3. Neglected Groups in Housing Reconstruction

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, the government considers three main options for self-help housing reconstruction after disasters. The first option involves providing cash credits directly to homeowners, allowing them to buy new houses. The second option offers technical support, including phased payments contingent on the construction progress. Homeowners can choose to manage the construction themselves or rely on hired designers or contractors. The third option is a fully government-managed process where contractors handle the entire construction. This framework supports various ways for individuals impacted by disasters to secure housing.

Think of it like a meal prep service. You can either get raw ingredients to cook your own meals (cash credits), have a guide and receive groceries in stages as you cook with their help (technical support), or have the meal fully prepared for you by chefs (government-managed construction). Each approach caters to different needs and capabilities.

And even in this process, there are so especially, in the housing process especially, in after the 2000 Cankiri earthquake, there are also 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.

Post-disaster housing designs provided by the government often do not reflect local cultures or rural living conditions. Although families can opt for their own designs, this requires them to hire architects at their own expense, which adds a financial burden. This disconnect can lead to dissatisfaction among homeowners, as the designs may not meet their specific needs or preferences.

Imagine ordering a custom pizza from a restaurant. If the menu only offers standard options and doesn’t allow for local favorite toppings, you might feel disappointed. You could create your own pizza by buying the ingredients, but that would cost you extra and take time. Similarly, homeowners might feel stuck with designs that don't fit their lifestyle.

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.

Despite the option to design their houses, families encounter financial challenges due to the need to hire professionals like architects. The government's intention to provide training on earthquake-safe construction is hampered by the varying literacy levels and social dynamics of the homeowners, making it difficult to effectively communicate these vital concepts.

Consider a cooking class where some participants can read recipes easily while others struggle. If the instructor doesn't adjust their teaching to accommodate everyone’s knowledge and skills, many might leave confused and unable to recreate the dishes. Similarly, homeowners may not grasp essential safety concepts if proper education is not tailored to their situation.

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.

Disaster recovery efforts often prioritize property owners, leaving renters without support. This oversight means that many renters who lose their homes are not compensated or considered in recovery schemes. Recognizing and integrating these neglected communities into housing reconstruction plans is crucial for inclusive recovery.

Imagine a sports team celebrating only the players who scored points while forgetting about the backup players or coaching staff who also contributed to the team's success. If only the scorers are honored after a win, the support team feels undervalued. Just like in housing recovery, we must ensure that ALL contributors, including renters, are acknowledged and supported.

So, 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.

Three significant case studies illustrate how various organizations have worked together on housing reconstruction. One project is Beyciler, where 168 row houses were built through collaboration between an international NGO and the local government. Another is in Golyaka, where 57 homes were constructed, involving multiple NGOs, community support, and universities. Lastly, UMCOR supported the creation of 220 detached houses in peri-urban areas, showcasing different partnership models in action.

Think of it like a school project where students from different classes combine their strengths to complete it. Each group brings its expertise: artists design, writers create content, and presenters organize information. Together, they achieve a successful project that none could have accomplished alone, reflecting the power of collaboration in housing recovery.

--