4. Study Area and Approaches

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 housing reconstruction, there are two major approaches: owner-driven and NGO-driven. The owner-driven approach allows people to contribute finances for their housing needs, empowering individuals to have control over their reconstruction. On the other hand, the NGO-driven approach can be further divided into two main types: product-centric and people-centric. A product-centric approach is primarily managed by NGOs, which create housing solutions based on predefined products. In contrast, a people-centric approach fosters a partnership between people and NGOs or private agencies, prioritizing community involvement in the reconstruction process.

Imagine a community that has been affected by a flood. In the owner-driven model, each family would gather their savings or seek loans to rebuild their homes as they see fit. In the NGO-driven model, one NGO might provide pre-fabricated houses (product-centric), while another might work with the families to design their homes (people-centric), thus incorporating the families' needs and preferences into the planning.

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.

In Gujarat, after a disaster, various financial aids were provided to support the affected individuals. A sum of Rs.1 lakh (100,000 rupees) was allocated to family members of deceased individuals, showing that immediate support was prioritized for the bereaved. Additionally, households received Rs.1250 to help them with essential kits needed for survival. Compensation was also provided for the loss of livestock based on the type of animal, with specific amounts designated for goats, bulls, and cows, indicating the local importance of livestock to the community's livelihood.

Consider a village recovering from an earthquake. Families who lost loved ones received significant financial help to ease their grief and start rebuilding their lives. Similarly, the families that lost their goats or cows—integral to their income—received compensation so they could replace them and restore their livelihoods.

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, a significant number of houses were destroyed due to disaster—156,000 in total. NGOs aimed to rebuild approximately 50,000 of these homes. At the time of reporting in 2003, more than 6,000 houses were under construction, while about 40,000 had been completed. This demonstrates the substantial efforts taken by NGOs to restore housing for disaster-affected individuals and how the reconstruction process evolved over time.

Think of a large community park that gets severely damaged. In response, volunteer groups (like NGOs) work to restore it. Initially, a few projects (like playgrounds) may start construction, while several sections (like the flower beds) are already completed. This reflects an organized and systematic approach to recovery, similar to how NGOs functioned in Kutch.

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 homes rebuilt after the disaster, approximately 96,000 were constructed using the owner-driven model, allowing individuals to rebuild their homes. Out of a total of 135,000 houses constructed, around 56% of the NGO-led rebuilds were in-situ, meaning they were built on the same location as the previous homes. Conversely, the owner-driven constructions predominantly focused on in-situ development, with only 22% involving relocations, highlighting a preference for rebuilding on existing lands.

Imagine a neighborhood that has been destroyed by a storm. Most residents want to rebuild where their homes were, as this is where their community ties are strongest (in-situ). However, some might have to move to a new location because of zoning laws or lack of land availability, which is seen in the 22% of relocated buildings.

Total 102 NGOs; 100 NGOs were involved working on reconstructions, 65 of them have been a part of 'public-private partnership' program and 37 out of them is working as independently without much collaborations with the local people.

In total, 102 NGOs were part of the reconstruction efforts, with 100 being actively involved. Of these, 65 NGOs participated in public-private partnerships, which often involved collaboration between government entities, private organizations, and the community for efficient, effective rebuilding. Meanwhile, 37 NGOs operated independently, not necessarily seeking partnership with local communities. This indicates a mix of strategies in engaging with local populations during reconstruction.

When organizing a community festival, some groups might partner with local businesses for sponsorships (public-private partnership), while others may decide to host the event entirely on their own, using only volunteers from the neighborhood. Both approaches can achieve the goal but may yield different levels of community involvement.

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.

When comparing the new houses, those built by NGOs showed a 20% increase in built-up area or room counts compared to previous homes. However, for some, there was a 27% total decrease from what had existed, indicating varied results. In contrast, the homes reconstructed through the owner-driven model tended to remain similar in size and layout, suggesting simpler rebuilds without expansive improvements.

Consider two families rebuilding after a flood. One family decides to use an expert contractor (NGO approach), resulting in a larger house with extra rooms. The other family rebuilds with minimal changes (owner-driven), maintaining the same number of rooms and space they had before.

Use of reconstruction house; are they really using these houses according to a Abhiyan survey in 2003, NGO houses are almost also very significantly people are using, owner-driven of course but NGO-driven also some people are not using around 20%.

The Abhiyan survey of 2003 indicated that most people were making use of the houses that were reconstructed. It was noted that around 20% of the houses built by NGOs were not being utilized, while owner-driven houses had higher rates of occupancy. This highlights the importance of community involvement and the satisfaction of residents with their new homes, as a lack of usage could signal unmet needs or preferences in the housing design.

Think about a neighborhood where new houses have been built. Some residents love their new homes and live in them actively, while others might feel that their new homes don't fit their needs and choose not to stay in them, highlighting the importance of understanding the community's needs during the design process.

--