Kampong Ayer: A Community Living on Water in Brunei Darussalam

Transcription

1 Kampong Ayer: A Community Living on Water in Brunei Darussalam Haji Adenan, R., MA Rodrigues, L., PhD Borsi, K., PhD Kiamba, L., MPhil (Cantab) University of Nottingham University of Nottingham University of Nottingham University of Nottingham ABSTRACT Land scarcity and rising population in developing countries, particularly in the urban parts of Asia, has led to limited livable floor area for domestic mass housing. Developing countries with similar climate and cultural background face common challenges with their comparatively larger population resulting in highrise housing. While this may be a solution to accommodating the increasing density in many cities, issues relating to cultural preservation, vernacular architecture conservation, social structures, environmental comfort and sense of community are often in contradiction with this urban solution. In particular, with for a rural community with different characteristics to an urban intent, the transition might prove stressful. In Brunei Darussalam, encouraging living both on water (in Kampong Ayer) and on land is what is being currently proposed. However, as its population is rapidly increasing and living on land is becoming increasingly popular, in this paper, the authors question if the housing developments on the water in Kampong Ayer, promote a sustainable community. The authors explored if waterside housing development, modelled on traditional settlement patterns, can provide a viable solution for rural housing in parts of Brunei. Domestic and communal relationships of its inhabitants were defined to identify sociospatial patterns of a sustainable community. Findings include the correlations between the formal and spatial organization of the home and patterns of occupation. INTRODUCTION The modernisation of rural communities into the urban ones may have many benefits in theory, but over time and with population growth, this tends to develop limitations. This is largely due to incompatible solutions imposed on these communities, resulting in their inability to adapt to them. To move forward, it is necessary to take a few steps back and examine vernacular architecture for a better understanding of how communities lived independently and built their own houses (Oliver, 1969). In as much as vernacular architecture in housing has often been associated with squatters and illegal settlements such as the favelas in Brazil, these self-built houses frequently offer insights into community spatial requirements. Indeed, learning from the past can encourage a stress-less human adaptability process (Roaf, 2010). The Kampong Ayer, or Water Village, located in Brunei's capital city Bandar Seri Begawan, houses around 39,000 people in self-built homes on stilts that form a unique architectural heritage that has been occupied for over 1300 years. Thirty years ago, the discovery of the urban poor s ingenuity in building their own houses generated a significant amount of research interest and subsequent literature (Ward, 1982). Similarly, studies that covered the technical performance of this type of housing, such as thermal comfort, were undertaken separately. However, it is suggested that a combination of both technical and socio-cultural issues would be more effective (Evans, 1980). For instance, while the performance studies into technology developed to combat climate change have been successful, the technological capability of 1

2 the community to fully utilise such technology is questionable (Hyde, 2008). It is suggested that the compatibility of technical and social solutions with regards to managing the urban poor needs to be in accordance with the local habits and preferences of the people (Labaki and Kowaltowski, 1998). Often we are unsure of what these local habits and preferences are. Nonetheless, a typical place that reveals such information is the house. As such, perhaps the first step towards understanding rural communities is to examine the role of the house and appreciate its significance to the community (Waterson, 1990). Gaining a deeper appreciation and understanding of the meaning and perpetual variables encapsulated in the house by examining patterns of daily domestic activities can give a clearer explanation of how it came to be rather than the end product itself (Rapoport, 1969). Developing countries with similar climate and cultural values face common challenges with their comparatively larger population and often resort to high-rise housing. Brunei Darussalam, with a relatively small population of fewer than 400,000 people, has a less urgent agenda but equal concern for the sustainability of its future housing. In 1910 the attempt to relocate some residents of Kampong Ayer (around 10% of the total population) into housing estates on land began. However, as its population continues to grow and living on land becomes increasingly popular, a tailored sustainable housing approach for communities living on water may be needed to preserve and sustain Kampong Ayer. As the majority of the residents who reside there are low-income earners, it is of even more importance to resolve its housing issue (Sullivan and Ward, 2012). In this paper the authors present an investigation into the evolution of spaces, from the 1950 s to the present day, of six houses in Brunei Darussalam, by analysing the daily life patterns registered on the floor plans of each house using a system developed by the authors. As there is limited detailed evidence of the daily activities, which occurred in the houses historically, it was not be possible to make any definite comparisons. Therefore, most of the work described in this paper was based on the actual findings from the field investigations. Background According to the Brunei Malay Technology Museum, 1989, there are five basic house types found in Kampong Ayer. Of these, the plan layout of two houses, Tungkup and Berlanggar, best showed similarities to the case study houses, as they bore a strong resemblance to the current houses (Fig. 1). These simple open plan layouts suggest a communal use of gathering space as is typical of Malay houses found in the Malay Archipelago region. Typical characteristics of this house type were considered to create a datum for this discussion. In reference to a typical Malay house (Fig. 2), it is suggested that the floor plans demonstrate its multi-functional purpose, influenced by the time of day and year, minimal physical partitioning and furniture, and with most activities utilising the floor (Lim, 1987). Physically, the interior spaces are not defined by walls and are instead distinguished by differences in floor levels, varying floor sizes, orientation and location. Figure 1 Two Houses types, Tungkup (left) and Berlanggar (right) in Kampong Ayer, Brunei Darussalam as recorded by the Brunei Museum (Redrawn by authors). 2

