over 10 years old, and
there is a historical trend of much faster growth in
non-earthen housing stock relative to earthen housing Discussion
stock in some countries (Figure 8) – as a result these
Developing and highly developed countries have
estimates are likely to be an over-estimate. It is con-
different attitudes towards housing walling
sidered unlikely that the countries which make up
materials
the remaining <25% of the global population exhibit
a distribution which is substantially different from The divide in census survey questions between low,
that presented here. Given that the absolute numbers medium and high HDI countries (whose census surveys
of earthen housing have been relatively stable for did include questions about dwellings’ construction
some countries in recent decades (Figure 8), it may material) and very high HDI countries (whose census
well be that the earlier estimate of ∼33% may have surveys did not) was shown in Figure 2. In turn, this
been broadly accurate for a time period in the 20th reflects assumptions about which factors strongly influ-
century – perhaps the 1950s or 1960s. Nonetheless, it ence citizens’ quality of life. In less developed countries,
is concluded that these two widely used statements there is a wider palette (and level of quality) of the hous-
now over-estimate the proportion of earthen dwellings ing materials themselves, and hence housing materials
– they are out of date and therefore should no longer be are a strong indicator for the quality of life and econ-
used. omic status. Earthen materials in particular are
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 493

For the purposes of this article, high-quality earthen

dwellings are defined as possessing both a good archi-
tectural design (i.e. roof, foundation, detailing,
finishing) and good material quality (i.e. well-graded,
sufficiently compacted soil, as appropriate), together
leading to a good durability performance for the struc-
ture as a whole. In comparison, poor quality earthen
dwellings are defined as being deficient in architectural
design and/or material quality. A detailed description of
these technical requirements can be found elsewhere
(Houben & Guillaud, 1994). Quantification of dwelling
quality is challenging, and arguably more research is
needed in this area. Nonetheless, a broad inference
can be made: in very high HDI countries, the construc-
tion sector is highly regulated, and hence the durability
of dwellings is typically highly satisfactory, and (as sta-
ted previously) is taken for granted. In comparison, in
less developed countries the construction sector is typi-
cally much less regulated and the budgets available for
home construction are typically much smaller. As a
result, there is a greater prevalence of dwellings (includ-
ing but not limited to earthen dwellings) which do not
demonstrate sufficient durability. An earthen dwelling
built in a less developed country is not automatically
of low quality, nor is an earthen dwelling built a highly
developed country automatically of high quality. None-
theless, low quality earthen dwellings are far more
prevalent in less developed countries, for the reasons
outlined above. The implication for attitudes is that in
less developed countries, the existing building stock
has already shaped attitudes to earthen housing; whilst
in very high HDI countries (which do not contain a
large number of poor quality buildings to act as a refer-
ence point), attitudes towards earthen housing have not
been pre-determined in such a negative way.
The trends observed for how the proportion of earthen
dwellings has changed with time (Figure 7(a)) agree with
general observations made over the previous decades for
Sub-Saharan Africa (Tusting et al., 2019), Africa as a
whole (Adegun & Adedeji, 2017) and India (Kulshreshtha
Figure 8. Changes in the populations living in earthen and non- et al., 2020). However, this analysis has a crucial caveat –
earthen housing for India, Bangladesh, Mexico, Tanzania and
South Africa. the data presented are a biased sample of earthen dwell-
ings. The earthen data available offers far better represen-
tation for low and medium HDI countries (Figure 2), and
considered to indicate low economic status (Hadjri thus prevents comparative analysis with high and very high
et al., 2007). In contrast, in the very highly developed HDI countries. Whilst some highly developed countries
countries, robustness of housing is taken for granted contain a large absolute number of earthen dwellings,
and there is typically a narrower palette of construction these only make up a very small proportion of the national
materials. Consequently, other housing factors (e.g. building stock as a whole. Based on values stated in the lit-
access to heating and cooling) are considered more rel- erature, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom
evant in determining the quality of life. One aspect of were all estimated to have proportions of households living
earthen dwellings which is not captured in national in earthen dwellings of <1% (full details are included in
demographic data is the quality of those dwellings. Appendix C in the Supplementary Information).
494 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

Figure 9. (a) The estimated proportion of households living in earthen dwellings in the 26 countries considered in this study, including
estimates of the uncertainty in estimates generated in this study. (b) A breakdown in HDI group of the estimated number of house-
holds living in earthen dwellings in the 26 countries considered in this study. Previous widely used estimates are marked in dashed
lines.

