3. Variation in Rooms in New Houses

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.

This chunk discusses the impact of NGO construction on the number of rooms in new houses. It states that houses constructed with the help of NGOs saw an average increase of 20% in room count compared to what residents previously had. However, it also mentions variability, with some reports indicating a 27% decrease in room counts, highlighting that while many experienced an increase, others actually faced a reduction.

Think of it like updating your smartphone. For some users, getting a new phone means more apps and features, while others may find that their new phone lacks some of the features they had before, creating a mixed experience.

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.

In this chunk, the focus shifts to owner-driven houses, which are primarily constructed by the homeowners themselves. It notes that the number of rooms in these homes largely remained stable, with neither significant increases nor decreases reported. This indicates a level of consistency in the size and layout of these houses as compared to those built with NGO support.

Imagine a family renovating their kitchen. They might rearrange existing cabinets and appliances but not add new ones. As a result, they end up with a kitchen that feels fresh but isn’t larger than before, similar to the situation with owner-driven houses.

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%.

This part of the section addresses the actual usage of the newly constructed houses as per a survey conducted by Abhiyan in 2003. It states that houses built by NGOs saw significant occupancy, yet around 20% of those constructed with NGO assistance were not being used by the residents. In contrast, owner-driven houses had a better occupancy rate, reflecting different levels of satisfaction and necessity among homeowners.

Consider a student who buys a new textbook. While most of their classmates use the book regularly, a few might decide not to open it at all, possibly because it doesn’t align with their study needs. This reflects how people utilize the houses they receive.

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.

This chunk compares satisfaction levels among residents in houses built by NGOs versus those built through owner-driven efforts. According to the Abhiyan survey from 2003, 80% of residents in NGO-built homes expressed satisfaction, while the satisfaction rate for owner-driven constructions was higher at 91%. This suggests that homeowners feel more content with self-constructed houses, possibly because they have more control over the process.

Imagine a group of people who try a new restaurant. While most enjoy the food prepared by the chef (NGO houses), those who cook their meals at home (owner-driven houses) often feel prouder and more satisfied with the results of their effort and choice.

--