Network Paper: Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake Gujarat A Comparative Analysis

NP 54 cover crc 3/4/06 3:38 pm Page 3
Number 54
March 2006
Humanitarian Practice Network
HPN
Managed by
Humanitarian Policy Group

Network Paper
In brief
• Besides human casualties, one of the
most visible and striking effects of any
major disaster is the destruction of
Housing reconstruction
in post-earthquake
houses. Loss of housing destroys liveli-
hoods, protection and privacy. Effective
housing reconstruction is essential to
restore affected communities’ dignity,
society, economy and cultural identity.
• Many humanitarian organisations assume
that the quickest and most effective way to
rebuild houses after a disaster is to employ
Gujarat
professional construction companies. At the
same time, however, there is growing
awareness of the limitations and risks of
the contractor-led approach. These
difficulties are encouraging other, more
A comparative analysis
participatory strategies.
Commissioned and published by the Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI
• This paper aims to contribute to this
discussion through an exploration of local
perceptions of housing reconstruction in the
aftermath of the earthquake that hit Gujarat
Jennifer Duyne Barenstein
in India on 26 January 2001. Through
comparative analysis, it explores five different
approaches: the owner-driven approach; the
subsidiary housing approach; the participatory
housing approach; the contractor-driven
approach in situ; and the contractor-driven
approach ex nihilo.
• While this paper covers Gujarat specifically,
its findings will be relevant for agencies
engaged in post-disaster housing
reconstruction in other contexts, for instance
in areas hit by the Indian Ocean tsunami and
in post-earthquake Kashmir.
About HPN
The Humanitarian Practice Network at the
Overseas Development Institute is an
independent forum where field workers,
managers and policymakers in the humanitarian
sector share information, analysis and experience.
The views and opinions expressed in HPN’s
publications do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the Humanitarian Policy Group or the
Overseas Development Institute.
Britain’s leading independent

think-tank on international development
and humanitarian issues
Overseas Development Institute

111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300

Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399
HPN e-mail: hpn@odi.org.uk

HPN website: www.odihpn.org
Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN)

London, SE1 7JD
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0331/74

Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Email: hpn@odi.org.uk
Website: www.odihpn.org
Printed and bound in the UK
About the author
Dr. Jennifer Duyne Barenstein is a senior lecturer and researcher at the Department of Social Anthropology of
the University of Zurich and at the Department for Environment, Construction and Design at the University
of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland.
The research team comprised Dr. Vijay Joshi, Swati Shrinivas Shinde, Dr. Yogesh Jadeja and Shailesh Vyas.
Dr. Vijay Joshi is an environmental engineer and head of environmental consulting operations at IL&FS
Ecosmart India (Mumbai). Swati Shrinivas Shinde is an architect and planner specialising in mass housing
projects. She works with IL&FS Ecosmart India. Dr. Yogesh Jadeja is a geo-hydrologist, specialising in water
resource management in arid and semi-arid areas. Shailesh Vyas is an agricultural scientist specialising in
agriculture and livestock-based livelihoods in arid and semi-arid areas. With Dr. Yogesh Jadeja, he is
co-founder of the Bhuj-based NGO Arid Communities and Technologies.
Acknowledgements
This report presents the findings of a research partnership between the Department of Environment,
Construction and Design of the University of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland, the Department of
Social Anthropology of the University of Zurich, IL&FS Ecosmart India (Mumbai) and Arid Communities and
Technologies (Bhuj). Funding by the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation and Swiss Solidarity is
gratefully acknowledged. We would also like to thank the numerous agencies which gave us access to their
project documents, and the hundreds of people in rural Gujarat who gave us their confidence, hospitality
and time in the course of our fieldwork.
ISBN: 0 85003 797 2

Price per copy: £4.00 (excluding postage and packing).
© Overseas Development Institute, London, 2006.
Photocopies of all or part of this publication may be made providing that the source is acknowledged. Requests
for the commercial reproduction of HPN material should be directed to the ODI as copyright holders. The Network
Coordinator would appreciate receiving details of the use of any of this material in training, research or
programme design, implementation or evaluation.
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page i
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Reconstruction approaches 1
Research methodology 2
Chapter 2 The owner-driven approach 5

The government’s owner-driven reconstruction programme 5
Issues, achievements and constraints 6
Chapter 3 The subsidiary housing approach 9

SHA’s subsidiary housing reconstruction programme 9
Chapter 4 The participatory housing approach 11

PHA’s participatory housing programme 11
Chapter 5 Contractor-driven reconstruction in situ 15

CODIS’ contractor-driven reconstruction programme 15
Chapter 6 Contractor-driven reconstruction ex nihilo 19

CODEN’s reconstruction programme 19
Chapter 7 Overall findings and conclusions 23
Annex 1 Checklist for village profiles 29

Annex 2 Household questionnaire survey 31
Bibliography 36
i
Network Papers 1995–2005

Network Papers are contributions on specific experiences or issues prepared either by HPN members
or contributing specialists.
1
14 The Impact of War and Atrocity on Civilian Populations: Basic 36 Food-security Assessments in Emergencies: A Livelihoods
Principles for NGO Interventions and a Critique of Approach by H. Young, S. Jaspars, R. Brown, J. Frize and
Psychosocial Trauma Projects by D. Summerfield (1996) H. Khogali (2001)
15 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: A Useful Tool for the Assessment 37 A Bridge Too Far: Aid Agencies and the Military in
and Evaluation of Relief Operations? by A. Hallam (1996) Humanitarian Response by J. Barry with A. Jefferys (2002)
16 The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda: 38 HIV/AIDS and Emergencies: Analysis and Recommend-
Study III ed. J. Borton (1996) ations for Practice by A. Smith (2002)
17 Monetisation: Linkages to Food Security? by J. Cekan, A. 39 Reconsidering the tools of war: small arms and humani-
MacNeil and S. Loegering (1996) tarian action by R. Muggah with M. Griffiths (2002)
18 Beyond Working in Conflict: Understanding Conflict and 40 Drought, Livestock and Livelihoods: Lessons from the
Building Peace (The CODEP Workshop Report), by 1999-2001 Emergency Response in the Pastoral Sector in
J. Bennett and M. Kayitesi Blewitt (1996) Kenya by Yacob Aklilu and Mike Wekesa (2002)
19 Human Rights and International Legal Standards: what relief 41 Politically Informed Humanitarian Programming: Using a
workers need to know by J. Darcy (1997) Political Economy Approach by Sarah Collinson (2002)
20 People in Aid Code of Best Practice in the Management and 42 The Role of Education in Protecting Children in Conflict by
Support of Aid Personnel ed. S. Davidson (1997) Susan Nicolai and Carl Triplehorn (2003)
21 Humanitarian Principles: The Southern Sudan Experience by 43 Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster by
I. Levine (1997) Sultan Barakat (2003)
22 The War Economy in Liberia: A Political Analysis by P. 44 Livelihoods and Protection: Displacement and Vulnerable
Atkinson (1997) Communities in Kismaayo, Southern Somalia by Simon
23 The Coordination of Humanitarian Action: the case of Sri Narbeth and Calum McLean (2003)
Lanka by K. Van Brabant (1997) 45 Reproductive Health for Conflict-affected People: Policies,
24 Reproductive Health for Displaced Populations by C. Research and Programmes by Therese McGinn et al. (2004)
Palmer (1998)
46 Humanitarian futures: practical policy perspectives by
25 Humanitarian Action in Protracted Crises: the new relief
Randolph Kent (2004)
‘agenda’ and its limits by D. Hendrickson (1998)
47 Missing the point: an analysis of food security interven-
26 The Food Economy Approach: a framework for under-
tions in the Great Lakes by S Levine and C Chastre with S
standing rural livelihoods by T. Boudreau (1998)
Ntububa, J MacAskill, S LeJeune, Y Guluma, J Acidri and A
27 Between Relief and Development: targeting food aid for
Kirkwood
disaster prevention in Ethiopia by K. Sharp (1998)
48 Community-based therapeutic care: a new paradigm for
28 North Korea: The Politics of Food Aid by J. Bennett (1999)
selective feeding in nutritional crises by Steve Collins
29 Participatory Review in Chronic Instability: The Experience
49 Disaster preparedness programmes in India: a cost bene-
of the IKAFE Refugee Settlement Programme, Uganda by
K. Neefjes (1999) fit analysis by Courtenay Cabot Venton and Paul Venton
30 Protection in Practice: Field Level Strategies for Protecting (2004)
Civilians from Deliberate Harm by D. Paul (1999) 50 Cash relief in a contested area: lessons from Somalia by
31 The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Well- Degan Ali, Fanta Toure, Tilleke Kiewied (2005)
being by R. Garfield (1999) 51 Humanitarian engagement with non-state armed actors:
32 Humanitarian Mine Action: The First Decade of a New the parameters of negotiated armed access by Max Glaser
Sector in Humanitarian Aid by C. Horwood (2000) (2005)
33 The Political Economy of War: What Relief Agencies Need 52 Interpreting and using mortaility data in humanitarian
to Know by P. Le Billon (2000) emergencies: a primer by Francesco Checchi and Les
34 NGO Responses to Hurricane Mitch: Evaluations for Roberts (2005)
Accountability and Learning by F. Grunewald, V. de 53 Protecting and assisting older people in emergencies by Jo
Geoffroy & S. Lister (2000) Wells (2005)
35 Cash Transfers in Emergencies: Evaluating Benefits and 54 Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat:
Assessing Risks by D. Peppiatt, J. Mitchell and a comparative analysis by Jennifer Duyne Barenstein
P. Holzmann (2001) (2006)
Good Practice Reviews