3 Figure 2 Use of Interior Spaces in Traditional Malay house (Source: Lim, Page 36) METHODOLOGY The houses were randomly selected and the house owners were each required to sign a study participation agreement. Of the houses investigated, house 1, 2, 4 and 6 were found to have more traditional layouts, whereas house 3 and 5, built in the last four years, were found to have a modern layout (Fig. 3). A summary of the characteristics of each house is given in Table 1. The investigation involved having the house occupants mark occupancy charts for each room in their houses, so as to map the frequency of and time when the rooms were occupied. The information marked on these charts showed the most commonly used rooms in the house as well as the number of people occupying the room at hourly intervals throughout the day, for period of 4-6 weeks. Additionally, using Tinytag data loggers, the recording of internal temperature and relative humidity of the four most occupied rooms in each house was conducted simultaneously. To shed more light on the results of the occupancy investigation, interviews (partly based on findings from initial results of the study) with the house owners were undertaken. In addition to this, a survey was carried out with the intention of giving a general view on the living conditions of the people in Kampong Ayer. Some results from this survey as related to the selected houses are discussed later. Figure 3 House plans of six houses (Source: House 1, 2, 4 & 6 from authors; House 3 & 5 from Public Works Department and Housing Development Department, Brunei Darussalam, respectively). 3

4 Table 1: Brief Descriptive Comparison of the Six Houses HOUSES Number of people living in the house Main House materials Timber Timber Mixed Timber Concrete Timber Concrete Number of bedrooms Total floor area (m 2 ) Number of families Living in the house Self-build / New build Self-build Self-build New build Self-build New build Self-build OBSERVATIONS Sleeping arrangements were found to depend on the number of people living in the house and number of bedrooms available. For households with sufficient bedrooms, everyone was assigned to a group sleeping area. For instance, for a typical family living in a three-bedroom house, the parents shared a bedroom, while groups of the male children and female children had a room each. Babies and younger children often share a room with their parents whereas young male and female children can share a room only if there is no other room. Segregating the children at an early age is partly influenced by the Islamic religion - the main religion practiced in Brunei Darussalam. Often, in deciding who gets a bedroom, female children are given priority over male children. Such was the case in House 3 where a family of fourteen living in a four-bedroom house allocated rooms in the following manner: Bedroom 1 parents; Bedroom 2 three daughters; Bedroom 3 eldest daughter, her husband and their two young children; Bedroom 4 second eldest daughter who is engaged to be married (her future husband will share the room with her); Living Room - three sons (one son sleeps in the communal space in the bedroom lobby at night). It was found that an insufficient number of bedrooms compelled families make use of other rooms in the house for sleeping, commonly the living room or family TV area. The bedrooms have beds while the living room or family room will have mattresses on the floor, which are rolled up and put away during the day. Areas for sharing meals varied in all six houses. House 1 had a dining area next to the kitchen area, used for the main meals. On the other hand, House 5 had a dining table in an area separate from the kitchen, which was also used for main meals. House 2, 3, 4 and 6 each had a small table in the kitchen where the families could gather at mealtimes. Sometimes this involved moving furniture to accommodate everyone. Occupants of House 1, 5 and 6 had all their meals at their table at regular times of the day, whereas occupants of House 2, 3 and 4 had irregular meal times with some meals taken in different parts of the house such as the family TV room. With the exception of House 3 where the head the family occasionally used meal times as an opportunity to hold family discussions, it was noted that meal times were viewed mostly as a time for eating instead of dialogue. In addition to providing space for informal dining, the kitchen was used for cooking and as such its floor area is sufficient to accommodate just this. Also, the kitchen is usually modified to accommodate kitchenware storage and large freezer units. As fresh meat is not readily available, families bought in bulk to store until the next shopping trip in the city. Common to all six houses was the popularity of the family TV area as the main gathering zone for family members. This took place mainly in the evening, after dinner and the last prayer of the day, at around 8.00PM. Rarely used for informal family gatherings, the living room is mostly used to receive guests. During special occasions and events involving many guests, all the communal areas in the house are occupied to accommodate everyone - including in the corridors. Furniture is moved to create more open spaces and carpets are rolled out on the floor for guests to sit on. As with the sleeping arrangements, females and males tend to group separately further highlighting gender segregation in spatial use, as is influenced by Islam. Traditionally, the front of the house has an outdoor area, the veranda, which is used for less formal gatherings or as an introductory area before entering the house. Usually, this is the first area to be 4

