4.2. Community Distribution in Hajapar

They can also contribute their money, this is we called owner-driven and also there is the kind of NGO or contractor driven approach that can be 2 types; one is product-centric approach and people-centric approach.

In community development projects, there are primarily two major approaches to funding and organizing construction: the 'owner-driven' model and 'NGO-driven' models. The owner-driven model allows community members to contribute financially to the projects, empowering them to take charge of their own development. The NGO-driven approach can be further divided into two categories: the 'product-centric' approach where NGOs or agencies lead projects independently, and the 'people-centric' approach, which focuses on collaboration between NGOs and community members. This means that in a people-centric model, the development happens through joint efforts of the people and the agencies involved.

Imagine if a neighborhood wanted to build a community park. In an owner-driven model, residents might pool their money together to decide how to design and fund the park. On the other hand, under an NGO-driven model, a charity might come in to design the park's layout (product-centric), or they might work with community members to gather their ideas and preferences (people-centric) before building.

So, we have total 3 categories of models; 1, 2 and 3. So we can see clearly here also that there is one package from package number 2, there is owner-driven. And from package number 1, there are 2 that are NGO driven and community NGO partnership approach.

In the context of reconstruction efforts after a disaster in Gujarat, three models were identified for rebuilding homes and communities. One of these is the owner-driven model where individuals manage the restoration of their homes. The other two models are NGO-driven and community NGO partnership approaches, focusing on collaborative work between the NGOs and the affected community to ensure efficient rebuilding efforts. Each model has its advantages and suits different community needs and circumstances.

Think of this like rebuilding a block after a storm. In an owner-driven model, families rebuild their homes individually based on their needs and resources. Alternatively, NGOs might come in with plans and funds to help build houses for everybody (NGO-driven), or they might assist locals in organizing and prioritizing the rebuilding process together (community NGO partnership).

In case of cattle death, different amount of money was given like for goat 150, for bull 750 rupees, for cow 2500 like that.

After the Gujarat disaster, the government and NGOs provided financial assistance for various losses, including livestock. The compensation varied depending on the type of animal that was lost: for example, a small amount was provided for goats, while higher amounts were allocated for larger animals like cows. This system aimed to support farmers in recovering their livelihood losses, as animals play a crucial role in agricultural communities.

Imagine you run a small farm. If a storm took away your crops, you'd still be deeply impacted if you lost your livestock as well. The government helping you recoup different amounts for goats versus cows acts like giving you better support for the cows, which are key to running your farm, while recognizing that every loss matters.

number of total destroyed houses was 1 lakh 56,000 little more than that in Kutch area, and that was planned by the NGO was around 50,000 among them, the under-construction house right now that time 2003 was little more than 6000, completed almost 40,000 thousand little less than that.

In the Kutch region, post-disaster, over 156,000 houses were destroyed. NGOs were instrumental in planning the reconstruction process, aiming to rebuild approximately 50,000 homes. At the time of reporting in 2003, over 6,000 homes were still under construction, while about 40,000 had been completed, reflecting significant progress in addressing housing needs after the disaster.

Think of a community-wide project where thousands of houses need rebuilding after a flood. If a task force, like a dedicated NGO, aims to rebuild only a fraction of that number, seeing thousands completed and a few still being built is a sign of hope, showcasing how resilience can lead to recovery.

Self-construction that is owner-driven basically is around 96,000 to 97,000, and the total houses constructed were 1 lakh 35,000 thousand that time. The mode of reconstructions; NGO constructions you can see that even in case of NGO mostly, it was 56% was in-situ but is a great number of also relocated houses, in case of owner-driven or self-constructed majority are in-situ development.

During the reconstruction phase, approximately 96,000 to 97,000 homes were built through owner-driven initiatives, contributing significantly to the total of around 135,000 houses constructed. The majority of these constructions were in-situ, meaning homes were rebuilt on the same spot where they were originally located. On the other hand, about 56% of houses built by NGOs were also in-situ, but a notable portion was relocated to safer areas, reflecting different approaches in rebuilding strategies.

Imagine a neighborhood that was hit hard by an earthquake. Some homeowners choose to rebuild exactly where their houses stood, embracing familiar surroundings (in-situ). However, others might decide to relocate their homes altogether to avoid future risks, showing how choices differ based on community needs and safety considerations.

A distribution of communities; you can see that the Harijans and Muslims, they are on the outskirt one side is a very segmented community, they prefer to live in one segments.

Within Hajapar, the community is structured in a segmented manner, with specific groups such as Harijans and Muslims residing at the outskirts. This segregation can influence how resources and support are distributed, as these groups may have different needs and preferences that must be understood by NGOs and other involved organizations in their recovery efforts.

Think of a city where different ethnic groups prefer to live in their own neighborhoods, often forming tight-knit communities. In such situations, outreach programs aimed at disaster recovery need to recognize this structure to effectively address varying needs and create inclusion strategies that resonate with everyone.

--