Anecdotal observations from local experts and et al., 2011). This is also expressed by a growing num-
other sources suggest that there is a growing interest ber of earth-based products and earth construction
in earthen construction in several of these countries companies (Leylavergne, 2012; Dachverband Lehm,
(e.g. France, U.K., U.S.A.). This interest is largely dri- 2021), and a growing stock (albeit still relatively
ven by the desire for sustainable housing with low small) of modern earthen buildings (Akermann
embodied carbon (Niroumand et al., 2017; Swan et al., 2011; Antoine & Carnevale, 2016). The

Figure 10. A global choropleth map for the prevalence of earthen dwellings in the countries considered in this study. The colour code
is based on the proportion of households living in earthen dwellings.
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 495

Table 4. Earth construction standards for the 26 most populous countries.

Country HDI group Standard
China High None
India Medium IS: 4332 (BIS, 1967), 2110 (BIS, 1998a), 13827 (BIS, 1998b), 1725 (BIS, 2013), 17165 (BIS, 2020)
United States of America Very high ASTM E2392/E2392M (ASTM, 2010), CID-GCB-NMBC-14.7.4 (CID, 2006)‡
Indonesia High –
Pakistan Medium None
Brazil High NBR 8491 (ABNT, 1984), 10,832 (ABNT, 1989), 12,023 (ABNT, 1992), 13,554 (ABNT, 1996)
Nigeria Low NIS 369 (SON, 1997), ARS 670-683 (ARSO, 1996)*
Bangladesh Medium None
Russian Federation Very high –
Mexico High –
Japan Very high –
Ethiopia Low –, ARS 670-683 (ARSO, 1996)*
Philippines High –
Egypt High HBRC (HBRC, 2016), ARS 670-683 (ARSO, 1996)*
Viet Nam Medium None
Democratic Republic of the Congo Low –, ARS 670-683 (ARSO, 1996)*
Turkey Very high TS 537 (TS, 1985)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) High –
Germany Very high Lehmbau Regeln (Dachverband Lehm, 2009), DIN 18945 (DIN, 2018a), DIN 18946 (DIN, 2018b)
Thailand High None
United Kingdom Very high None
France Very high AFNOR XP.P13-901 (AFNOR, 2001)
Italy Very high None
United Republic of Tanzania Low –, ARS 670-683 (ARSO, 1996)*
South Africa High –
Myanmar Medium –
– indicates countries in which local experts could not be found who could confirm the existence or absence of national standards.
* ARS 670-683 (1996) is an African Regional Standard, so whilst it is available in African countries it is not considered a national standard per se.
‡
CID-GCB-NMBC-14.7.4 (2006) is a New Mexico state standard, rather than a USA-wide national standard.

availability of standards for earth construction is still development for earthen construction (Swan et al.,
lacking in several very high HDI countries, but stan- 2011).
dards are still on average more widely available than In summary, in very high HDI countries, earth is
in the lower HDI group countries (Figure 11). Given viewed as perhaps a niche material, but not a ‘poor’
the importance of standards in enabling widespread material – because the quality of earthen buildings is
adoption, there are movements to accelerate their generally high. Hence, earth construction is viewed as

