2.2. Temporary Housing and Land Tenure

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.

The 2001 earthquake caused extensive damage, destroying over 80% of the houses in the affected area. This led to the need for reconstruction. The new layout of the village was different from what existed before the earthquake, indicating significant changes in housing and community planning.

Imagine a small town where most of the buildings are destroyed in a sudden storm. After the storm, the town decides to rebuild, but they choose to rearrange the buildings in a completely different way, which might confuse or displace residents who were used to their former homes.

Many people did not have any land rights in this area, no land rights, and many people did not relocate it. They developed their; build their own house in their own, some people only a minor group of people, they did not relocate it, only a minor group in dark maroon, they were relocated.

A significant challenge in the aftermath of the earthquake was the issue of land rights. Many residents lacked formal land rights, meaning they could not claim ownership of the land where they lived. As a result, many chose not to relocate to the newly constructed houses, opting instead to build their own homes in familiar areas, despite the absence of legal rights to the land.

Think of a community where people have been living in a place for generations, but they never officially owned the land. When the government tells them they need to move to a new area due to a disaster, many are hesitant to leave because they feel a connection to their land and have nowhere else to claim as their own.

This is the number of occupancy in the new, you can see these new constructed houses 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.

Despite the construction of new houses, many remained unoccupied. The cost of these new units was quite high, around 1 lakh 20,000 Indian rupees, making them unaffordable for many potential residents. Consequently, the majority of the new homes stood empty, as people chose not to move in.

Imagine a beautiful, newly built apartment complex in a city that offers amenities and spacious units. However, because the rent is too high for most people to afford, many units remain vacant, and the complex becomes eerily quiet, despite being brand new and ready for residents.

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

The community had a health center and an Ayurvedic health center, but residents were not utilizing these facilities. In contrast, the primary school was well-used, indicating that while some services were available, they did not meet the community's needs or preferences. This highlights a mismatch between what was provided and what people actually wanted or felt comfortable using.

Consider a new fitness center built in a neighborhood with lots of equipment, but the locals prefer jogging in the park. Even though the fitness center has great facilities, if it doesn’t resonate with the community's lifestyle or preferences, it may not see many visitors.

Those who are rich did not relocate better off and they build their own house on the damaged side, some people who did not have the land tenure rights, they constructed temporary houses or got temporary houses and remaining there.

Economic status played a significant role in housing decisions post-earthquake. Wealthier individuals were able to rebuild their homes where they were previously located, while those without land rights or financial resources often resorted to constructing temporary houses. This showcases the disparity in how different socioeconomic groups were able to respond to the disaster.

Think of a situation where after a natural disaster, wealthy families can afford to rebuild their homes quickly and are able to stay in the same neighborhood. In contrast, poorer families may only have enough resources to put up a temporary shelter, forcing them to live in less stable conditions.

There was no training program, allocation of financial assistance given to the NGO directly and decision makings, villages were not involved in the decision-making process.

The reconstruction process lacked community involvement and transparency. Villagers were excluded from decision-making, and there was no training for local leaders or community engagement in the planning. Financial assistance was funneled directly to NGOs without local input, leading to dissatisfaction with the rebuilt environment.

Imagine a school planning a new playground without asking the children what they want. If the children wanted swings but the school builds climbing walls instead, the result may be a playground that's not used or is under-appreciated because it doesn't reflect the children's desires.

As a result, this project was very high cost and took some time but was 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 lack of community involvement and poor planning resulted in a project that was costly and took longer than necessary. Moreover, because the new housing did not align with the villagers' needs or preferences, it was rejected, leading to poor maintenance of houses and a lack of ownership among the community.

Think how a company might create a product without consulting its customers. If consumers don’t like the product because it doesn’t meet their needs, they aren’t likely to take care of it, leading to waste and dissatisfaction, similar to the abandoned houses in this project.

--