Good Practice Reviews are major, peer-reviewed contributions to humanitarian practice. They are produced periodically.
1 Water and Sanitation in Emergencies by A. Chalinder (1994) 6 Temporary Human Settlement Planning for Displaced
2 Emergency Supplementary Feeding Programmes by J. Populations in Emergencies by A. Chalinder (1998)
Shoham (1994) 7 The Evaluation of Humanitarian Assistance Programmes in
3 General Food Distribution in Emergencies: from Nutritional Complex Emergencies by A. Hallam (1998)
Needs to Political Priorities by S. Jaspars and H. Young (1996) 8 Operational Security Management in Violent
4 Seed Provision During and After Emergencies by the ODI Environments by K. Van Brabant (2000)
Seeds and Biodiversity Programme (1996) 9 Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness in
5 Counting and Identification of Beneficiary Populations in Development and Emergency Programming by John
Emergency Operations: Registration and its Alternatives by Twigg (2004)
J. Telford (1997)
A full list of HPN publications is available at the HPN website: www.odihpn.org. To order HPN publications,
contact hpn@odi.org.uk.
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page ii
Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat
List of figures and tables

Figure 1: Map of Gujarat by earthquake zones 3
Table 1: Satisfaction with owner-driven reconstruction 6
Table 2: Positive and negative housing features mentioned by self-built house owners 7
Table 3: Satisfaction with subsidiary housing reconstruction 9
Table 4: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in SHA villages 10
Table 5: Satisfaction with participatory housing 12
Table 6: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in the PHA village 12
Table 7: Satisfaction with contractor-driven reconstruction in situ 16
Table 8: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in the CODIS village 17
Table 9: Satisfaction with contractor-driven reconstruction ex nihilo 20
Table 10: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in CODEN villages 20
Table 11: Perceptions of housing and socio-economic situation (%) 24
Table 12: Satisfaction with different reconstruction approaches: overall findings 24
Table 13: Number of dwellings before and after the earthquake by housing reconstruction 25
approach
Currency
100 Indian Rupees (Rs) = UK£1.20 = US$2.30 (January 2005)
ii
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
The dwelling is more than the materials from which it is reconstruction, but the community is also involved in the
made, the labour that has gone into its construction, or process. In particular, the so-called ‘owner-driven’ or ‘cash-
the time and money that may have been expanded on it; based’ model is attracting increasing attention, including
the dwelling is the theatre of our lives, where the major from leading international agencies like the World Bank. In
drama of birth and death, of procreation and recreation, this approach, people reconstruct their houses themselves;
of labour and of being in labour are played out and in the role of external agencies is limited to the provision of
which a succession of scenes of daily lives is perpetually financial and technical assistance. Owner-driven reconstruc-
enacted.1 tion has a number of advantages over contractor-led
approaches: it is more cost-effective, building may be
Besides human casualties, one of the most visible and incremental, allowing occupancy before the house is fully
striking effects of any major disaster is the destruction of finished, and occupancy rates tend to be significantly higher.
houses. Loss of housing destroys livelihoods, protection
and privacy. Effective housing reconstruction is essential to There is a growing body of literature concerned with the
restore affected communities’ dignity, society, economy advantages and risks of different approaches to post-
and cultural identity. disaster housing reconstruction.2 This paper aims to
contribute to this discussion through an exploration of
Humanitarian agencies engaging in post-disaster housing local perceptions of housing reconstruction in the
reconstruction confront a number of key questions. Should aftermath of the earthquake that hit Gujarat in India on 26
they provide temporary, semi-permanent or permanent January 2001. The earthquake was India’s most severe
housing? Should they offer financial, material and/or natural disaster for almost 300 years. At least 20,000
technical support? Should they bring in ready-made people were killed and over 167,000 severely injured. An
shelters, or should they involve disaster-affected people in estimated 344,000 houses were destroyed, and over a
construction? What housing technologies should be million damaged. More than 7,600 villages and towns were
promoted or adopted? Should new materials and building damaged, and over 300 villages flattened; hospitals,
techniques be introduced, or should projects build upon health centres, schools and water and irrigation systems
locally available knowledge and resources? Should collapsed. Although 21 of Gujarat’s 25 districts sustained
agencies support self-help housing reconstruction, recruit some level of damage, over 90% of deaths and an
local labour, encourage homeowners’ participation or estimated 85% of assets lost were in Kachch, the state’s
engage a professional construction company? largest, and also one of its poorest, districts.
Ideally, these questions are answered according to a Gujarat was selected for three main reasons. First, in terms of
thorough contextual analysis, based on what is most the number of damaged houses and the area affected, the
appropriate in the specific economic, socio-cultural, earthquake constituted an extremely severe and widespread
technological, political and institutional context. In practice, disaster. Second, it marked the first time that owner-driven
however, approaches may also be determined by factors approaches to housing reconstruction were implemented on
such as the agency’s available resources, overall mandate, a truly large scale, with the government of Gujarat supporting
experience, capacity and preferences. As a result, within the the own-build reconstruction or repair of over a million
same disaster context different agencies may adopt very homes. Third, the presence of a large number of national and
different reconstruction approaches. international non-governmental agencies and private
corporations, and the application of a range of approaches,
Many humanitarian organisations assume that the quickest from the contractor-driven reconstruction of entire villages to
and most effective way to rebuild houses after a disaster is to targeted material assistance to specific communities,
employ professional construction companies. At the same provided an opportunity for a comparative analysis of the
time, however, there is growing awareness of the limitations merits and drawbacks of different techniques and strategies.
and risks of the contractor-led approach. Contractor-built
reconstruction may lead to housing that does not respond to While this paper covers Gujarat specifically, its findings will
the cultural or social needs of disaster-affected communities. be relevant for agencies engaged in post-disaster housing
An emphasis on safety – increasing earthquake resilience, for reconstruction in other contexts, for instance in areas
instance – may see the introduction of modern technologies affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami and in post-
and construction materials that may be inappropriate to the earthquake Kashmir.
local environment, and may make subsequent repairs and
maintenance difficult or impossible. Reconstruction approaches
These difficulties are encouraging other, more participatory The bulk of the reconstruction work after the earthquake
strategies, whereby agencies retain a leading role in was carried out by the Gujarat government under the Gujarat
1
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 2
Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction Project