Figure 11. Availability of national earth construction standards and/or normative documents for countries in different HDI groups
(very high, high, medium, low).
496 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

a respectable and reliable construction material that can facilitate some disease vectors due to crumbling
provide a decent quality of life. A high-level finding of (Wiese et al., 2017), it is arguably earthen floors which
these observations from the national demographic are most directly involved in increasing risk factors,
data and standards is that attitudes towards earth con- including Visceral Leishmaniasis (Younis et al., 2020)
struction are not fixed and immutable. In less developed and Tungiasis (Wiese et al., 2017), and also attracting
countries the average quality of earthen dwellings is mosquitoes to enter (Wanzirah et al., 2015). Whilst
typically lower, which has informed the prevailing atti- occupants of earthen dwellings do suffer higher malarial
tudes. In highly developed countries, the much smaller risk, this is attributed to poor design and finished quality
number of earthen dwellings are of much higher quality, (e.g. open eaves which allow mosquitoes to enter) rather
and their adoption is supported by a greater availability than the earthen material itself (Ogoma et al., 2010;
of national standards (although this is still lacking over- Lindsay et al., 2002).
all). These arguments are based on the country-scale In developing countries, the typical preference of
data analysed in this article, which are highly useful upgrading building elements runs in the order of roof,
for obtaining a global perspective that is lacking in the walls and lastly, floor (Tusting et al., 2019). Walls rep-
existing literature. Nonetheless, future research using a resent the largest volume and typically most expensive
range of methods is needed to obtain a more granular element of a dwelling. The available data shows the
understanding of attitudes towards earthen dwellings prevalence of earthen floors is typically higher than
in different countries and the different sectors of their the prevalence of earthen walls (Figure 3). Therefore,
populations. How (and how quickly) prevailing negative it is arguable that policymakers and researchers should
attitudes towards earth construction in less developed prioritize the replacement of earth floors, along with
countries could be changed remains a matter for debate. low-cost design interventions such as closing eaves, to
protect from disease vectors (Wanzirah et al., 2015).
In highly developed countries, the arguments made
Reduced prevalence of earthen housing and
for earthen housing are the opposite –with an increasing
higher development – correlation or causation?
proportion of time spent indoors, the moisture buffer-
There is a weak correlation between the proportion of ing capacity and intangible aspects of earthen dwellings
earthen dwellings and HDI and MDPI scores, as make for healthier indoor environments (Mcgregor
shown in Figures 5 and 6 respectively. This correlation et al., 2016). This supports the argument that the pro-
appears much stronger if countries without a strong blem of poor quality earthen dwellings lies fundamen-
use of earth in traditional construction (e.g. Myanmar) tally in poor design and finishing of the structure and
are excluded. On initial inspection, a policymaker might materials and the surrounding environment, rather
conclude that the way to accelerate a country’s develop- than the fundamental nature of the material itself.
ment is to replace earthen housing stock with housing Therefore, housing policymakers should not assume
made of other materials as quickly as possible. However, the correlation between lower prevalence of earthen
correlation does not always mean causation – it is cru- dwellings and higher levels of development is entirely
cial to interrogate to what extent this trend is attribu- causative. Rather, focus should be on replacing or
table to the material itself, versus other factors of upgrading poor quality earthen dwellings, whilst not
housing design and the wider urban environment. ignoring the potential health benefits that high-quality
An argument can be made that the issue is not earth earthen dwellings can provide.
itself – but rather poor quality dwellings in general, and
the use of earth when built within a way that is detri-
A conceptual model for understanding the
mental to health outcomes. In a study in Sub-Saharan
relationship between earthen housing and
Africa, controlling for poverty and other known health
development
factors, the influence of ‘finished’ building materials
resulted in a reduction in odds of malaria, stunting The trends of countries’ earthen dwellings with develop-
and underweight of 0–5–year–olds (Tusting et al., ment (Figures 5 and 6) and wealth (Figure 7(b)),
2020). In comparison, the influence of ‘finished’ build- together with the attitudes reflected in surveys (Figure
ing materials had no association with diarrhoea, acute 2) and availability of standards (Table 4) altogether
respiratory infections, wasting or anaemia, which were suggest that countries’ attitudes towards, and adoption
improved by other aspects of higher quality housing of, earth construction changes with their position on
(i.e. drinking water and sanitation). Within this, the the development trajectory. Using the findings in this
role of the individual building elements needs to be study, a conceptual model is proposed which broadly
interrogated. Whilst poorly finished earthen walls can characterizes the trajectory of earthen dwellings by
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 497

