1.4. Post-Disaster Interventions

They can also contribute their money, this is what we call 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. This product-centric approach where it is done by the NGO itself, it is mainly NGO driven or agency driven. People's-centric approach is more like a collaboration of partnership between people and the private agencies or NGOs.

In post-disaster interventions, there are different approaches to rebuilding and aiding affected communities. The owner-driven approach allows individuals to contribute their own money towards their recovery. This means that affected individuals have control over how their resources are used in the rebuilding process.

On the other hand, NGO-driven interventions generally fall into two categories: product-centric and people-centric. A product-centric approach is when NGOs focus on providing specific goods or services directly, such as building materials or finished shelters, largely driven by the agency itself. Meanwhile, a people-centric approach emphasizes collaboration between the community and NGOs or private agencies, ensuring that the needs and preferences of the affected individuals are considered in the recovery strategy.

Imagine you are part of a community that was affected by a flood. If you are given money to help rebuild your home, you might decide to hire a local contractor, which reflects the owner-driven approach. Alternatively, if an NGO comes in with tents and supplies and builds houses without consulting the community, that is the product-centric approach. If the NGO instead works alongside the community to decide how to rebuild based on what people need, that would be the people-centric approach.

In Gujarat, post-disaster interventions; 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 to be provided and in case of cattle death, different amounts of money were given like for goat 150, for bull 750 rupees, for cow 2500 like that.

In the aftermath of a disaster in Gujarat, specific financial assistance was provided to families affected by the tragedy. Immediate support included a significant amount—Rs.1 lakh—to the bereaved families of those who passed away due to the disaster. Additionally, each family received Rs.1250 to help with basic necessities through household kits. For families who lost livestock, compensation was calculated based on the type of animal, with set amounts for goats, bulls, and cows being provided. Such targeted financial assistance was vital for the recovery of families and to help restore their livelihoods.

Think of a situation where a severe storm has damaged a community. To help the families who lost loved ones, the government provides financial aid to ensure they can cover funeral costs and other expenses. Similarly, families that have lost their pets, like goats or cows, receive money to help them recover, which is like receiving insurance payments to replace lost property.

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.

Following the disaster, a large number of homes were destroyed in the Kutch area—over 156,000 houses were reported as destroyed. The initial recovery plan aimed for NGOs to reconstruct around 50,000 of these homes. By 2003, there were over 6,000 homes under construction, while nearly 40,000 homes had been completed by that time. This illustrates the scale of reconstruction efforts and the challenges faced in providing adequate housing for the affected population.

Imagine a town that has been heavily damaged after an earthquake. A local NGO pledges to rebuild 50 homes for families who lost their houses. As time passes, they report that they've completed building nearly 40 of them, with several more in progress, demonstrating the community's slow but steady effort to recover and restore their homes.

Self-construction that is owner-driven basically is around 96,000 to 97,000, and the total houses constructed were 1 lakh 35,000 at 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.

The reconstruction landscape following the disaster included a significant number of self-construction projects, with approximately 96,000 houses being owner-driven. In total, around 135,000 houses were constructed by that time. Among NGO-driven constructions, 56% of them were in-situ, meaning they were built on the same site as the original homes, while a considerable portion involved relocating houses. On the contrary, the majority of owner-driven constructions were also in-situ, indicating that people preferred to rebuild on their original land rather than move to new locations.

Consider a scenario where families are given the choice to rebuild their homes. Many may choose to rebuild where their original houses stood because they have strong emotional ties and established community relationships. It's similar to a person wanting to rebuild their favorite childhood treehouse in the same tree rather than finding another tree.

Total 102 NGOs; 100 NGOs were involved working on reconstructions, 65 of them have been a part of the 'public-private partnership' program and 37 out of them is working independently without much collaborations with the local people. 82% of work of the total housing requirement by 2003 were reported as complete, 96,000 or little more than that was owner-driven or self-construction house under the category of G4 and G5 damaged category, and another 31,000 was NGO reconstructed houses.

A total of 102 NGOs took part in the reconstruction efforts in Kutch, with 100 actively involved. Out of these, 65 NGOs participated in a public-private partnership program, which signifies a collaborative effort between governmental entities and private organisations to address housing needs. Meanwhile, 37 NGOs operated independently, which suggests a diverse range of strategies for recovery.

By 2003, a significant 82% of the housing needed post-disaster was reported as completed, demonstrating a successful collective response. The majority of these constructed homes were self-driven by the owners themselves, while several were reconstructed by NGOs, showing a blend of community development and external assistance.

Think of a neighborhood banding together after a disaster, with the help of various charities. Some families choose to rebuild with support from government programs and NGOs, while others manage to gather their own resources independently. Together, they restore the community by helping each other and sharing the responsibilities of rebuilding.

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% were satisfied and in case of owner-driven, 91% were satisfied.

According to the 2003 survey conducted by the NGO Abhiyan, there was a significant difference in satisfaction levels regarding the housing provided post-disaster. Among those who received homes constructed by NGOs, 80% expressed satisfaction with their new dwellings. In contrast, an even higher percentage, 91%, of those who rebuilt their homes through the owner-driven approach reported being satisfied. This disparity may reflect the sense of ownership and personal involvement that comes with self-construction.

Imagine you buy a ready-made soup at a store versus making one from scratch with your own favorite ingredients. You might feel more satisfied with the homemade version because you had a say in every ingredient added, similar to how individuals feel about their homes when they are involved in the construction process.

Study area; we conducted surveys in 3 areas, I would like to show different approaches and models and their case studies. One is NGO agency driven approach in Hajapar, that is 52 kilometers south from Bhuj, area is of the village is around 4 square kilometers in total including the agricultural land, population is 720, household size is 6.5, literacy was 35%, their main occupation is animal husbandry and agriculture.

The study included surveys from three various areas to illustrate different reconstruction approaches. One specific focus was Hajapar, a village located 52 kilometers south of Bhuj. The village spans around 4 square kilometers and has a population of approximately 720 people, with an average household size of 6.5 individuals. The literacy rate in this community is at 35%, meaning many residents may face challenges understanding complex processes. The main occupations are animal husbandry and agriculture, indicating the community's reliance on farming and livestock for their livelihoods.

Think of a small village that relies on its farms and livestock for income. If a disaster strikes, the community must band together to support each other. Just like in Hajapar, understanding the local demographics, such as education levels and occupations, can determine how assistance is tailored to best help these families get back on their feet.

--