(GEERP). The government also invited national
and international governmental, non-govern-
mental and private sector organisations to take
part in the reconstruction effort by ‘adopting’
affected villages under a public–private
partnership arrangement. In all, 75 agencies
took over the full reconstruction of 272 villages,
most of them in Kachch. Other NGOs offered
reconstruction assistance without formally
adopting a full village, or provided full housing
©Jennifer Duyne Barenstein

to specific target groups.
The chapters that follow discuss five different

housing reconstruction approaches employed
in Gujarat.
• The owner-driven approach. The owner-

driven approach enables communities to
Participatory mapping
undertake building work themselves, with
external financial, material and technical
assistance. Owner-driven reconstruction does not • The contractor-driven approach ex nihilo. As above, this
necessarily imply that owners build the house on their approach uses professional building contractors. The
own, but that, within given building codes, they retain difference between the in situ and ex nihilo approaches
full control over the housing reconstruction process. This is that, in the latter, the entire village is rebuilt on a new
approach was used by the government of Gujarat within site. The approach was adopted by a large national NGO,
the framework of the GEERP. Under the GEERP, almost which this paper refers to as ‘CODEN’. With international
200,000 houses – some 87% of destroyed homes – were funding or in partnership with international NGOs,
rebuilt by their owners, with financial and technical CODEN rebuilt 11 villages, totalling 2,250 houses, plus
assistance from the government. communal infrastructure.
• The subsidiary housing approach. Under the subsidiary
housing approach, agencies do not engage directly in The implications of the comparative analysis of these five
housing reconstruction. Instead, they adopt a facilitatory approaches for humanitarian agencies concerned with
role, providing additional material and technical help post-disaster housing reconstruction are outlined in
within the framework of government assistance. This Chapter 7.
paper focuses on the work of one local NGO offering
housing assistance in seven villages in Rapar Taluka in This paper focuses on the provision of permanent housing
Kachch district. The paper refers to this NGO as ‘SHA’.* after the earthquake, and so does not discuss semi-
• The participatory housing approach. Under this permanent shelters. Semi-permanent housing constituted an
approach, agencies assume a leading role in housing important part of the housing response after the disaster (in
reconstruction, while involving home-owners in the the first year after the earthquake, some 65,000 semi-
planning, design and reconstruction of the house. This permanent shelters were built in around 750 villages).
paper focuses on the participatory housing programme However, the reconstruction approach used is not
implemented by an important Gujarati NGO, referred to comparable with housing assistance projects design to
here as ‘PHA’. PHA identified 30 villages for replace or repair permanent structures, and so is excluded
reconstruction, totalling some 3,000 houses. from the analysis.
• The contractor-driven approach in situ. This approach
involves tasking a professional building contractor to Research methodology
design and build the houses. By in situ, we mean that
houses are rebuilt on the same sites occupied before The information on which this paper is based was gathered
the disaster. Typically, designs, materials and expertise through in-depth research in eight villages, and
are imported from outside the target community. The Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) in another 13. Twelve
case study of the in situ approach described in this villages were in Kachch district, two in Patan district and
paper focuses on a large national NGO, which we call seven in Jamnagar district. All the research sites were rural,
‘CODIS’. With international funding or in partnership which means that the study’s findings may not necessarily
with international NGOs, CODIS rebuilt 11 villages, be applicable to urban areas. Village names are not given.
totalling around 3,000 houses. The project was financed by the Swiss Agency for
Development Cooperation and Swiss Solidarity, and the
*Since the aim of this project was not to evaluate the performance of research looked at housing reconstruction projects
specific agencies, agencies’ real names are not given. implemented with Swiss Solidarity funding.
2
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 3
Chapter 1 Introduction
Figure 1
Map of Gujarat by earthquake zones
Banas Kantha
Kachchh
Patan Mahesana Sabar
Kantha
Gandhinagar
Panch
Ahmedabad
Surendranagar Kheda Mahals
Dohad
Anand
Jamngar Vadodara
Rajkot
Narmada
Bharuch
Porbandar Amreli Bhavnagar
Earthquake zone area Junagadh
Surat
II
III Navsari The
Dangs
IV
Valsad
V
In-depth study villages
PRA villages
The research was undertaken in two phases between involved a household survey in six villages, covering a
October 2004 and March 2005, by which time the bulk of random sample of 15% of households (totalling 434 face-
the reconstruction work had been completed. Phase 1 to-face interviews). A research checklist and research
sought to capture individual and collective views about the questionnaire are in Annexes 1 and 2.
impact of the earthquake via semi-structured interviews
with key informants and stratified samples of men and Whereas many project evaluations tend to give more space
women, focus groups, village walk-throughs, observation, to agencies’ experiences and perspectives, we deliberately
participatory mapping of village and community focused on citizens’ perspectives. Our aim was to find out
infrastructures before and after the earthquake and the how different categories of people articulated their views
detailed participatory assessment of housing designs, and experiences, and to avoid mediation or filtering of
construction materials and construction quality. Phase 2 these views by project staff.
3
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 4
4
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 5
Chapter 2
The owner-driven approach
An extensive review of different post-disaster

housing reconstruction approaches by Sultan
Barakat points to a number of advantages
associated with owner-driven approaches to
housing reconstruction.3 The most tangible
benefits are that the costs may be lower,
building may be incremental, allowing
occupancy before the house is fully finished,
and occupancy rates tend to be higher. There

are also a number of intangible benefits.
Encouraging the active participation of disaster-
affected communities in the reconstruction of
their homes may be a useful way of restoring a
sense of pride and well-being in people who
have been through a trauma. Building activities
provide structure to the day, and can keep large
numbers of community members gainfully An owner-built house in Rapar Taluka (Kachch district)
occupied. An owner-driven approach allows
people to reconstruct their houses according to
their own preferences and requirements, and may urban areas.6 The government’s relocation policy was
strengthen local building capacities. With adequate financial based on the one followed by the government of
and technical assistance, self-built houses are likely to be Maharashtra after the earthquake there in 1993. However,
more sustainable. People, if given an option, tend to choose whereas in Maharashtra there appeared to be a consensus
building materials and techniques that are familiar to them. around relocation, this was not the case in Gujarat, and it
Accordingly, they may be in a better position to provide for met with stiff public resistance. It also ran counter to the
future additions and repairs. Finally, an owner-driven preference of the main funder, the World Bank, which
approach may contribute to preserving the local whenever possible avoids financing reconstruction
architectural heritage and vernacular housing styles, approaches based on relocation. The policy was
features fundamental to a community’s cultural identity. In abandoned, and the government instead adopted an
particular, in relation to the devastating experience of a ‘owner-driven’ reconstruction approach under the aegis of
disaster, it is important to give people some sense of the GEERP. The GEERP, largely funded by the World Bank,
continuity.4 included the provision of financial and technical assistance
and subsidised construction materials to enable people to
An owner-driven approach also entails some risks and rebuild their homes themselves.
drawbacks. It raises questions about the degree of
assistance more vulnerable sections of the community Almost three-quarters (72%) of villages took advantage of
should receive to enable them to engage in reconstruction. the GEERP and opted to reconstruct their own houses.
People may be too busy pursuing their livelihood activities Under the programme, over 197,000 houses,
to spare the time to participate in or supervise corresponding to approximately 87% of destroyed homes,
construction work. Safety may be a concern where were rebuilt by their owners. This made it the biggest
traditional construction practices are held responsible for housing reconstruction programme ever undertaken, both
large numbers of collapsed buildings. These risks can be in terms of the number of houses and geographic area. The
overcome through the introduction of building codes and Gujarat experience was also the first time in history that
adequate technical assistance.5 owner-driven reconstruction was facilitated by a
government through financial, material and technical
The government’s owner-driven assistance on such a large scale.7
reconstruction programme
Financial assistance to homeowners was based on housing
In the wake of the earthquake, the government of Gujarat type and size, and on the level of damage. Compensation for
constituted the Gujarat State Disaster Management destroyed houses ranged from a minimum of Rs40,000 to a
Authority (GSDMA). The GSDMA’s rehabilitation policy maximum of Rs90,000. Assistance in the case of damaged
included relocating most affected villages; assistance for houses ranged from Rs3,000 to Rs30,000. In order to
the in situ reconstruction of severely affected villages; help establish the amount of compensation due, the government
with repairs and reconstruction in less damaged areas; and undertook systematic damage assessment surveys, carried
assistance for the reconstruction of modern buildings in out by a team comprising a government engineer, an official
5
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 6
of the Panchayat (the local government) and a

representative of a local NGO. Photographs were
taken of each damaged house.
Financial assistance was disbursed in three

instalments. The first, comprising 40% of the
total, was paid at the preparatory stage, the
second upon completion of the walls and the
remaining 20% once the house was finished.
The second and third instalments were only
disbursed after verification and certification by

government engineers. Civil engineers were
placed in all villages to provide guidance and
to supervise construction, and a massive
training programme was implemented for
masons and engineers, accompanied by
information and education campaigns on
hazard-resistant construction.
An owner-built house in Bhuj (Kachch district)

