1.1. Damage Assessment

More than 80% of the houses were totally damaged by 2001 earthquake.

The 2001 earthquake had a devastating impact on housing, with over 80% of all homes in the affected area being completely destroyed. This means that the earthquake significantly disrupted the lives of countless residents who lost their homes and livelihoods. The term 'totally damaged' indicates that these houses were beyond repair and required complete rebuilding.

Imagine a city that faces a massive storm causing widespread flooding. If 80% of the houses in that city are washed away, the community must come together to rebuild. Similarly, the aftermath of the earthquake required extensive reconstruction efforts.

This is the number of occupancy in the new, you can see these newly constructed houses are lying empty. The cost of dwelling units was 1 lakh 20,000 Indian rupees according to that time, comparatively much higher.

Despite the efforts to build new homes, many of the newly constructed houses ended up being unoccupied. The cost of these new homes was around 1 lakh 20,000 Indian rupees, which was quite high for many families. This financial barrier prevented many residents from moving into the new homes, resulting in a significant number of vacated houses.

Think of a popular shopping mall that opens a new location. If the rent for stores is too high, many businesses will choose to stay in their existing locations rather than take the risk of moving to the new mall. Similarly, the high cost of new houses deterred families from relocating.

They have health center but, people are not using that. Ayurvedic health centre also, this is not used by the people; the schools are there is primarily; primary school, this is working well.

Although the reconstruction efforts included the establishment of health centers and schools, many of these services were not utilized as expected. For instance, the health centers had facilities available, yet there were few users, indicating a disconnect between the services provided and the needs or preferences of the community. In contrast, the primary school was successfully attended, serving its purpose effectively.

Consider a new gym that opens in your neighborhood with all the latest equipment. However, if the community prefers outdoor activities like hiking or running, the gym might see very few visitors. Conversely, a local community center offering popular classes would likely attract a lot of participants.

Some people who did not have the land tenure rights constructed temporary houses or got temporary houses and remaining there; they were not included in the reconstruction projects.

People without formal land rights faced additional challenges. They could not participate in the official reconstruction plans and often ended up building temporary structures. This reveals a significant problem in the recovery process: those who needed assistance the most were often left out due to bureaucratic issues related to land ownership.

Imagine a family living in a rented apartment who has no formal agreement with the landlord. If a natural disaster strikes and they seek help for reconstruction, they might not qualify for government aid because they lack formal property rights.

No training program, allocation of financial assistance was given to the NGO directly, and decision making was done without village involvement.

The reconstruction efforts were mainly handled by an NGO without involving community members in decision-making processes. This lack of inclusion meant that the needs and preferences of the villagers were not considered, leading to a mismatch between what was built and what was desired by the community. Without training programs, residents were also not equipped to participate actively in the rebuilding process.

This situation can be likened to a school planning a new curriculum without consulting the teachers or students. If the educators, who understand the learners' needs best, are not involved, the curriculum may not engage students effectively.

The project was very high cost and took some time but it was most socially not accepted; it was rejected by the villages and the project did not help to enhance people's awareness.

Despite the high costs involved in the reconstruction, the end result did not meet the community's expectations or needs. The homes built were not accepted socially, leading to dissatisfaction and increasing the mistrust between the residents and the NGOs. This not only hindered a cohesive rebuilding process but also failed to improve the knowledge and awareness of the community regarding their own needs.

Imagine organizing a community event where residents are not consulted about the type of activities they enjoy. If the event ends up being poorly attended and disliked, it can lead to frustration among the community, reducing their enthusiasm for future events.

--