four phases, aligned with the HDI development group- production of more carbon-intensive construction
ings (Figure 12): materials. Conversely, the number of people who cur-
rently live in earthen dwellings can be considered as
1. Low HDI countries – from a starting point of high an emissions ‘time bomb’ – if and when they ‘upgrade’
prevalence, low-quality earthen construction is very to brick or concrete dwellings, this will collectively cause
common amongst the poor, and uncommon a large amount of emissions from the manufacture of
amongst the wealthy. those materials. Whilst earthen dwellings now make
2. Medium HDI countries – as the country grows up only a small proportion of buildings worldwide
richer, the proportion of earthen dwellings decreases (Figure 9) this is still a large absolute number. When
(although the absolute number may not actually scaled across hundreds of millions of households, the
decrease, or decrease by a smaller amount, due to prospect of upgrading dwellings presents a large poten-
population growth). Low-quality earthen dwellings tial source of carbon emissions which will make it more
are replaced with concrete or brick. Rural-urban challenging to meet the 1.5°C target (as well as the tar-
migration levels are high. gets of SDG 13). Through developing a more accurate,
3. High HDI countries – after the country’s housing up-to-date estimate of the extent and distribution of
stock is largely built and population growth starts earth construction around the world (Figure 9),
to decrease, the proportion of earthen dwellings researchers and policymakers will be better informed
remains low. Rural-urban migration levels are lower. to best support the upgrading of dwellings to maximize
4. Very high HDI countries – with low levels of popu- health benefits and minimize environmental costs.
lation growth and increasing amounts of wealth, The trends observed around earthen dwellings and
there is a renewed interest in building new earthen countries’ wealth (Figure 7(b)) suggest a ‘valley of
buildings of high quality. neglect’ for earthen dwellings in the medium and high
HDI stages of development. These stages typically
coincide with the period of highest demand for housing
A caveat to this model is that it only applies to due to increasing wealth, a growing population and
countries in which earth construction is a widely estab- rural-urban migration (Figure 12). Advocates of earth
lished part of vernacular architecture. Within the per- construction identify this as the window of opportunity
spective of construction in developing countries, it is where earthen dwellings can have the largest positive
crucial to assess the construction industry as entwined impact. Comparing the adoption trajectories with a
with the availability of resources, and also the socio- business-as-usual approach (Figure 13), successful
economic environments of that country (Ofori, 1994). adoption of high-quality earthen dwellings at the
Whilst the exact form and rate of these changes cannot
be tested with quantitative data (due to the lack of data
for highly developed countries previously described),
this proposed model nonetheless offers a helpful quali-
tative way in which to evaluate earthen construction
for the range of countries across the development
spectrum.

Implications for achieving SDG 11 and SDG 13

The reduction in proportions of earthen dwellings over
time (Figure 7(a)) is expected to partly result from
dwellings being ‘upgraded’ or ‘improved’ to more dur-
able, more expensive materials (e.g. brick, concrete)
when it can be afforded. This process is supported by
SDG 11, which targets ‘adequate housing’ for all by
2030. ‘Upgraded’ materials typically have a much higher
environmental impact compared to unstabilized earth
Figure 12. Schematic plot showing the changes in prevalence
construction (Praseeda et al., 2016). Existing earth
and type of earth dwellings at various stages in the develop-
dwellings can therefore be considered as a ‘virtual car- ment trajectory. Low development photo courtesy of
bon sink’ of sorts – the use of dwellings with such low Y. Kulshreshtha, very high development photo courtesy of
embodied carbon avoids emissions associated with the A.T.M. Marsh.
498 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

