3.1. Reconstruction Projects and Community Involvement

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

The 2001 earthquake caused widespread destruction, leaving over 80% of houses completely damaged. This sets the stage for the need for reconstruction and community involvement in rebuilding efforts.

Imagine a town where a massive storm destroys most homes. The community now faces the challenge of rebuilding together, much like how towns often come together after natural disasters.

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 reconstruction involved creating a new village layout which was different from the original. This change led to many people not relocating, especially those who lacked formal land rights, resulting in abandoned houses.

Think of a neighborhood where some families are asked to move to a new area with different street layouts. If they feel attached to their old homes and have no legal claim to the new ones, they might choose to stay where they are, even if their old places are uninhabitable.

This is the number of occupancy in the new, you can see these new constructed house is lying empty... 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.

Many newly constructed houses remained empty after the reconstruction efforts. This was predominantly due to the layout being unfamiliar and unaccepted by the local population, which preferred the older community setup.

Imagine a community where homes are rebuilt in a completely different style and layout. If families cannot adjust to the new changes or feel disconnected from the layout, they may prefer to live elsewhere rather than move into new houses.

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...

Despite the reconstruction projects creating new health centers and schools, many resources remained underutilized, particularly the health centers. However, the primary school was actively utilized by the community, indicating mixed responses to the new services.

Consider a new community center built with much fanfare. If the services offered do not meet the community’s needs or if individuals are unaware of these services, many may leave the center underused while enjoying a well-functioning local school.

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...

Economic disparities affected the relocation process. Wealthy individuals often rebuilt their homes on the damaged site, while those without land rights had to settle for temporary housing, sidelining them in the reconstruction efforts.

Imagine a scenario where some families have the financial means to rebuild their homes immediately after a disaster, while others struggle to find shelter. This economic divide can lead to tensions and inequity in community rebuilding efforts.

Because, these people preferred to live together, they did not like this new iron-grid pattern of layout... there was no training program, allocation of financial assistance given to the NGO directly...

Residents preferred to stay in their familiar communities rather than adapt to the new layout imposed by the reconstruction projects. The lack of community involvement in decision-making further alienated them from the changes being implemented.

Think of a school that imposes a new schedule without consulting students or parents. The lack of input can lead to dissatisfaction with the changes, just as residents felt disconnected from the new village layouts.

So, what do we see here that no utilisations of local resources designed by the NGO... project did not help to enhance people's awareness...

The reconstructions failed largely due to design and implementation by the NGO without utilizing local resources or involving the community. The result was a project that was costly and ultimately rejected by the villagers, increasing their vulnerability and mistrust.

If a group tries to create a community garden but doesn't ask the locals what plants they want or how to build it, it could fail miserably. A similar lack of community input led to the rejection of the reconstruction projects.

In community NGO partnership approach, we have Ludiya village, there is 100 kilometer north from Bhuj, area is around 5 square kilometer...

Ludiya village serves as an example of the successful involvement of an NGO in rebuilding efforts. The village had a unique demographic with a mix of communities and occupations. This diversity showcased how collaborative efforts can lead to positive community outcomes post-disaster.

Think of a team project in school where a diverse group of students combines their strengths to design a presentation. Like that teamwork, Ludiya’s collaboration among various groups led to a more cohesive recovery after the earthquake.

--