1. Assessment of Self-Help Housing Reconstruction Method in Turkey

When we assess the self-help housing reconstruction method, we see that in Turkey first of all the central government which these ministries and the general director of disaster affairs and with the local governor of the state level, they look at the 3 different options. One is give them the cash credits, direct financial credits to the homeowner, so what they can do is; they can purchase a new house from the property developer wherein the second aspect, we have the provide technical support plus stage by stage you give some certain payments on construction; to completion of the construction that is delivered to the homeowner. And he again relies on the either a beneficiary managed construction or it could be he relies on the designers of the building contractors who hire, so in that way, that is another process. Whereas in option 3, it is completely a government-managed construction so, in this, they rely on the contractor, so agency driven process and they finish the house and they deliver it to the homeowner so, this is how the self-house mechanism has been conceptualized.

In Turkey, after a disaster, there are three primary ways the government helps people rebuild their homes. The first option is giving cash credits directly to homeowners. This allows them to buy a new house from a developer. The second option involves providing technical support along with financial assistance in stages as the construction of a home progresses. Here, homeowners either manage the construction themselves or hire contractors. The third option is when the government takes charge entirely, managing the construction process and delivering the finished house to the homeowner. These methods show different approaches to support rebuilding.

Imagine if after a flood, a family had three ways to get help rebuilding their home. The first way is like receiving a gift card to buy a new house; they can go pick any house they want. The second way is like getting help to build their dream house step by step, but they need to coordinate with builders. The third way is like the government saying, 'Don't worry, we'll build the house for you.' Each method has different benefits and responsibilities.

And even in this process, there are some other shortcomings; one is the house designs offered by the government have very little regard to local rural living styles and while families can choose to use their own design, this entails hiring an architect which the owner must pay for in manage themselves. So, even though the family is getting an option to choose their own design but he has to pay for the architect or the contractor and here, in this process, though the government is ready to give them a training or provide guidance on how to build a technical support, so but it takes a long time to educate the owners about earthquake-safe constructions and design because it depends on their literacy levels, depends on the social and cooperation, how they come in negotiation.

While the self-help housing reconstruction methods provide some benefits, they also have shortcomings. The designs offered by the government often do not consider local living styles, which is important for cultural appropriateness. Although families can choose their designs, they often must pay for an architect, adding stress. Additionally, government support in terms of training and guidance is available but it takes a significant amount of time to educate homeowners. This education is influenced by the homeowner's literacy level and their ability to cooperate with governmental processes.

It's like when a store offers a selection of furniture, but none of it matches your home's style. You can customize it, but you have to hire an interior designer at your own expense. Even if the store offers workshops on furniture arrangement, it can take time to learn, especially if someone rarely does this or has a busy life.

And in many cases, it has been noted that contractors run away with some basic deposits and maybe having a small verbal agreements with the owners and they run away so, in that way the whole project left incomplete. And there is no involvement of owners in important decisions whether to relocate or where to relocate and what kind of input especially, in this process, so that is one of the important things.

A significant challenge faced in the reconstruction efforts is the behavior of some contractors. There are instances where contractors take deposits from homeowners for the construction services and then fail to complete the work, leaving projects unfinished. Additionally, homeowners aren’t sufficiently involved in critical decisions, such as where they should relocate to or what their new place should look like, which diminishes their sense of ownership and satisfaction.

Imagine hiring a contractor to remodel your kitchen and paying a deposit, but then the contractor disappears. You’re left with a half-finished kitchen and no say in how it should be renovated. You expected to be part of the decision-making process, but instead, you feel helpless.

In Duzce province after the 1999 earthquake, you can see that in the centres and villages and the district we have the statistical you know, the damage statistics is in providing this table and the house is constructed through the central government financial support, one is the government mass housing process which is about 8004 who is qualified for this; owner of badly damaged or a collapsed house? Self-help similarly, it was almost less than half percentage that is where owner of badly damaged or collapsed house. Whereas, the repair and retrofitting process of 4874 which is about owner of semi damaged house, which means it is possible for the reconstruction.

After the 1999 earthquake in Duzce, the government had a system for tracking housing damage and recovery. For example, there were about 8,004 houses built via government mass housing programs for homeowners whose houses were badly damaged or collapsed. In contrast, the self-help housing method addressed only a small fraction of the need, with less than half the number of badly damaged homes being addressed. Additionally, there were 4,874 homes identified as being semi-damaged that could be repaired.

It's like when a big storm damages many houses. The government steps in to build many homes for those whose houses were completely destroyed. Meanwhile, not enough help is provided for people with homes that were only partially damaged. Imagine the frustration of those who only need repairs but find few resources available to help them.

So, this is where the turkey realized the sense of the self-approved, self-help development process and that is where the new approaches, the new partnerships has been developed, this is what we are going to discuss about 3 in different cases and in the Duzce province. If you look at the whole process, in the disaster acts or whatever they has been, it is mainly focus on whether someone owns something and whether it is lost and so that he can be compensated whether in the form of insurance, whether in the form of; then what about a renter; you know he was not having a house and he was completely ignored, so that is where one has to look at how these neglected groups who are basically the renting community.

Turkey is recognizing the need to include self-help development processes and to form new partnerships in housing recovery after disasters. Historically, policies have focused on homeowners, leaving renters unrecognized and unsupported in recovery efforts. This oversight highlights the need for a change to incorporate the needs of renters who also suffer losses during disasters.

Consider a neighborhood where a flood destroys homes. Assistance programs help homeowners rebuild, but renters living in those homes receive no support. This creates a situation where renters are left homeless without any help, similar to how a class project may focus on the contributors but overlook vital roles like organizers or supporters.

The three case studies which we will be discussing now. One is the Beyciler which is in the Duzce centre, it’s the row house about 168 houses are delivered, here there is a international NGO along with the partnership with the local government, the solidarity housing project in Golyaka which is a detached house about 57 houses here, the international and national NGO plus community plus universities, the UMCOR Duzce peri-urban areas which is a detached house about 220 houses. Here, an international NGO plus the community so, this is the three compositions of the self-help housing process which we will be discussing further.

The reconstruction efforts include three specific case studies: 1) Beyciler, where 168 row houses were built with the help of an international NGO and the local government. 2) The Solidarity Housing Project in Golyaka, which provided 57 detached homes, supported by both international and national NGOs and universities. 3) UMCOR's efforts in Duzce's peri-urban areas where 220 detached homes were constructed with community involvement. These case studies exemplify various collaborative approaches being taken in the self-help housing process.

Think of it as different teams working together to solve a community problem. One team, with help from an international group, builds a row of houses for low-income families. Another team, combining local NGOs and schools, helps build smaller homes. Each team brings its strengths to the table, showing how cooperation can lead to more effective solutions.

--