4.2. Demographic and Occupational Analysis

More than 80% of the houses were totally damaged by 2001 earthquake. The reconstructions, so this was the existing before the earthquake that was the layout and this was the newly located village layout. You can see here that these yellow colours are abandoned places and some people who do not have any land rights in this area, no land rights, they do not have any formal land rights and many people they did not relocate it.

The 2001 earthquake had a devastating effect, destroying over 80% of homes in the area. Following this disaster, reconstruction efforts were undertaken, but many houses remained unoccupied. Some residents did not have formal land rights, making it difficult for them to relocate to new housing. The color-coded maps illustrated the extent of abandonment in the new layout versus the previous designs.

Imagine a community where a natural disaster occurs, such as a flood. Many homes are destroyed, and although new houses are built, some families cannot move because they do not own land or have permission to build again. In this case, it's like a puzzle where some pieces fit into the new picture, while others just sit aside without a place.

This is the number of occupancy in the new, you can see these new constructed house is lying empty, the cost of dwelling units was 1 lakh 20,000 Indian rupees according to that time comparatively much higher. So, most of the houses are vacant, only yellow part you can occupied and you can see here that many people did not actually relocate it to the newly constructed house because it is a totally different layout and people did not accept that one.

The newly constructed houses were expensive, costing around 120,000 Indian rupees at that time. Unfortunately, many of these houses lay unoccupied because the new layout was different from what people were accustomed to. This unfamiliarity and the cost made many reluctant to move, resulting in significant vacancies.

Think of it like a new school building—if the new layout is confusing and doesn’t resemble the old one, students might hesitate to use it. Plus, if attending this new school costs more time or resources than they have, they might just stay away, even if it means leaving some facilities unused.

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, people are using it, people are sending their kids there, panchayat office is rebuilt, electricity installed, telecommunication system was installed.

Even though new facilities like health centers and schools were established, the community did not utilize the health centers, indicating a disconnection between the services provided and the community's needs. In contrast, the primary school was actively used, suggesting that some developments met local requirements while others did not.

Imagine a neighborhood with a new gym that no one visits because they prefer the local park for exercise instead. Meanwhile, the library, which has been around longer, is bustling with students. This shows that new resources must match what the community values or prefers for them to be successful.

Constructions; those who are rich they did not relocate better off and they build their own house in the damaged side, some people who did not have the land tenure rights, they constructed temporary houses or got a temporary houses and remaining there, they were not included into the reconstruction projects and the newly constructed projects remain unoccupied.

We see a divide where wealthier residents chose not to relocate and instead rebuilt on the damaged sites. In contrast, those without land rights built temporary housing and were excluded from formal reconstruction efforts. This disparity led to unoccupied new projects, as not all community members were included in the planning.

Picture a neighborhood where some families buy new homes, while others stay in tents because they don’t have the legal right to home ownership. This causes new houses to stand empty, just as supermarkets often have lots of unused parking spaces if they aren't located where people usually shop.

Because, these people preferred to live together, they did not like this new iron-grid pattern of layout, it was done by the Hindustan Benevolent. There was no training program, allocation of financial assistance given to the NGO directly and decision makings, villages were not involved into the decision-making process, government has provided the land for new site, villagers did not share any part of that.

Community preferences for living proximally were overlooked in the new grid layout design, which likely contributed to dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the lack of training, involvement, and financial contribution from the villagers meant that the NGO and governmental authorities made critical decisions without community input, leading to feelings of exclusion.

Think of a cooking class where the chef decides all the dishes without asking participants what they enjoy eating. While the food might be excellent, if it doesn’t align with the group's tastes, everyone may leave dissatisfied.

So, what do we see here that no utilisations of local resources designed by the NGO, no training program, NGO decide every aspect; very weak organizational setup and absence of ownership rights, people refuse this one and absence of monitoring also. As a result, this project was very high cost and took some time but it was most way that socially not accepted, it was rejected by the villages and the project did not help to enhance people's awareness and the houses are poorly maintained.

The planning flaws led to the non-utilization of local resources and a lack of community engagement, driving up costs. People rejected the NGO's designs because they felt a disconnect. This resulted in poorly maintained homes due to a lack of commitment and ownership, ultimately increasing feelings of vulnerability and mistrust.

Imagine running a club where no one feels ownership because they weren’t involved in any decisions. Over time, members might lose interest, and the club could fall apart. This illustrates how a lack of buy-in from the community can lead to the deterioration of initiatives.

In community NGO partnership approach, we have Ludiya village, there is 100 kilometer north from Bhuj, area is around 5 square kilometer, total population is 1800 mainly by Harijans and Muslims population comprised by literacy rate was 35%, there also occupation was animal husbandry, wood carving and cultivations.

Ludiya village, which is part of a community NGO project, covers an area of 5 square kilometers and has a population of approximately 1,800 primarily made up of Harijans and Muslims. The literacy rate is low at 35%, with many residents engaged in animal husbandry, wood carving, and agriculture.

Think of a small town where most people work in trades, such as farming or crafting. If a majority is not educated, job options might be limited, similar to a small village where only a few businesses thrive, leaving residents with little chance to improve their skills or livelihoods.

You can see that most of the people are involved in cattle rearing and wood cravings, so 50% of them are in cattle rearing and animal husbandry and some are also involved in agriculture around 20% of populations. And distribution of community also, you can see that there is a segregations that Harijans are there and here are the Muslims populations, these two communities and there is a poor community basically around Indian rupees 2500 to 5000, this shared the entire pie almost 90%.

In Ludiya, about 50% of the population is engaged in cattle rearing, while around 20% participates in agriculture. The community has distinct divisions between Harijans and Muslims, with many members belonging to the poorer segment of society, earning between 2,500 to 5,000 Indian rupees, which highlights income disparity.

This is like a school where a few students excel academically, while many struggle to keep up. The students with lower grades may feel separated from their more successful peers, and as a result, they might miss out on group discussions or collaborative projects that could help them.

--