Today, we'll discuss the ethnographic methods used for studying post-tsunami recovery. My research involved living with a community as a fisherman to understand their daily challenges.

One major challenge was the lack of maps, as Google Earth was still emerging. I had to digitize maps based on physical observations.

Absolutely! They helped visualize how disaster recovery altered the physical space.

Sure! Living among the fishermen provided immersive insights into their cultural practices and socio-economic challenges.

Exactly! It's important to see how the community interacts with their environment.

In the recovery process, both the government and NGOs played critical roles. The government assessed the damage and provided alternative housing.

They had to comply with CRZ regulations, which meant building homes inland. This sometimes separated families from their traditional fishing grounds.

Yes, NGOs focused on community engagement and rebuilding not just houses but a semblance of community through organized collective investments.

They were mixed; while some appreciated new homes, others felt a loss of their cultural spaces.

Relocation disrupted social ties. People didn’t know their neighbors anymore, which was essential for their community identity.

Now let’s address how housing changes impacted family dynamics. Post-tsunami, many families shifted from joint to nuclear structures.

The government housing often put individual households in separate locations, encouraging a nuclear setup. The increase from 400 to 1,000 homes further exemplified this.

It weakened communal ties, as people no longer engaged with neighbors or shared responsibilities.

Yes, those who purchased land immediately received ownership pattas, while government housing recipients faced lease conditions, creating disparities in ownership.

Indeed, ownership greatly influences how committed individuals are to house maintenance and investment in their homes.

Let’s explore the architectural changes. Many families opted for modern brick houses rather than their traditional structures.

Not entirely. For instance, fishermen who used to dry fish externally found it challenging with new layouts.

Access to community resources like churches became harder due to relocation, leading to fewer communal celebrations.

Absolutely, the proximity issues diminished regular interactions and cultural practices.

Future designs must retain cultural norms and facilitate community interactions alongside providing shelter.