3.2. Owner-Driven vs NGO-Driven Satisfaction

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 this section, we distinguish between two main approaches to housing reconstruction after disasters: owner-driven and NGO-driven. Owner-driven means that individuals contribute their own money towards rebuilding, whereas NGO-driven approaches are led by non-governmental organizations. This latter category can be further divided into a product-centric approach, where the NGO itself manages the construction process, and a people-centric approach, which emphasizes collaboration between the community and NGOs.

Imagine you're building a treehouse. If you buy the materials yourself and design it your way, that's like owner-driven. But if a friend with more experience builds it for you and takes charge of everything, that represents an NGO-driven approach.

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.

The housing reconstruction strategies can be classified into three distinct models. Package number 2 refers to the owner-driven method, where homeowners take initiative in the rebuilding process. Package number 1 encompasses both NGO-driven models and community partnerships with NGOs, which highlight collaboration and integrated efforts in restoration.

Think about different teams at school: one team organizes everything by themselves (owner-driven), while another team works together with a teacher to organize a school event (NGO-driven).

What they have done in Gujarat; post-disaster interventions, they Rs.1 lakh was made to the next of kin of each of the deceased person, Rs.1250 rupees per family was given as the household kits was to provided and 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 disaster in Gujarat, authorities implemented several financial interventions. They provided Rs. 1 lakh (100,000 Rupees) to the families of those who lost loved ones. Additionally, they distributed Rs. 1,250 to each family for basic necessities and offered compensation for livestock losses, varying by type of animal. This financial support was crucial in aiding recovery and reconstruction efforts.

Consider a community rallying together after a severe storm. They raise funds to help families who lost their homes or pets, providing them with immediate cash assistance to begin repairs and buy essentials.

Shelter reconstruction; some of the reports here; now, progress of housing reconstructions in Kutch, 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 Kutch, over 156,000 houses were reported destroyed due to the disaster. NGOs planned to construct around 50,000 of these houses. By 2003, more than 6,000 houses were still under construction while approximately 40,000 had been completed. This data reflects both the scale of the disaster and the significant efforts to rebuild.

Imagine a neighborhood where a severe earthquake destroyed many homes. Community organizations plan to rebuild a significant number, and over time, many families regain their homes while a few are still in progress.

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 house, in case of owner-driven or self-constructed majority are in-situ development, only 22% is relocated buildings.

Of the total houses built, around 96,000 were owner-driven, emphasizing self-construction, while about 135,000 total houses were constructed. For NGO-driven projects, 56% of the houses were built on the same site (in-situ), whereas a smaller proportion (22%) of owner-driven constructions were relocated. This shows a preference for owners to rebuild on their original sites.

When rebuilding after a flood, some families choose to fix their homes in the same place, while others may move to safer, higher ground. Owner-driven efforts often prefer staying where they were.

Now, what was the variation in the rooms in case of new houses, is it increased, decreased, remain same? When NGO constructed, increase is around 20%, what they had before they received more built-up area, or rooms that is 20%, most of the cases is same but also significantly 27% compared to 20% increase that decrease, whereas in case of owner-driven, it did not increase much also, did not decrease much, it remains most of the cases the same, the total area.

A survey examined how the number of rooms in newly built houses changed compared to the original homes. For houses built by NGOs, there was a 20% average increase in room count, while owner-driven homes showed little change. This demonstrates that NGO-driven efforts often provided more living space than what residents had before the disaster.

If you think of upgrading a computer: when you buy a new one (NGO-driven), it often comes with more features and faster specifications than your old one. But upgrading just the storage on your existing computer (owner-driven) may not significantly change your overall experience.

What was the level of satisfaction according to the Abhiyan 2003 survey, an NGO called Abhiyan that NGO 80% people that those buildings were constructed by NGO 80% are satisfied and in case of owner-driven, 91% were satisfied.

According to a survey conducted by the NGO Abhiyan in 2003, levels of satisfaction varied significantly between the two construction methods. About 80% of those living in NGO-constructed buildings reported satisfaction, while 91% of those in owner-driven homes expressed contentment with their living conditions. This indicates a higher perceived success in the owner-driven approach.

Think of having a party: if you hire a caterer (NGO) to prepare the food, you might be satisfied with the results. But if you cook the food yourself (owner-driven), and it turns out great, you’ll likely feel even prouder and happier with the meal.

--