1.2. Participatory approaches and their pros and cons

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.

The architectural profession has evolved, especially in disaster contexts, from serving just one perspective or solution (singular vision) to collaborating with communities to develop shared solutions (shared vision). This shift helps incorporate more diverse inputs and experiences into the rebuilding process. Authors like Michael Lyons showcase participatory approaches that actively involve the community in decision-making, highlighting both benefits and drawbacks.

Imagine a community deciding on a new park. Instead of a city planner making all the decisions alone, community members gather to discuss what they want, such as playgrounds for kids or gardens for relaxation. This collaborative approach ensures that everyone's needs are met, but it might take longer to reach a consensus.

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.

In participatory approaches, the focus is on placing communities at the center of development efforts. For instance, Benny Kuriakose has worked with South Indian fishermen to involve them in every stage of building, from planning to construction. While this bottom-up method promotes ownership and relevance, it can be more time-consuming compared to top-down approaches.

Think about a school planning a new syllabus. Instead of just having teachers decide what is taught, they hold workshops with students and parents to gather ideas. While it takes longer to finalize the syllabus, it ends up being more relevant for the students.

Bernstein and Sushma Iyengar talked about how the paradigms from the housing construction in India have shifted from vulnerable self-built housing to safe contractor-driven and they also emphasize on the owner-driven approaches.

The construction landscape is changing from self-built homes, often precarious, to more secure homes built by contractors. However, ownership and involvement of the homeowner (owner-driven) are now being emphasized as crucial for the success and acceptance of housing projects. This allows homeowners to have a say in how their homes are built, making it more personalized and fitting to their needs.

Consider a family planning to build their dream home. They could hire a builder (contractor-driven) who follows their own style, or they could take charge themselves (owner-driven) by choosing every detail that resonates with their family's values and preferences.

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.

A significant challenge in post-disaster recovery is land tenure, especially for those who have lost their homes. Often, aid agencies do not grant full land rights to those displaced, leading to issues where homeowners may end up without secure ownership of their properties. This discrepancy can hinder rebuilding efforts and cause further instability in communities.

Imagine a farmer who loses their farm in a flood and is supported by an aid agency, but when they receive a new plot, they don’t have full ownership rights. Thus, even though they have a piece of land, they can't invest in it because they aren't sure it will be theirs long term.

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.

After disasters, people often adapt their living spaces in ways that reflect their cultural practices and needs. For instance, they may convert a bathroom into a place of worship if that serves their spiritual needs. These personal changes highlight how disaster recovery is not just about rebuilding structures but also about restoring cultural practices and identities.

Consider someone who has lost their home but has a strong religious connection. Instead of just creating a basic living space, they turn an area into a place for prayer, showing the vital role their culture plays in healing and recovery.

Ian Davis reflects. Shelter must be considered as a process but not as an object, and this whole set of cases and examples which we are facing in our daily observations it opens a call for more culturally sensitive approaches to home making or remaking in the aftermath of disasters.

Experts like Ian Davis argue that providing shelter goes beyond mere physical structures; it involves understanding the entire process of creating a home. Recognizing cultural sensitivities and the context in which people live is essential for effective disaster recovery and rebuilding. This means engaging communities in ways that are respectful and tailored to their needs.

Think of a team planning to build a community center. Instead of assuming what the community needs, they hold discussions to understand cultural practices, ensuring that the center reflects local values and is utilized effectively, leading to greater acceptance and use.

--