3.1. Culturally sensitive approaches to home making

We are living in a generation where the architecture profession in the disaster context has moved from a singular vision to a shared vision. In the first version of build back better where Michael Lyons and other authors have demonstrated the various participatory approaches have been successful and obviously they also bought the pros and cons of each approaches and bringing various case examples.

This chunk discusses how the field of architecture has evolved, especially in the context of disasters. Previously, architectural planning was often one-dimensional, focusing on a specific outcome or design. However, there has been a shift towards collaborative approaches that involve multiple stakeholders, including communities affected by disasters. This collaborative or participatory approach is highlighted in the 'build back better' initiative, which emphasizes the importance of including various perspectives and addressing both the benefits and drawbacks of different methods.

Imagine a community that lost homes in a flood. Instead of an architect deciding how to rebuild on their own, they invite local residents to share their ideas and preferences. This way, the final design reflects the community's values and needs, similar to how a potluck involves everyone bringing their favorite dish to create a meal that everyone enjoys.

Like, most of them they are talking about putting people in the centre, like we can see in some of the examples where the south Indian fishermen federation societies, Benny Kuriakose. Where he have implemented a bottom-up approach of completion from the documentation to the design to the erection process and the one to one consultation process has been its a time taking process.

This chunk emphasizes the importance of centralizing the needs of the community in the building process. Benny Kuriakose is noted for implementing a bottom-up approach, where input from local communities is gathered at every stage of building—right from documentation to the actual construction. While this approach is more time-consuming, it results in structures that better meet the needs and desires of those who will use them.

Consider a school project where students decide on the theme of their school event. Instead of the teacher dictating everything, they ask students for ideas, leading to a more enjoyable event for everyone. Similarly, in reconstruction, involving affected community members leads to a more suitable and welcomed outcome.

Also there are issues of land tenure and ownership, the people who are having houses before and but who have lost their houses in the disaster maybe when the aid agency support they may not give the tenure full tenure. But the people who are not having houses who have a little money but now they could able to afford the land and then they have a tenure so there is always the discrepancies occur in the tenure and the ownership aspect.

This segment discusses the complex issues of land ownership that often arise after disasters. For instance, individuals whose homes were destroyed may not receive full property rights or tenure from aid agencies, while others without previous homes may gain opportunities to purchase land. This creates discrepancies and inequities in property rights among different groups within the affected community, which can lead to tensions and long-term issues.

Imagine a board game where players can buy properties. If one player loses all their properties during a round and has to start over, but another player suddenly gets a windfall to buy properties, it can create a sense of unfairness. Similarly, in disaster recovery, some individuals may feel disadvantaged over others based solely on their circumstances.

You can see the responses what the aid agencies have given, and what people have developed. There is always a personalization is a natural response to the cultural deficiencies whether it is a kitchen, whether it is a religious, what you can see is a toilet has been converted as a worship place.

This part points out the ways in which people personalize their living environments in response to disaster recovery efforts that may not fully respect their cultural practices. For instance, when offered basic structures, individuals might repurpose spaces to reflect their cultural practices or personal needs, such as turning a toilet into a place for worship. This shows that people's cultural backgrounds significantly influence how they rebuild their homes.

Think about someone who returns to their childhood home after years. They might want to repaint a room in their favorite childhood color or create a corner that pays tribute to family traditions. In disaster recovery, individuals similarly reshape temporary structures to honor their past and cultural identity.

Normality and a normality of disasters: relief agencies normally they rarely pay attention to the way in which housing is delivered. Often assuming that developing countries have no experience in low-cost social housing schemes, no finance mechanisms, nor they do sometimes possess a profoundly rich and established informal sector.

This chunk highlights a common misconception held by aid agencies when responding to disasters. Many agencies underestimate the existing knowledge and capabilities of communities in developing countries. They often overlook the effective low-cost housing solutions and financial practices already in place, assuming that these communities lack experience or infrastructure. This can lead to solutions that do not fit the local context.

It's like a visiting teacher assuming that students from a rural school can't understand advanced math concepts and only teaching them basic addition and subtraction. This undermines the students' actual abilities and potential, just as aid agencies can undermine the capacities of local communities by imposing solutions rather than collaborating.

--