The main reconstruction materials were bricks,
stones and wood, and many people managed
to recycle material salvaged from their former homes. Most earthquake circumstances. Our findings with regard to
housing followed vernacular designs and spatial overall satisfaction are consistent with those of another
arrangements, although there was also room for some survey carried out in 59 villages.8 This revealed that 91.5%
innovation, such as the introduction of flat roofing. of owners of self-built houses were satisfied. Three-
Individuals were also able to adapt their homes to suit quarters of respondents said that they would choose
their livelihood activities, such as cottage industries, owner reconstruction in the event of a future disaster.
farming and animal husbandry.
Damage assessments and financial assistance
Issues, achievements and constraints
The majority of people were satisfied with the government’s
Beneficiary satisfaction
damage assessment survey, and also with the financial
Our household survey covered 136 households in five support they received (albeit a second survey was required
villages that opted for self-reconstruction with government following many complaints about the initial one). We visited
assistance. The majority of people were happy with their several poor and remote communities, but found no
new houses. This is shown in Table 1, which indicates that, evidence of discrimination against minorities or socially
on average, 94.5% of households were fully satisfied, and disadvantaged groups, though some people mentioned that
a large percentage could find no faults with their new they had to pay some ‘speed money’ (under 5% of the total
homes (as shown in Table 2). Satisfaction was highest financial compensation) to ensure the timely release of
among those who obtained the minimum government funds.
compensation of Rs40,000 (given to those whose dwelling
was classified as a ‘fully damaged hut’) because the value One criticism that was raised regarding the government’s
of the pre-earthquake house was usually below this compensation scheme was that people received assistance
amount, which meant that the compensation was based on what they had lost, rather than on what they
sufficient to improve their housing situation over their pre- needed. After the earthquake, there were lively debates
Table 1: Satisfaction with owner-driven reconstruction (%; N=136)

Satisfaction with: Village 1 Village 2 Village 3 Village 4 Village 5 Average
House location 100% 99% 95% 100% 100% 99%
House size 83 86 95 96 100 90
Quality of materials 100 92 95 96 100 94
Construction quality 100 94 95 96 100 95
Average 95.75 92.75 95.00 97.00 100 94.50

Source: Household survey, December 2004–February 2005.
Note: All houses in village six were contractor-built, whereas in the other five villages some people rebuilt houses themselves with government support, or
with their own resources.
6
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 7
Chapter 2 The owner-driven approach
Table 2: Positive and negative housing features mentioned by self-built house owners (%; N=136)
Village 1 Village 2 Village 3 Village 4 Village 5
Positive features
Earthquake-resistant housing 78% 90% 100% 67% 71%
House is commensurate with rural lifestyle 4 5
Availability of storage space 5 4
Future upgrading is feasible 5
Plastering is provided 8
Wooden doors and windows are provided 14
Flat slab roof is provided 14
Negative features
No negative features 56 52 40 57
No compound wall 50
External kitchen not provided or is too small 8 16
Cracks in the house 5 16
Inadequate storage space 19 12
Leakage in roof and walls 5
House does not have Chali (veranda) 14
No colour-wash provided 17 14
Source: Household survey, December 2004–February 2005
between the government, civil society organisations and Construction quality

international agencies over whether the government should
shift to a more supportive policy which sought to help Our detailed observations of owner-reconstructed houses
people according to their economic capacity.9 This debate indicate that the quality of construction in most cases was
reflects the growing recognition that better-off households good, and that the houses were seismically safe. High-quality
face higher losses in disasters for the simple fact that they construction was achieved thanks to strict building codes
own more. However, thanks to their social and economic and good technical assistance and supervision. The
capital they are less vulnerable to the long-term negative disbursement of financial assistance in tranches also helped
impacts that often lead to the irreversible impoverishment of to ensure good construction quality and seismic safety.
poorer households.10 Although the government did not Owners of self-built houses showed a high level of awareness
accede to pressure to change its compensation policy, the of seismically safe construction, and were familiar with
minimum level of help on offer – Rs40,000 – was enough to retrofitting techniques through steel bands and gable bands.
build a new, seismically safe small house that constituted an
improvement on pre-earthquake housing for this group. Cultural and environmental sensitivity
Another problem with the government’s compensation People were familiar with the main reconstruction materials,
policy was that households that were not formally and the use of vernacular designs and spatial arrangements
registered with the Panchayat were not entitled to any ensured that villages reconstructed with government
compensation. We could not find any statistical data to financial assistance maintained their traditional character.
quantify this problem, but in each village a certain number
of households were affected, particularly in poor Targeting vulnerable groups
communities in remote areas, semi-nomadic groups and
newly migrated people. From the government’s point of The government’s housing programme did not take
view, not providing compensation for houses that officially account of the special needs of particularly vulnerable
did not exist may have been logical, but in practice it meant individuals or groups who may not have had the capacity
that vulnerable people in particular were left without any to undertake building work themselves, or to manage and
financial or technical help. supervise the building process. The inhabitants of one of
7
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 8
the villages in which we conducted a PRA had never had described in the next chapter may be one way to overcome
the resources to construct high-quality dwellings, and these limitations.
hence lacked construction experience. Out of 19 house-
holds in the village, nine turned to a local contractor, who Repairing and retrofitting damaged houses
did very poor-quality work. As the first instalment of
government assistance was not enough to allow them to The government’s housing restoration effort mainly
progress work to the point where the next instalment could concentrated on the reconstruction of destroyed homes.
be released, they received no more money. As a Much less attention was given to the repair and retrofitting
consequence, their present housing situation is still very of damaged buildings. This bias towards the reconstruction
poor. Although our research supports these observations of new houses marked not only the government’s housing
in only one village, they suggest one potentially serious programme, but also – even more so – the programmes
risk of owner-driven approaches; the subsidiary approach implemented by most NGOs.
8
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 9
Chapter 3
The subsidiary housing approach
Several NGOs in Gujarat adopted a

subsidiary housing approach.
These NGOs, which were active in
livelihood programmes targeting
disadvantaged communities before
the earthquake, did not engage
directly in housing reconstruction,
but instead assumed a subsidiary
role, complementing government

compensation with additional
material and technical assistance,
within the framework of the
government’s housing reconstruc-
tion programme. Essentially, these
agencies were concerned to ensure
that communities facing a pre-
carious housing situation before An SHA house in Rapar Taluka (Kachch district)
the earthquake were assisted in
claiming and using the government
compensation they were entitled to under the government’s reconstruction assistance. SHA’s housing reconstruction
reconstruction scheme. In the context of Gujarat, this assistance was embedded in livelihood projects focusing
approach appears to have been an effective way of improving on sustainable agricultural development, and water
the housing conditions of disadvantaged communities, and resource development for irrigation and domestic use. SHA
strengthening their livelihoods. also engaged in drilling wells, re-excavating ponds,
constructing contour bunds and distributing seeds and
SHA’s subsidiary housing reconstruction agricultural implements.
programme
Issues, achievements and constraints
This case study focuses on an NGO (called ‘SHA’) which
offered post-earthquake housing assistance to seven
remote hamlets in Rapar Taluka (Kachch district), inhabited As shown in Table 3, the level of satisfaction among
by a total of 270 households. Our research looked citizens that benefited from housing assistance under this
specifically at two remote hamlets, and our survey covered approach was very high. Furthermore, all households
a sample of 21 households. The NGO provided construction considered their present housing situation to be better
materials worth Rs25,000 per household and some than it was prior to the earthquake. Since the housing
technical guidance. Approximately 20% of the households assistance received from the NGO was in addition to
in these villages were not entitled to any government government compensation, it is not surprising that this
compensation because their dwellings were not officially approach scored slightly better than the government-
registered. To these households, SHA offered full housing supported, owner-driven reconstruction programme.
Table 3: Satisfaction with subsidiary housing reconstruction (%)

Subsidiary approach (N=21) Full NGO reconstruction (N=6) Average
Satisfaction with: No. % No. %
House location 20 95 5 83 89
House size 20 95 4 67 81
Quality of materials 20 95 6 100 97.5
Construction quality 20 95 6 100 97.5
Average 20 95 5.25 97 91.25