occupants of low-quality earthen dwellings who can-

not yet afford to substantially upgrade their dwell-
ings. An example of this is the approach taken by
ARCHIVE Global (https://archiveglobal.org/),
although this is arguably still a neglected research
area.
2. Housing for health and environment. Whilst health
and development research advocates the upgrading
of poor quality earthen housing to concrete or
brick for health outcomes (SDG 3), civil engineering
research often advocates the retention of earthen
housing for reducing the embodied carbon emis-
sions of construction (SDG 13). Positive outcomes
for both health and environment can be obtained
by investment in high-quality earthen dwellings
which are suitable regardless of development stage.
Figure 13. Schematic plot showing the changes in prevalence
and type of earth dwellings at various stages in the develop- 3. Development of comprehensive earthen construction
ment trajectory. The dashed grey line shows the ‘business-as- standards. This article has highlighted the lack of
usual’ trajectory; the solid red line shows a trajectory with national standards for earthen construction in several
large-scale adoption of high quality earthen dwellings in the countries, which is arguably a barrier to modern
medium and high development stages. Low and medium/high earthen construction and needs to be addressed. Fur-
development photos courtesy of Y. Kulshreshtha; very high
development photo courtesy of A.T.M. Marsh. thermore, standards should include a diverse range of
earthen construction techniques, covering both stabil-
ized and unstabilized techniques. Most of the standards
medium and high development stages offers the poten- available are for material performance – these should be
tial to displace large amounts of non-earthen construc- extended to encompass comprehensive standards on
tion. This could potentially have large net benefits for earthen masonry and structural design, including the
housing affordability and embodied impacts of con- design of different earthen roofing systems.
struction, as has been modelled for India (Mastrucci &
Rao, 2019). Such a strategy would also be in line with
another target of SDG 11, to encourage ‘building sus-
tainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials’. Conclusions
Whilst the most suitable typologies would depend lar- For the world as a whole, the trends for earthen housing
gely on the specific contexts in a given location, this sup- are clear. Whilst the stocks of earthen dwellings in some
ports the arguments of previous sections: policymakers countries have been relatively stable, the proportion of
should focus in replacing poor quality earth housing households living in earthen dwellings worldwide have
(rather than earth housing universally), and acknowl- been consistently decreasing, driven by the growing
edge the potential environmental and health benefits wealth and other demographic changes of developing
that high-quality earth housing can provide. countries. As a result, the most widely used estimate
of 33% of the global population living in earthen hous-
ing is now out of date. A more accurate range is
Research and policy recommendations
suggested to be 8–10%, and 20–25% in developing
From the findings of this study, three key recommen- (low and medium HDI group) countries. Within this
dations for research and policy are made: global trend, attitudes towards (and use adoption of)
earthen housing are not homogenous. In developing
1. Design improvements for earthen dwellings. Despite countries, national demographic data clearly show a
trends of decreasing adoption of earthen construc- consistent move away from earthen housing over sev-
tion, in many less developed countries poor quality eral decades. In contrast, in some highly developed
earthen dwellings will continue to be lived in, and countries, earth construction is arguably enjoying a
built in large numbers, for many years to come. In renaissance, indicated by development of standards
acknowledgement of this reality, there is an argu- and commercial interest.
ment for research into low-cost design interventions High-quality earthen housing can be a cross-cutting
which can improve the health and quality of life for contribution across different SDG categories, and an
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 499