5 renovated so as to extend the living room area. As a small roof or a large over-hanging roof already covers this space, it requires only three external walls, windows and a new entrance to do so. This newly extended room is commonly utilised as a living room or small shop (Fig. 4). In House 4, the existing living room is large enough to accommodate a small shop indoors (Fig. 4). However, the extension option was found to be more common possibly due to occupants wanting to keep indoor areas inaccessible to the public. Figure 4 Left: House 3 before and after conversion of the veranda into a shop (a) December 2012 (b) January Right: Showing the living room in House 4 that has been modified to accommodate a small shop (Source: Author). RESULTS FROM THE OCCUPANCY INVESTIGATIONS Tables 2 and 3 show some results of the occupancy investigations. Table 2 reveals the bedrooms and the family TV room to be the most frequented spaces. Specifically, a large duration of the time spent in the bedrooms is spent sleeping (between 9.00PM and 5.00AM) but is also occupied for short afternoon naps and performance of daily prayers during the day. As was highlighted earlier, the family TV area is occupied more frequently than the living area as it is less formal and allows the families to gather there to rest, watch TV and carry out a variety of activities. Also shown is the amount of time spent in other areas in each house where/when each family conducts other daily activities. Table 2: The Most Frequently Occupied Rooms in Each House Three Most Occupied Rooms in Each House with Percentage of Occupancy (On average in a day) House As recorded between 6th January 2014 to 13th February Family TV 71% Bedroom 2 67% Dining 67% 2 Bedroom 1 92% Family TV 71% Bedroom 2 63% 3 Bedroom 1 100% Bedroom 3 100% Family TV 100% 4 Living 100% Family TV 100% Kitchen 100% 5 Bedroom 2 100% Bedroom 3 100% Bedroom 1 92% 6 Bedroom 1 100% Living 96% Family TV 88% To get an indication of the thermal comfort conditions in the houses, the temperature and relative humidity measures of selected rooms in each house was recorded. As the houses are located within the warm-humid climate zone, discomfort is more likely to be as a result of relatively high temperatures and relative humidity levels. More often than not, the main means of relief for occupants in this climate is airmovement for physiological cooling (Koenigsberger, 1974). As is typical of the Malay House, the more traditional houses were found to be structurally responsive to the climate through the provision of lightweight construction (to prevent storage of heat in the fabric), large window openings to enhance cross ventilation and air-movement as well as wide overhangs/eaves that act as sun shading elements. Some of the bedrooms had air-conditioners - only used occasionally during the night. Thermal discomfort during this time was suggested to be due to the increased number of occupants within the spaces. While the more recently built houses feature fewer passive cooling controls, it is suggested that structural modifications, 5