Source: Household survey, January–February 2005
Note: The NGO constructed complete houses for six households covered by our survey because they were not entitled to government compensation.
9
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 10
Targeting vulnerable communities Construction quality
The communities in which SHA worked were very poor The quality of construction in these villages was comparable
and remote: 96% of the inhabitants of the two hamlets with the quality of construction under the owner-driven
covered by our research belong to the Koli community, housing reconstruction approach. Most people were
one of the most deprived groups in Gujarat. Most are satisfied with the quality of construction.
engaged in seasonal migration, finding employment in
the production of coal or salt. Their housing conditions Overcompensation
prior to the earthquake were very poor; nearly 22% of
households in these hamlets would not have been SHA assumed that people belonging to minorities and
entitled to any compensation because their houses were underprivileged groups would be neglected by the
not registered. SHA directly engaged in housing government. This turned out to be less of a problem than
reconstruction for these households, adopting a expected. In fact, with the financial compensation they
participatory housing approach by involving house received from the government plus NGO support, many
owners in construction. However, people had no major families managed to construct two houses, with the result
say in the design and size of the house. Our research that, in the hamlets covered by SHA, there were almost
(shown in Table 4) indicates that SHA performed better in double the number of houses than before the earthquake.
supporting self-built housing than when it assumed a Nevertheless, it was found that 100% of the houses were
leading role in construction, reconfirming people’s occupied, which indicates that improving the housing
preference for owner-driven reconstruction. situation in these communities was a necessity.
Table 4: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in SHA villages (%)
Positive features Material support only (N=21) Provision of full house (N=6)
Earthquake-resistant 90 67
Commensurate with rural lifestyle 5 –
Possible future up-grading 5 –
Flat roof 17
Negative features
No negative features 52 50
Insufficient storage space 19 33
Leakage from roof and walls 5
Not earthquake-resistant 17
10
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 11
Chapter 4
The participatory housing approach
Our third case study looks at the participatory

housing approach adopted by an important
Gujarati NGO (referred to here as ‘PHA’). Most
NGOs involved in housing reconstruction in
Gujarat claimed to follow a participatory
approach. What that meant, however, varied
significantly. For some agencies, ‘participation’
involved discussing reconstruction plans with
the village elite, without offering even these
selected citizens the opportunity to put forward
alternatives. Others adopted a participatory

approach in the finalisation of house designs,
but allowed no further involvement by
communities once designs had been approved.
Still others called their approach ‘participatory’
when what they meant was that they expected
free labour from house owners.
This paper defines participatory housing as an A PHA house in Patan District

approach in which the NGO, although assuming
a leading role in housing reconstruction, does
not engage a professional contractor and gives a major the emphasis was on traditional techniques, some
emphasis to involving house owners in project planning, innovations were introduced, such as a roof rainwater
housing design and construction. This approach can be seen harvesting system connected to an underground water
as a pragmatic compromise between the owner-driven storage tank, plywood ceiling insulation for heat protection
approach and the contractor-driven approach. and mosquito screens. The total cost of PHA’s core house
including toilet and water tank was Rs47,000, 15% above
PHA’s participatory housing programme the minimum financial compensation offered by the
government. Many people who received housing assistance
PHA had experience in providing low-cost housing for from PHA also benefited from government compensation.
disadvantaged communities prior to the earthquake. After
the earthquake, it carried out its own damage and needs Besides housing, PHA also restored community infrastruc-
assessment, identifying 30 villages for reconstruction, ture, such as check-dams (small dams built across a stream
totalling 3,000 homes. Our case study covers one village in to create a small water reservoir), ponds and wells, and built
Patan district, where PHA rebuilt 457 houses. Before the community centres. As with the housing programme, a
earthquake, the village had comprised about 500 mud- participatory approach was adopted: each scheme was
built houses, meaning that the NGO rebuilt about 90% of proposed by the community, which had to contribute 10% of
the pre-earthquake housing stock. PHA had been active in the total cost through the provision of free labour.
the village for about eight years prior to the earthquake,
focusing on women’s empowerment and micro-credit to Issues, achievements and constraints
promote income-generating activities.
PHA targeted poorer households on the ground that they The level of satisfaction among people who received
could not rely on sufficient government compensation to housing assistance from PHA was high. All completed
restore or improve their housing on their own. It opted for houses were inhabited, and 91% of house owners reported
traditional local construction techniques and materials that their housing situation was better than it had been
(stone walls with cement mortar and tiled roofs), and trained before the earthquake. Many families added an additional
and employed local labourers. Beneficiaries were involved in room to the core unit, indicating that the concept of core
finalising designs, and house owners were expected to housing was well understood and accepted. People were
contribute labour throughout the construction period. also generally appreciative of some of the innovations the
Particular emphasis was given to training women. The agency introduced. Latrines, which virtually no one had
agency provided an extendable core unit consisting of a before the earthquake, were considered ‘very useful’ by
living space of 20m2, plus sanitary facilities (a single-pit 59% of house owners, and 97% of the house holders that
pour-flush latrine), to which people could add additional were given them were pleased with the underground tanks
rooms as their needs and circumstances allowed. Although that the agency built. Training ensured that people were
11
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 12
aware that the tank needed to be disinfected

regularly. Given the arid climate, very few
people thought the roof rainwater harvesting
system was useful, and none of the self-built
houses in the village had similar structures.
Cultural and environmental sensitivity
The design and construction materials used by

PHA were based on a deep appreciation of the
functionality of vernacular housing and of the

importance of ensuring continuity through cul-
turally and environmentally sensitive design and
building techniques. PHA proved that seismic
safety can be achieved without the introduction
of new building materials and techniques, and is
not incompatible with traditional housing styles.
PHA also showed sensitivity to health problems
caused by local climatic conditions, adding new
elements such as mosquito screens and An owner-built house (left) and a PHA house (right)
measures to insulate against the heat.
easier. Cost-sharing arrangements in cash, kind or labour
Compulsory labour contribution in construction also increase people’s control over NGOs, and hence NGO
accountability.
There are a number of arguments against handing over to
disaster victims ready-made houses without asking them to PHA proved that it is possible to expect a labour
make any contribution. The provision of completely free contribution even from relatively poor communities, and
housing increases external dependency and undermines from men as well as women. If house owners were busy,
local initiative. Making a contribution of free labour as a they found a relative or a neighbour to take their place.
condition for obtaining a house discourages people who do This made the construction of private housing into a
not really need one to apply. Involving family labour in collective activity, and appeared to reinforce community
construction enhances the sense of ownership, improves ties. We found that even old widows and female-headed
quality control and makes future maintenance and repair households were able to make a contribution.
Table 5: Satisfaction with participatory housing (N=65)

PHA (N=54) Owner-driven approach (ODA) (N=25)
House location 52 96 25 100
House size 46 85 24 96
Quality of materials 50 93 24 96
Construction quality 50 93 24 96
Average 49.5 91.75 24.25 97.00

Table 6: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in the PHA village (%; N=65)
Positive features Negative features
Earthquake-resistant house 80 No compound wall 48
Kitchen is provided outside 9 Insufficient storage space 24
Plywood heat insulation on the ceiling 22 Small size 9
Wooden doors and windows 15 Poor-quality flooring 11
12
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 13
Chapter 4 The participatory housing approach
Training dams, which considerably improved the village’s

precarious water supply. PHA supported community
PHA organised a comprehensive training programme in infrastructure development projects identified by the
masonry skills for both men and women. This ensured high villagers themselves. The donation of free labour for
construction quality and seismic safety even in self-built collective goods, known locally as sramdan, is deeply
houses. Training was appreciated because it enhanced the rooted in the local culture, and was effectively revitalised
employment opportunities, skills and wage-earning by PHA.
capacity of formerly unskilled labourers. The construction
sector in Patan district, as in the rest of India, is booming, Overcompensation
and the demand for skilled construction labour remained
high even four years after the earthquake. Because PHA did not formally ‘adopt’ the village we looked
at in our research, people received PHA housing assistance
Mobilising local resources for community development without having to give up their government compensation.
However, rather than building a separate house with their
Another achievement of PHA was its success in getting government assistance, people generally used the money
villagers to participate in restoring village ponds and to add to the core unit provided by PHA.
13
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 14
14
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 15
Chapter 5
Contractor-driven reconstruction in situ
The fourth reconstruction approach used in