effective means to ensuring adequate housing, improv- ABNT. (1992). NBR 12023 MB 3359 Solo-cimento – Ensaio de
ing health outcomes and mitigating climate change. compactação. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas.
Research and policy should focus on three areas: ABNT. (1996). NBR 13554 Solo-cimento – Ensaio de duribili-
dade por moldagem e secagem. Associação Brasileira de
Normas Técnicas.
1. Development and implementation of affordable Adegun, O. B., & Adedeji, Y. M. D. (2017). Review of econ-
improvements to poor quality earthen dwellings omic and environmental benefits of earthen materials for
already in existence in developing countries, in housing in Africa. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6
order to improve health outcomes and quality of (4), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.08.003
AFNOR. (2001). AFNOR XP.P13-901 Compressed earth blocks
life of occupants.
for walls and partitions: Definitions, specifications, test
2. Acceleration in the adoption of high-quality earthen methods, delivery acceptance conditions.
housing that can be desirable and appropriate for Agarwal, A. (1982). Research: Mud as a traditional building
both developing and highly developed countries. material. In B. B. Taylor (Ed.), The changing rural habitat;
3. Development of national standards in more Volume I: Case studies, 137–146. Concept Media/Aga Khan
countries, which cover a range of earth construction Award for Architecture.
Akermann, K., Andersson, J., Bavay, G., Bei, G., Benža, M.,
techniques and architectural forms. Berescu, C., Bertašiuté, R., Blums, P., Braxén-frommer,
A.-M., Bronchart, S., Buch, P., Buzás, M., Carlos, G.,
Castro, A., Chabenat, M., Cooke, L., Correia, M.,
Acknowledgements Castrillo, M. C. D., Cristini, V., … Žabicková, I. (2011). In
M. Correia, L. Dipasquale, & S. Mecca (Eds.), Terra euro-
Assistance in obtaining information about earthen housing in pae: Earthen Architecture in the European Union. Edizioni
various countries is gratefully acknowledged from the follow- ETS.
ing colleagues: Jun Mu, Venkatarama Reddy, Muhammad Antoine, A.-L., & Carnevale, E. (2016). Architectures contem-
Masood Rafi, Sofia Raikova, Nahla Makhlouf, Arsène poraines en terre crue en France de 1976 à 2015: pourquoi
Mango, Leyla Tanaçan, Melakeselam Moges, Lola Ben Alon, et comment les acteurs construisent avec ce matériau
Audrey Carbonnelle, Fionn McGregor, Enrico Quagliarini aujourd’hui?. Diplôme de spécialisation et
and Maria Maddalena Achenza. Valuable feedback on the d’Approfondissement Architecture de Terre- Mention
draft manuscript is gratefully acknowledged from Andrew Patrimoine, École Nationale Supérieure D’architecture de
Heath and Jan Bredenoord. A.T.M. Marsh: Conceptualiz- Grenoble.
ation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing-Original draft ARSO. (1996). ARS 670-683. African regional standards for
preparation, Visualization, Investigation, Writing, Reviewing compressed earth blocks. African Organization for
and Editing. Y. Kulshreshtha: Conceptualization, Method- Standardization.
ology, Data curation, Investigation, Writing, Reviewing and ASTM. (2010). ASTM e2392/E2392 – 10. Standard guide for
Editing. design of earthen wall building systems. ASTM
International.
Avrami, E., & Guillaud, H. (2008). Introduction. In E. Avrami,
Disclosure statement H. Guillaud, & M. Hardy (Eds.), Terra literature review. An
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). overview of research in Earthen architecture conservation,
xi–xii. The Getty Conservation Institute.
BIS. (1967). IS 4332:1967 methods of test for stabilized soils.
Funding Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS. (1998a). IS 2110 Code of practice for in situ construction of
This work was supported by Building Research Establishment walls in buildings with soil-cement. Bureau of Indian
Trust: [Grant Number Royal Charter International Research Standards.
Award]; Delft Global Initiative (TU Delft). BIS. (1998b). IS 13827 improving earthquake resistance of
earthen buildings – guidelines. Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS. (2013). IS 1725:2013 stabilized soil blocks used in general
ORCID building construction – specification (second revision).
Bureau of Indian Standards.
Alastair T. M. Marsh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5603-
BIS. (2020). IS 17165:2020. Manufacture of stabilized soil
4643
blocks – guidelines. Bureau of Indian Standards.
Yask Kulshreshtha http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7346-4365
CID. (2006). 2006 New Mexico earthen building materials
code. CID-GCB-NMBC-14.7.4. Construction Industries
Division of the Regulation and Licensing Department,
References New Mexico.
ABNT. (1984). NBR 8491 EB1481 Tijolo maciço de solo- Dachverband Lehm, E. V. (2009). Lehmbau Regeln – Begriffe,
cimento. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. Baustoffe, Bauteile (3rd ed.). Vieweg+Teubner.
ABNT. (1989). NBR 10832 NB1221 Fabricação de tijolo Dachverband Lehm, E. V. (2021). Firmen und Fachexperten.
maciço de solo-cimento com a utilização de prensa manual. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from https://www.
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. dachverband-lehm.de/firmen
500 A. T. M. MARSH AND Y. KULSHRESHTHA

