4. Beyciler Housing Project in Duzce

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 Duzce earthquake in 1999, the provincial government assessed the damage to housing. They identified three main approaches for rebuilding: First, a government-led mass housing scheme where roughly 8,004 homes are constructed for owners of severely damaged or collapsed houses. Second, a self-help initiative where a smaller percentage of homeowners managed to rebuild themselves. Third, a process for repairing semi-damaged homes, which totaled about 4,874. This analysis highlights the varying conditions of housing damage and the structured governmental responses aimed at reconstruction.

Imagine a community after a storm. Some houses might be completely destroyed, while others just need repairs. The government then decides to build new homes for those who lost everything (like the mass housing scheme), while also helping others fix what remains of their homes (repair and retrofitting). This reflects the diverse needs that arise after a disaster.

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 recognized the importance of self-help and community involvement in housing initiatives post-disaster. This led to new partnerships and strategies to address not just homeowners but also underserved populations like renters who often face neglect in disaster recovery plans. The focus shifted to include various stakeholders in the rebuilding process, aiming to create inclusive solutions for all affected by the earthquake.

Think of a community garden project. Initially, only homeowners are invited to take part, but later, the organizers realize they should also invite renters and community members who don’t own property to ensure everyone benefits from the garden. This broader approach mirrors the necessary inclusiveness for rebuilding after disasters.

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.

The Beyciler Housing Project was initiated in Duzce following the earthquake to provide adequate housing solutions for affected families. It resulted in building 168 row houses in collaboration with an international NGO and the local government. Additionally, there were other projects in Golyaka and peri-urban areas, showcasing a variety of housing designs and community involvement. This project exemplifies the effectiveness of collaborative efforts in disaster recovery, addressing housing needs in different forms.

Imagine a team of architects, local officials, and charities coming together to build a neighborhood for families who lost their homes. This collaboration ensures not only homes are built but also that those homes fit the community's needs, much like how a bake sale brings together community members to support each other.

In the first case, Duzce, Beyciler houses, social housing project, the international blue crescent entered into a cooperation of the municipality of the Duzce and encouraged the Catholic Relief Services to donate about a huge sum of amount to realize a project of 168 houses and a community centre for disadvantaged families, who were not qualified in the government schemes.

This project leveraged international support by partnering with organizations like the Catholic Relief Services to secure funding for the construction of homes and a community center in Beyciler. The focus was directed towards families who fell outside the criteria of government housing assistance, highlighting the importance of providing support to vulnerable groups in disaster recovery efforts.

Consider a crowd-funding campaign where individuals from around the world contribute money to help build a school for children in a region affected by a natural disaster. This act of goodwill brings in resources that might not otherwise be available, similar to how Catholic Relief Services contributed to the Beyciler project.

And even in this process, what happened is important some of the criticisms have observed, families were largely absent from the important decision making of the project, apart from what job they would do in construction and how to finish their house so, this is one of the important because they may come from a different livelihood background, so in fact, in this whole process, they couldn’t see much of the public participation.

Despite the intention to involve the community, there were criticisms regarding the lack of direct family participation in critical decisions surrounding the housing project. Families had limited influence over the planning stages and primarily were involved in the physical construction. This suggests that while efforts were made to include beneficiaries, true community participation requires deeper engagement and inclusion in decision-making processes.

Think of organizing a school event where only a few parents are invited to help set up, while the majority are left out of discussions about themes and activities. If they feel excluded, there’s a sense of detachment from the outcome. In housing projects, just like in schools, greater involvement leads to a stronger investment in the results.

--