Gujarat is referred to here as ‘contractor-driven
reconstruction in situ’. Here, the task of housing
reconstruction is given to a professional
construction company, and housing design,
construction materials and expertise are often
brought in from outside the target community.
The contractor-driven approach is generally
chosen because it is considered the easiest and
quickest way of providing housing and re-
establishing normality after a disaster.11 Using

construction companies allows for the relatively
rapid construction of large numbers of houses
with standard specifications, using staff with
technical expertise and specialist skills. This
approach may be the best solution in contexts
where knowledge of construction is limited to
professionals, and where there is no tradition of
community self-building. However, it also has An incomplete CODIS house used for fodder storage
several important drawbacks. As Barakat points
out, large-scale contracted construction tends
to adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, which means that the CODIS’ contractor-driven reconstruction
specific housing needs of individual communities are not programme
met, and diversity within the community is not taken into Our case study concerns a large national NGO (which we
consideration.12 call ‘CODIS’) that took over the full reconstruction of over
3,000 houses in 11 villages. The research presented here
In Gujarat, contractor-driven building was used by large covers one village near Bhuj, in which the NGO
national or international NGOs and private corporations, reconstructed a total of 799 houses. CODIS provided
which ‘adopted’ villages within the framework of the houses with a reinforced concrete cement (RCC) frame
government’s regulated public–private partnership structure, using hollow cement blocks as walling material
programme. Although agencies that opt for contractor- and flat RCC roofing. Construction work was given to a
driven reconstruction tend to prefer to construct new Delhi-based contractor through a formal tendering
villages on clear ground, public pressure meant that most procedure, and the firm imported its own labour. Local
rebuilding was done on existing sites (hence ‘in situ’). participation in construction was not mandatory, but some
households supervised the construction of
their house and participated in curing the
concrete.
According to CODIS’ initial survey, the village

required 535 houses, but this was later
declared incorrect, and an additional 264
houses were built. Like most agencies that
adopted villages within the framework of the
public–private partnership programme, CODIS
built houses in three different sizes: 381
houses of 25m2, 127 of 34.5m2 and 27 houses
of 37m2. CODIS met the full cost of the
smallest type of house (estimated at

Rs85,000). People who opted for a larger
house had to pay the balance of the additional
cost with the first instalment of government
compensation.
For each house size, CODIS proposed three or

Incomplete and unoccupied CODIS houses four slightly different designs, giving people
15
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 16
the option to choose, for

example, between having either
a veranda or an additional
room. Villagers could view
models of the proposed houses
in the village school, and could
give their feedback before the
design was finalised. This led
for example to dropping the
idea of constructing sanitary
latrines inside the house.
CODIS also encouraged the use
of existing doors, window shut-
ters and frames that survived

the earthquake, to reduce costs
and to achieve some continuity
with pre-disaster housing.
Issues, achievements
and constraints
Our research showed that the An upgraded CODIS house
majority of beneficiaries were
satisfied with the housing they
received under the CODIS programme: 74% of households stemmed from a lack of water for adequate curing of the
considered that their housing situation was better than RCC constructions, leading walls to crack. However, our
before the earthquake, and 71.6% expressed overall respondents believed that the contractor produced poor-
satisfaction with their housing situation. Most people were quality work in an effort to maximise profits.
satisfied with the location and size of the house. The flat
roof was an innovative feature, and was used by CODIS set up a village committee to supervise the
beneficiaries to store or dry items. Several house owners building work, and encouraged house owners to monitor
liked the fact that their homes had the potential for up- the contractor. However, this turned out to be a difficult
grading. Some reported that they planned to add a second task, and villagers could do little to influence the
floor, indicating that the basic CODIS units lent themselves company. Almost a third of beneficiaries complained of
well to people’s incremental approach to housing. leaking roofs, and a quarter were unhappy with the quality
of their doors and windows. Latrines were particularly
Construction quality problematic, and 36% of households did not consider
them useful at all. This low acceptance stemmed partly
A significant proportion (36%) of house owners were not from the small size of the septic tank. The waterproof
satisfied with the quality of the materials used, and 31% paint that was supposed to be applied to walls and
were unhappy about the quality of construction. These ceilings, and for which CODIS had obtained the necessary
figures compare poorly with the 100% satisfaction rating funds, had in most cases not been applied. Most of the
among people in the same village who had opted for additional 264 houses built in the second round of
owner-driven reconstruction. In part, poor construction construction were unoccupied and of significantly inferior
Table 7: Satisfaction with contractor-driven reconstruction in situ (N=166)

CODIS Owner-driven reconstruction
House location 152 95 6 100
House size 143 89 5 83
Quality of materials 102 64 6 100
Construction quality 111 69 6 100
Average 127 79.25 5.75 95.75

16
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 17
Chapter 5 Contractor-driven reconstruction in situ
quality; many were not completed. This additional particularly low in the neighbourhoods belonging to the Ahir
construction also led to some families owning as many as (farming) community, which constitutes 45% of the village
six houses. In all, there were 67% more houses in the population. Furthermore, as people had given up govern-
village after the CODIS programme than there had been ment compensation in favour of CODIS housing, they had to
prior to the earthquake. reconstruct their wadi houses without external financial and
technical assistance.
Bias towards accessible and better-off
communities Village layout and communal spaces
Contractors are reluctant to work in small remote com- The fact that CODIS intended to reconstruct houses in situ
munities, which are generally poorer than more accessible led the agency to neglect the need for a settlement plan.
sites. One of CODIS’ selection criteria was that the village The design effort focused on the houses, and little
should not be too far from Bhuj, and that it should have at attention was paid to the village as a whole. This was
least 100 households. In Gujarat, villages with these particularly noticeable in relation to the NGO-constructed
characteristics are generally not among the poorest. The community hall, which was built on the village’s former
village reconstructed by CODIS was better-off than the chowraha (plaza). The chowraha used to be the social,
average, and significantly wealthier than the villages assisted cultural and economic heart of the village. At its centre was
by SHA and PHA. a simple structure consisting of a tiled roof supported by
wooden pillars placed on an elevated concrete base. On
Housing location one side, there was a small house that served as a storage
room, and a place where pilgrims, business people or
Prior to the earthquake, the bulk of the inhabitants of the other travellers could stay overnight, and at the centre of
CODIS village had spent most of the year in scattered wadis the chowraha was a chabutera (a bird house). However,
(farms), and only came to the village itself for religious instead of rebuilding the chowraha (as requested by the
festivals, private ceremonies and trading purposes. Many villagers), CODIS built the community hall, which is hardly
villagers would have preferred their new homes to be built in ever used, and what used to be a lively village centre is
their wadis, but this was not accepted by the NGO and moribund. People meet under a tree in the yard of the
villagers thus ended up reconstructing their wadi houses village’s principal temple or under temporary structures.
themselves. This is one of the reasons why about 20% of the People remember the chowraha with nostalgia, and feel
CODIS houses were unoccupied. Occupancy rates are that their village no longer has a centre.
Table 8: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in the CODIS village (%; N=176)
Positive features % Negative features %
Earthquake-resistant house 78 External kitchen is not provided 31
Plastering is provided 9 Inadequate storage space 49
Flat roof 17 Leaks in roof and walls 31
Poor-quality doors and windows 26