DIN. (2018a). DIN 18945 Earth blocks—terms and definitions, S. J. (2010). Screening mosquito house entry points as a
building materials, requirements, test methods. Deutsches potential method for integrated control of Endophagic
Institut Fur Normung E.V. Filariasis, Arbovirus and Malaria vectors. PLOS Neglected
DIN. (2018b). DIN 18946 Earth masonry mortar—terms and Tropical Diseases, 4(8), e773. https://doi.org/10.1371/
definitions, requirements, test methods. Deutsches Institut journal.pntd.0000773
Fur Normung E.V. Okpala, D. C. I. (1992). Housing production systems and
Gandreau, D., & Delboy, L. (2012). In T. Joffroy (Ed.), World technologies in developing countries: A review of the
Heritage: inventory of earthen architecture. CRAterre- experiences and possible future trends/prospects. Habitat
ENSAG. International, 16(3), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-
Hadjri, K., Osmani, M., Baiche, B., & Chifunda, C. (2007). 3975(92)90060-C
Attitudes towards earth building for Zambian housing pro- Praseeda, K. I., Reddy, B. V. V., & Mani, M. (2016). Embodied
vision. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – and operational energy of urban residential buildings in
Engineering Sustainability, 160(3), 141–149. https://doi. India. Energy and Buildings, 110, 211–219. https://doi.org/
org/10.1680/ensu.2007.160.3.141 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.072
Hall, M. R., Lindsay, R., & Krayenhoff, M. (2012). 1 – Rael, R. (2008). Earth architecture. Princeton Architectural
Overview of modern earth building. In M. R. Hall, R. Press.
Lindsay, & M. Krayenhoff (Eds.), Modern earth buildings, Ramage, M., Hall, T. J., Gatóo, A., & Al Asali, M. W. (2019).
3–16. Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/ Rwanda cricket stadium: Seismically stabilised tile vaults.
9780857096166.1.3 Structures, 18, 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.
HBRC. (2016). Egyptian code for earth construction: Building 02.004
with compressed earth blocks (part 1). Housing and Schroeder, H. (2012). 4 – Modern earth building codes, stan-
Building National Research Centre. dards and normative development. In M. R. Hall, R.
Houben, H., & Guillaud, H. (1994). Earth construction: A Lindsay, & M. Krayenhoff (Eds.), Modern earth buildings,
comprehensive guide. Practical Action Publishing. 72–109. Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/
Kulshreshtha, Y., Mota, N. J. A., Jagadish, K. S., Bredenoord, 97808570
J., Vardon, P. J., Van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., & Jonkers, H. 96166.1.72
M. (2020). The potential and current status of earthen Smets, P., & Van Lindert, P. (2016). Sustainable housing and
material for low-cost housing in rural India. Construction the urban poor. International Journal of Urban Sustainable
and Building Materials, 247, 118615. https://doi.org/10. Development, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118615 2016.1168825
Lehmbau Atlas. (2012). http://www.lehmbau-atlas.de/index. SON. (1997). NIS 369:1997 standard for stabilized earth bricks.
html. Available: http://www.lehmbau-atlas.de/index.html Standards Organisation of Nigeria.
Leylavergne, E. (2012). La filière terre crue en France Enjeux, Swan, A. J., Rteil, A., & Lovegrove, G. (2011). Sustainable
freins et perspectives. Architecte Diplômée d’Etat, Ecole earthen and straw bale construction in North American
Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Grenoble. buildings: Codes and practice. Journal of Materials in
Lindsay, S. W., Emerson, P. M., & Charlwood, J. D. (2002). Civil Engineering, 23(6), 866–872. https://doi.org/10.1061/