6 such as indoor partitions have contributed to inefficiency in maintaining comfort naturally. Also, as these houses were more compact in plan, their layouts have significantly reduced the opportunities for, and efficiency, of natural cross-ventilation. Additionally, the results from the recordings were matched against the CBE Thermal Comfort Tool for ASHRAE Standard to determine whether any of the readings were within the predicted thermal comfort zone. Table 3 presents a snapshot of recordings taken a selected typical day temperatures that fall within the standard are highlighted. Table 3: The Internal Temperatures/RH levels at 2.00AM, 10.00AM and 6.00pm intervals for three most frequently occupied rooms in each house as recoded on (where available). Internal Temperature o C and Relative Humidity % House Rooms 2.00 AM AM 6.00 PM 1 (on water) 2 (on water) 3 (on water) 4 (on water) 5 (on land) 6 (on land) Family TV Bedroom Dining 30 o C / 63.9% 27 o C / 77.1% 31 o C / 66% Bedroom 1 22 o C / 71% 22 o C / 71% 22 o C / 57% Family TV 25 o C / 86% 25 o C / 86% 28 o C / 75% Bedroom 2 25 o C / 87% 25 o C / 92% 30 o C / 65% Bedroom 1 19 o C / 59% 22 o C / 91% 26 o C / 80% Bedroom Family TV 25 o C / 64% 26 o C / 77% 27 o C / 78% Living Family TV 25 o C / 86% 27 o C / 77% 28 o C / 73% Kitchen 25 o C / 88% 26 o C / 85% 29 o C / 72% Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom 1 27 o C / 73% 27 o C / 78% 27 o C / 74% Bedroom 1 27 o C / 79% 27 o C / 78% 29 o C / 67% Living 26 o C / 83% 28 o C / 73% 29 o C / 68% Family TV Although most of the readings shown fall outside of the thermal comfort zone of ASHRAE Standard , it is suggested that the use of structural controls (large fenestration, orientation, space volume, floor area and in some cases mechanical ventilation) and self-adjustment mechanisms helps to make existing conditions tolerable. At first glance, the readings from the houses located in the water have lower temperature readings than the houses on land. It is suggested that this is as a result of the micro-climate conditions. As the surrounding ground area the houses on water is less likely to retain heat, then it is less likely for the houses to absorb heat via radiation/reflection from the ground surface, as might be the case in the houses on land. During the study it was found that external temperature levels taken in both areas showed those on land to be higher than for that of the houses on water. However, the extent to which the comparison of water and land ground surfaces and their influence on the thermal comfort in the houses will require further investigation to reach a more valid conclusion. RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY Results from the survey regarding the houses revealed some information about the renovations of these houses (Fig. 5). A majority of the participants taking part in this survey, live in timber houses on water, and have at some point made renovations and extensions to their house - most of which are self-built and constructed with timber. Some have integrated other materials including brick and steel. Employing contractors or foreign labourers to build the extensions is becoming increasingly popular too, which is subsequently diminishing the timber-building skill amongst the local community. 6

7 Figure 5: Results of Part: House; Questions 9, 11, 13 and 14. DISCUSSION ON OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION For houses with larger families, limited sleeping areas and gathering areas leave occupants with the need to utilise other areas of the house for these activities. The living and family TV areas are normally used for sleeping by the older single male members of the family with the priority of occupation of bedrooms given to the married couples and female family members. This indicates a type of hierarchy within the families which is distinctly determined by age, gender and marital status. It is suggested that the nature of gathering has evolved due to the size of the kitchen. Traditionally, the open floor plan of the houses accommodated all household activities. All family members would gather in this open area where they would - together or in their own time - rest, sleep, pray, eat and talk. There was rarely any furniture in these houses and everyone sat on mats/carpets on the floor, which also helped to define space. This was useful during big occasions as they were able to fit large numbers of people in the communal areas of the open interior. In contrast to the set up in the houses today, internal walls and furniture have compromised the previously free-flowing nature of house and reduced its flexibility. While bedrooms are off limits to guests and visitors, all communal parts of the house are used; as such, furniture is often shifted to give an open space. The traditional way of gathering is still favoured and practiced in some houses in Kampong Ayer. The daily family gathering space in traditional open layouts was only ever in one space. In the current layouts the gathering area consists of two spaces; the living area (mainly for receiving guests) and the family TV area (for casual family gatherings). How often the living area was used depended on how frequently they had guests. The family TV area is mainly for watching television, meaning less interaction amongst family members. From a structural viewpoint, traditional houses in Kampong Ayer, with their open plans and minimal internal partitions, were able to enhance the cooling effect of natural ventilation with the light, constant breeze flowing freely through the houses. Nowadays, the houses, and more so those on land, have evolved into complex layouts with more internal wall partitions. Although this gives more visual privacy within the house, opportunities for efficient natural cross ventilation may be compromised. Renovation of the veranda 7