17
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 18
18
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 19
Chapter 6
Contractor-driven reconstruction ex nihilo
Contractor-driven construction ex
nihilo differs from in situ recon-
struction in that, instead of
rebuilding the village on the same
site, the new houses are relocated
to a new site. The advantage of this
approach is that it does not require
the removal of rubble to clear the
site, and the reconstruction plan is
not constrained by any buildings

that survived the earthquake.
However, there is a growing aware-
ness that resettlement is a trau-
matic experience, and may have a
significant negative impact on
people’s livelihoods and social
relations.13 This has led agencies
such as the World Bank to intro- An empty CODEN house
duce policies designed to prevent
unnecessary resettlement.
for 215 households owning 1–4 hectares of agricultural
As discussed in Chapter 2, people in Kachch fiercely land; and
opposed resettlement, which led the government to • 400m2 plots and 40m2 houses, at a cost of Rs157,500,
abandon its initial reconstruction policy, which was based on for 210 households owning more than 4ha of
relocating communities to new sites. Some private agricultural land.
corporations and large NGOs nevertheless pressed ahead
with resettlement. This case study of the ex nihilo strategy The same plan was used for all villages, with the result that
focuses on a large NGO (which we will call CODEN) that they all have exactly the same appearance. The plan
adopted 11 villages and reconstructed a total of 2,250 consists of wide streets forming a grid pattern, and rows of
houses. Our research covered three villages in which CODEN flat-roofed RCC buildings. The larger plots and bigger
rebuilt 719 houses, plus community infrastructure. houses are located at one end of the village, the smallest
plots and smallest houses are at the other end, and
CODEN’s reconstruction programme medium-sized houses are in the middle.
CODEN is a large NGO. In association with a large con- Houses were distributed randomly among the villagers
struction company, CODEN had rebuilt five villages once construction was completed. Owners did not
comprising 2,000 houses after the 1993 earthquake in participate in the construction process, and the fact that
Maharashtra. Although the reconstruction approach pursued they did not know which house was theirs until building
in Maharashtra has a number of problems and weaknesses, was finished meant that houseowners could not monitor
CODEN used the same strategy in Gujarat.14 progress informally.
CODEN reconstructed its villages on land that was either Issues, achievements and constraints
provided by the government, or which the community had
purchased itself. Where land was provided by the
government, people had to renounce their land rights in In CODEN villages, dissatisfaction with the quality of
the old village. Full village reconstruction included materials and construction was very high, as shown in
infrastructure such as roads, schools, a community hall, a Table 9.* Frustration with the quality of construction was
water supply system and drainage canals. CODEN’s particularly evident among members of the Kadiya caste.
reconstruction plans in the three villages covered by this
*The survey could be carried out in only two of the three villages. In
research envisaged three type of plots and houses: one village the Sarpanch, under the influence of CODEN staff, did not
allow the research team to carry out the survey with a random
• 100–150m2 plots and 30m2 houses, at a cost of sample of households. He only allowed the team to speak with
Rs97,500, for 294 landless and marginal landholders; people of his choice and in his presence. Given these conditions, we
• 250m2 plots and 40m2 houses, at a cost of Rs127,500, decided against carrying out a survey in that village.
19
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 20
Skilled masons, Kadiyas accounted for the majority of the consultation about relocation, and no alternatives to
beneficiaries. Beneficiaries also complained that the new resettlement were presented to them.
houses and settlements did not conform to their rural
lifestyle, there was no privacy for women, and there was no Relocation made some sense in only one of the three
space for cattle, fodder, agricultural implements and villages we looked at. However, relocation stemmed not
people’s furniture. Uniquely among the villages we looked from the earthquake, but because the old village was at
at, a significant number of people were unable to mention risk of flooding due to the construction of a dam. Prior to
any positive feature of their new house, and a high the earthquake, the Irrigation Department, which provided
percentage of households explicitly said that their new land for the new site, had been trying to persuade villagers
home had no positive features at all. to relocate, but lack of support and financing for relocation
had encouraged it to look into alternative solutions, such
Poor-quality housing in contractor-driven reconstruction as building a dyke. After the earthquake, relocation
projects is sometimes the result of an NGO’s inexperience in became a more viable option, but there was no consensus
handling contractors; firms may be keen to save time and around where the new site should be located. About 30
resources at the cost of construction quality. In this case, households in the village demanded houses in another
problems were exacerbated by a lack of accountability: the location nearer to their agricultural land, but they were told
construction company had a close association with the NGO, that, if they wanted assistance, they had to move to the
and was given the contract without going through any reconstruction site proposed by CODEN. Eventually, the 30
regular tendering procedure. households built their own hamlet in a location better
suited to their livelihood activities.
Resettlement
In the second village, it was argued that resettlement was
As discussed above, there was significant opposition to necessary because the old village was on seismically
resettlement in Gujarat, and only 23 villages in Kachch (9% unsafe ground (a claim that does not seem to have been
of the total) were reconstructed via resettlement. People in supported by any scientific assessment). The village was
CODEN villages told us that there had been no community very old, and well-known for its wealth and beauty. In the
Table 9: Satisfaction with contractor-driven reconstruction ex nihilo (N=77)

Village A Village B
CODEN (N=20) Owner-driven CODEN (N = 50) Owner-driven

reconstruction (N=7) reconstruction (N=0)
Satisfaction with: No. % No. % No. % No. %
House location 13 65 7 100 32 64 NA NA
House size 10 50 7 100 26 52 NA NA
Quality of materials 7 35 7 100 21 42 NA NA
Construction quality 1 5 7 100 1 2 NA NA
Average 7.75 40 7 100 20 40 NA NA
Source: Household survey, January–February 2005.
Table 10: Positive and negative features mentioned by house owners in CODEN villages (%)
Positive features V1 V2 Negative features V1 V2
Earthquake-resistant house 82 40 External kitchen is not provided 34 25
Plastering is provided 2 – Leaks in roof and walls 76 60
Provision of toilet and bath – 5 No compound wall – 25
No positive feature 14 35 Small room size 16 –
Not suited to rural lifestyle 16
Poor quality doors and windows 18
Height of plinth is inadequate 16
20
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 21
Chapter 6 Contractor-driven reconstruction ex nihilo
third village, there appeared to be no

justification and even less public support for
relocation. The government provided no land
for the new site, and people had to purchase a
plot at their own expense (many people had to
take out loans from money-lenders at
exorbitant rates of interest). Judging from its
present appearance, the old village was not
severely damaged, and most people simply
refused to move, preferring to repair their old
homes themselves. In this village, about 75%

of new houses were empty, and some houses
have already been sold at prices well below
the cost of construction. Repairing or
reconstructing the old houses was not
possible in the other two villages, where
people had to give up their old property rights
in order to obtain land for the new settlement.
Accordingly, occupancy rates in the surveyed
A CODEN village
village were higher, with only about 18% of
houses unoccupied at the time of the
household survey. This argument does not hold on a number of grounds. First,
livelihood strategies are increasingly diverse, and large
Exploitation of assistance by village elites landlords are often not involved in agriculture at all,
instead renting out their land to landless tenants. Second,
The villages reconstructed by CODEN were by far the many landless castes, such as weavers and carpenters,
wealthiest of all the settlements we looked at during our practice their trade in their homes, and so may need more
research. They enjoyed good access to fertile agricultural space than richer landlords. Finally, this approach tends to
land and irrigation, and a high proportion of their neglect the fact that wealthier households are endowed
inhabitants were large landowners. Within the villages with financial and social capital that makes them less
themselves, CODEN’s approach inherently favoured better- reliant than poor households on external aid to restore
off households, who received larger plots and bigger their livelihoods.15
houses. CODEN staff justified this on the grounds that, in
an unequal society like Gujarat’s, it was not possible to CODEN claims that it conducted a systematic consultation
treat everyone equally. The agency may also have followed with all communities in the three villages on critical issues
the Maharashtra example and assumed that large such as relocation, village layout and housing design. The
landowners by definition needed more space than landless majority of the villagers we spoke to, however, felt that they
households for animals and agricultural implements. had had no say in whether their village should be adopted by
CODEN to begin with, and were not consulted on any issues
arising as the reconstruction process progres-
sed. People in all three villages were very
outspoken about the vested interests of the
local elite, and maintained that the most
influential people got personal benefits from
persuading villagers to accept CODEN adoption.
Certainly, influential individuals enjoyed
luxurious residential areas created with NGO
support. In one village, the local elite had added
toilets and bathrooms, beautifully finished
compound walls, flowers and trees, luxurious
gates, ‘offices’ to receive guests, parking space
for their cars and sheds for their cattle.
We found that the local elite obtained more