Reducing malaria by mosquito-proofing houses. Trends (ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000241
in Parasitology, 18(11), 510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/ The World Bank. (2020a). GDP per capita (current US$).
S1471-4922(02)02382-6 The World Bank. (2020b). World Bank List of economies.
Mastrucci, A., & Rao, N. D. (2019). Bridging India’s housing TS. (1985). TS 537 Cement Treated Adobe Bricks “Çimentolu
gap: Lowering costs and CO2 emissions. Building Research Kerpiç Bloklar”. Türk Standartları Enstitüsü.
& Information, 47(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Tusting, L. S., Bisanzio, D., Alabaster, G., Cameron,
09613218.2018.1483634 E., Cibulskis, R., Davies, M., Flaxman, S., Gibson, H.
Mcgregor, F., Heath, A., Maskell, D., Fabbri, A., & Morel, J.-C. S., Knudsen, J., Mbogo, C., Okumu, F. O., Von
(2016). A review on the buffering capacity of earth building Seidlein, L., Weiss, D. J., Lindsay, S. W., Gething, P.
materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – W., & Bhatt, S. (2019). Mapping changes in housing
Construction Materials, 169(5), 241–251. https://doi.org/10. in sub-Saharan Africa from 2000 to 2015. Nature, 568
1680/jcoma.15.00035 (7752), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-
Minnesota Population Center. (2019). Integrated public use 1050-5
microdata series, international: Version 7.2. https://doi. Tusting, L. S., Gething, P. W., Gibson, H. S., Greenwood, B.,
org/10.18128/D020.V7.2 Knudsen, J., Lindsay, S. W., & Bhatt, S. (2020). Housing
Niroumand, H., Kibert, C. J., Antonio Barcelo, J., & Saaly, M. and child health in sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-sectional
(2017). Contribution of national guidelines in industry analysis. PLOS Medicine, 17(3), e1003055. https://doi.org/
growth of earth architecture and earth buildings as a verna- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003055
cular architecture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy UNDP. (2020). Human development report 2020. The next
Reviews, 74, 1108–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene.
2017.02.074 United Nations Development Programme.
Ofori, G. (1994). Practice of construction industry develop- United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030
ment at the crossroads. Habitat International, 18(2), 41– agenda for sustainable development.
56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-3975(94)90049-3 United Nations. (2019). World Population Prospects 2019:
Ogoma, S. B., Lweitoijera, D. W., Ngonyani, H., Furer, B., Volume I: Comprehensive tables. United Nations
Russell, T. L., Mukabana, W. R., Killeen, G. F., & Moore, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 501

Wanzirah, H., Tusting, L. S., Arinaitwe, E., Katureebe, A., study. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11(10),
Maxwell, K., Rek, J., Bottomley, C., Staedke, S. G., e0005925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005925
Kamya, M., Dorsey, G., & Lindsay, S. W. (2015). Mind Younis, L. G., Kroeger, A., Joshi, A. B., Das, M. L., Omer, M.,
the gap: House structure and the risk of malaria in Singh, V. K., Gurung, C. K., & Banjara, M. R. (2020).
Uganda. PLOS ONE, 10(1), e0117396. https://doi.org/10. Housing structure including the surrounding environ-
1371/journal.pone.0117396 ment as a risk factor for visceral leishmaniasis trans-
Wiese, S., Elson, L., Reichert, F., Mambo, B., & Feldmeier, H. mission in Nepal. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases,
(2017). Prevalence, intensity and risk factors of Tungiasis in 14(3), e0008132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.
Kilifi County, Kenya: I. Results from a community-based 0008132