8 into another room may have also compromised the advantage of utilising it as a heat buffer. Nonetheless, despite the results from the internal temperature and relative humidity recordings showing that most of the conditions were outside the prescribed thermal comfort range, occupants still managed to feel comfortable with the minimal help of fans/air-conditioning units as a result of using existing passive controls. With self-building skills becoming less popular in Kampong Ayer, the locals are seeking expertise elsewhere. Not only is this more expensive, but it also means that the sense of community that is tied to self-help/self-build is disappearing. This can have a dramatic effect on the sustainability of the water village, as a huge part of their resilience in the past centuries has been through community cooperation. As most of the houses in Kampong Ayer today are originally self-built, its design intent stems from the house owners own desires and necessities. The contents of the houses and the modifications made to the houses over time are clear indications of the constantly changing life stages of each family. The flexibility of the houses in allowing the house extensions and renovations to suit the families changing structure has allowed them to remain comfortable in the same houses for many generations (Friedman, 2011). As has been suggested in numerous other studies, the design of climate responsive houses is often ignored when developing mass-housing proposals and may be dominated by cost, availability of land and population as is common in the aforementioned high-rise typologies. Also, it has been noted that sociocultural issues tend to influence the occupancy and morphology of their houses. It has been suggested that more suitable approach would be to examine both technical and socio-cultural factors side by side so as to derive an approach that would lead to the future development and maintenance of sustainable communities in Brunei Darussalam effectively. CONCLUSION Communities usually survive most environmental challenges they face; as long as the adaptability period and means to adapt is within its capability and that there is cooperation amongst the community members to achieve a joint goal to survive. However, some challenges that prove to go beyond the community s resilience can result in a defeated end. The people living in Kampong Ayer appear to want to continue living there as they have adapted well despite the challenges imposed on the village, such as scarcity of local materials, economics or employment. Their undeniably strong sense of independence and individuality, apparent in the make up of their houses, shows confidence in their spirit to be sustainable. However, the extent of their resilience is yet to be determined. There are certainly other factors influencing the sustainability of such a community, some of these may be future threats. On that note, this paper opens doors to investigate what the limits are to this community s sustainability in this context. REFERENCES EVANS, M Housing, climate, and comfort / Martin Evans. FRIEDMAN, A Decision making for flexibility in housing / Avi Friedman, Urban International Press. HYDE, R Bioclimatic housing: innovative designs for warm climates / edited by Richard Hyde, Earthscan. KOENIGSBERGER, O. H., 1974, Manual of tropical housing and building / O.H. Koenigsberger... [et al.]. / Longman. LABAKI, L. C. & KOWALTOWSKI, D. C. C. K Bioclimatic and vernacular design in urban settlements of Brazil. Building and Environment, 33, LIM, J. Y The Malay house: rediscovering Malaysia's indigenous shelter system / Lim Jee Yuan, Institute Masyarakat. OLIVER, P Shelter and society / edited by Paul Oliver, Barrie & Rockliff the Cresset Pres. RAPOPORT, A House form and culture / Amos Rapoport, Prentice-Hall. ROAF, S Transforming markets in the built environment: adapting to climate change, Earthscan. SULLIVAN, E. & WARD, P. M Sustainable housing applications and policies for low-income selfbuild and housing rehab. Habitat International, 36, WARD, P. M Self help housing: a critique / edited by Peter M. Ward, Mansell. WATERSON, R The living house: an anthropology of architecture in South-East Asia / Roxana Waterson., Singapore ; Oxford : Oxford University Press,