1.1. Options for Homeowners

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 typically three options provided to homeowners for rebuilding their homes. The first option allows homeowners to receive cash credits. This means they get direct financial support that they can use to buy a new house from a property developer. The second option involves providing technical support and financial assistance over time. Homeowners get payments in stages as their construction progresses, which they manage either on their own or with hired contractors. The third option is a completely government-managed construction, where a contractor is chosen by the government to build the new home, which is then handed over to the homeowner. These approaches aim to help victims of disasters to rebuild their lives and homes effectively.

Imagine a family whose house was destroyed in a storm. The government offers them different ways to help rebuild. They could get cash to buy a new home directly, like being given money to buy a ready-made sandwich. Alternatively, they might receive support and money in stages, resembling a meal plan where they get ingredients one at a time as they cook. Or, they could let a professional catering service take care of everything, and they just get to enjoy the meal once it's ready. Each option has its benefits and challenges, much like how families can choose the best way to rebuild.

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.

After natural disasters, while the government provides support, the designs they offer often do not consider local living styles. This means houses may not match how people live in rural areas, which can be problematic. Although families have the option to create their own designs, they must hire an architect and manage the costs themselves. This can be a financial burden for many families, particularly in the aftermath of a disaster when resources are limited.

Consider a family that wants to rebuild their home after a flood. They might not like the standard house design offered by the government because it doesn't suit their traditional lifestyle. Choosing their design is like opting to renovate an old car to better fit their needs, but they now have to pay for a mechanic (the architect), which can be a struggle when they're already financially strained from their losses.

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 families can design their homes, they face the additional cost of hiring professionals, which can be challenging. The government does offer training and support to help homeowners understand seismic-safe construction practices, but educating homeowners takes time. Their ability to grasp this information often depends on their literacy levels and their social networks, which can influence how effectively they communicate with government representatives.

Picture a class trying to learn about car safety features before driving. Some students might struggle with the material because they didn't understand basic car mechanics in their earlier classes. Similarly, families need to learn about safe home designs, but if their foundational knowledge isn't strong, it can be difficult to implement what they learn, just as it would be challenging for a student to pass a driving test without understanding the car's functions.

I mean in contact with the government also, they need to know some the managerial techniques of how they can manage the projects themselves 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 leave left incomplete.

It is vital that homeowners understand project management to ensure their construction projects proceed smoothly. However, a common issue is that unscrupulous contractors sometimes take deposit money and then abandon the job. This can leave homeowners without completed homes, compounding their struggles after a disaster. The lack of formal contracts and poor communication adds to these problems.

Think of it as hiring someone to paint your house. You pay them upfront, but if they don't have a written agreement and they disappear, your house remains unpainted, and you’re left without money and an unfinished job. For homeowners, this situation can feel even more devastating, especially when they’re trying to rebuild their lives.

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. 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?

Homeowners often have little say in crucial decisions such as whether to relocate after a disaster. For example, in the Duzce province after an earthquake, the government focused mostly on owners of badly damaged houses when distributing aid or constructing new homes, while renters and those without clear ownership were largely ignored. This neglect highlights a gap in disaster recovery efforts, as many people affected by disasters may only temporarily rely on rental options.

Imagine if a neighborhood experiences a flood, and only homeowners received assistance to rebuild. Renters who lived in the area would be left stranded with nowhere to go, much like being excluded from a community meeting about rebuilding plans. They might also have friends or family members who can help but need formal support to recover, which is essential for the community as a whole.

--