than one plot and house by registering them in
the name of people who had no entitlements
(under-age children living with their parents or
relatives who did not live in the village). Two
brothers told us that they had obtained a plot
Empty CODEN houses of 12,000 square feet and two additional
21
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 22
houses in the name of two brothers living in Ahmedabad. Project documents indicate that CODEN was aware of the
In the same neighbourhood, we met two women who told importance of castes in rural India. The NGO appeared to
us that their husbands had used the same device to obtain attribute to the caste system all the evils of Indian society,
four houses and homestead plots of 10,500 square feet. thereby underestimating the importance of economic
Another woman proudly told us that, in the name of inequality. By reorganising the village territory according to
different family members, her family had managed to socio-economic categories, it attempted to replace a caste-
acquire three houses in their own village and an additional based spatial organisation with a class-based one. It is
three houses in another CODEN village, where none of beyond the scope of this study to assess whether a class
them was living. Unsurprisingly, the less fortunate society is more legitimate than a caste society. However,
resented the way the more powerful members of the any attempt to introduce such dramatic social change is
villages seemed to exploit the system. unlikely to succeed; in this case, it made people unhappy
and made no contribution to reducing socio-economic
Interference in local social organisation vulnerability. On the contrary, in fact: families who were
isolated from their communities expressed a sense of
Although the caste system is a classic example of a highly solitude and insecurity. This problem was felt in particular
stratified society, social injustice and inequality are not among women, whose life is often confined by the
inherent to it. Castes are first and foremost groups of boundaries of their neighbourhood.
people connected to each other through kinship and
common ancestry. Each caste has its unique customs and The fact that the new settlement does not allow people to
beliefs, which find expression partly in different housing live near their relatives and community members is one of
styles and settlement patterns. Castes do not consist of the factors contributing to low occupancy rates and to the
socially or economically homogeneous groups of people. sale and exchange of houses. In one village, occupancy rates
Within a group belonging to the same caste, some were around 20%, and many people preferred to repair their
families are endowed with more social and economic old homes rather than live in the new ones. Occupancy was
capital than others, which gives them an obligation to higher in the other two villages, where people were able to
provide patronage to weaker caste members. Therefore, buy land from the government on which to build the new
families belonging to the same caste prefer to live close settlement. However, purchases were conditional on people
together.16 surrendering their old property rights to the state.
22
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 23
Chapter 7
Overall findings and conclusions
I have tried to demonstrate that men, women, and their

neglected communities in rural Gujarat. The subsidiary
children have both the capacity and the desire to shape
housing approach proved an effective way to mitigate
their personal environments and to relate them to those
some of the risks of the owner-driven approach. Under
of other members of their societies. Traditionally they
the subsidiary approach, the NGO does not aim to
have had the skills and competence, the sensibility and
compete with or replace the state, but to complement its
the know-how to build them effectively with regard to
role by providing support to the most vulnerable to
land, the climate, and the resources they have at hand.
obtain the goods and services to which they are entitled.
Embodying the values and needs that are special to them,
It requires from NGOs a commitment to look for the most
they have built homes in ways that have often achieved,
vulnerable people or communities, and a focus on
in their integrity and authenticity, beauty of form and
people whose official compensation entitlements are not
harmony of design.17
sufficient to meet specific needs. Such an approach may
change the balance between capital investment and
The reconstruction effort in post-earthquake Gujarat was investment in human resources, because it means
broadly successful. According to the GSDMA, by December supporting small and scattered projects, which entail
2005 the government had supported repairs to 908,710 of higher personnel costs.
the 917,158 homes damaged in the earthquake, and had
fully rebuilt 197,091 destroyed homes, out of a total of The government-supported owner-driven approach was
222,035. NGOs had constructed 36,901 houses, just short almost as popular as the subsidiary approach, with 93.3% of
of the target of 37,150 set under the public–private households reporting themselves satisfied with their
partnership programme.18 Although the government does housing situation. In all the villages we looked at, NGOs had
not give figures for reconstruction work outside the also been active in housing reconstruction, giving people an
partnership programme, it is known that NGOs working in opportunity to compare the advantages and drawbacks of
Kachch had finished 39,263 houses by March 2003, out of the two different approaches. Their high level of satisfaction
a planned total of 48,495.19 Over 70% of repair and thus expresses not only an absolute preference for the
reconstruction work was completed by the beginning of owner-driven approach, but also a relative preference. The
2003, just two years after the earthquake. owner-driven approach is empowering and participatory,
and thus should be welcomed by NGOs, which consider
In qualitative terms too, the results appear positive. Over community empowerment and participation as being among
95% of homes complied with government building codes, their main objectives. Many NGOs, however, are reluctant to
and in 2003 the GSDMA was awarded the UN’s Sasakawa embrace cash approaches like owner-driven reconstruction.
Award for outstanding work in the field of disaster This reluctance may be related to a lack of experience and to
management and risk reduction.20 Research for this limited research into such approaches. We hope that this
paper broadly supports the view that housing was paper will increase confidence in the viability and
satisfactorily restored after the earthquake, and that, effectiveness of cash-based approaches to housing
thanks to the concerted efforts of local communities, reconstruction, and prompt NGOs to reconsider their own
NGOs, the government of Gujarat and international roles and approaches in this area.
humanitarian and development agencies, affected
people were not forced to sell assets to finance the The third approach looked at in this paper was the
rebuilding of their homes. As Table 11 (p. 24) shows, ‘participatory housing approach’. Here, overall satisfaction
almost 80% of households thought that their housing levels averaged 90.8%. This approach gave people an
situation was better than before the earthquake. Over active role in the construction of their houses, and a say in
53% of the households reported that their economic the materials, design and location of the house. This led to
situation had remained unchanged, and nearly 21% housing which, in terms of construction, design and
considered that it had improved. materials, did not differ much from houses reconstructed
under the owner-driven approach. People who obtained
Table 12 (p. 24) summarises the findings of our research houses under this approach got training in seismically safe
into different housing approaches. It paints a clear and construction, which could easily be integrated with their
coherent picture. The highest level of satisfaction was traditional building techniques, and which hopefully will
achieved with what we have called the ‘subsidiary make future additions safer. The only area in which this
housing approach’. In these villages, everyone felt that approach scored poorly was in relation to the size of the
their housing situation was better than before the houses provided. However, the PHA houses were
earthquake. With regard to size, location, quality of conceived of as extendable core units, and cost only
materials and quality of construction, 95% of house- Rs47,000, about half the cost of the houses constructed
holds were fully satisfied. Households that benefited under the CODIS approach and 38% of the cost of the
from this assistance belonged to the poorest and most average house constructed under the CODEN approach.
23
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 24
Table 11: Perceptions of housing and socio-economic situation (%)

Village 1 Village 2 Village 3 Village 4 Villages 5+6 Average
Housing
Better 83 100 91 74 49 79.4
Same 12 0 2 13 19.5 9.3
Worse 2 0 6 10 25 8.6
No response 1 0 0 1 3 1
Economic situation
Better 10 48 26 7 13.5 20.9
Same 64 48 49 39 65.5 53.1
Worse 24 4 23 52 16.5 23.9
No response 1 0 0 2 1 0.8
Village environment
Better 61 81 86 58 51 67.4
Same 30 19 9 18 10 17.2
Worse 7 0 3 22 34 13.2
Health
Better 30 44 49 36 16.5 35.1
Same 48 48 43 45 63.5 49.5
Worse 20 7 5 16 15 12.6
Education
Better 84 85 94 68 65 79.2
Same 13 11 2 13 20 11.8
Worse 0 0 0 9 2 2.2
No response 2 4 3 8 9.5 5.3
Table 12: Satisfaction with different reconstruction approaches: overall findings (%; N=434)
ODA SHA PHA CODIS CODEN
Financial support per housing unit (Rs) 40,000–90,000 40,000 from the 47,000 85,000 124,000
government + (average)
25,000 from
the NGO
Overall satisfaction with quality of housing 93.3 100 90.8 71.6 22.8
Satisfaction with:
House location 99 95 96 95 64.5
House size 90 95 85 89 51
Quality of materials 94 95 93 64 38.5
Construction quality 95 95 93 69 3.5
Average 94.50 95.00 91.75 79.25 39.37

24
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 25
Chapter 7 Overall findings and conclusions
Table 13: Number of dwellings before and after the earthquake by housing reconstruction approach (N=434)
Number of No. of Dwellings/ No. of Dwellings/ Increase Increase
households dwellings household dwellings after household (No.) (%)
before the before the the earth- after the
earthquake earthquake quake earthquake
PSPS/ODA 89 112 1.25 130 1.46 18 16.1
SHA 27 34 1.25 66 2.44 32 94.1
PHA 65 86 1.32 124 1.90 38 44.2
CODIS 176 253 1.44 422 2.44 169 66.8
CODEN 77 117 1.52 213 2.76 96 82.3
Total/Average 434 (Total) 602 (Total) 1.38 (Average) 955 (Total) 2.20 (Average) 168 (Total) 60.7 (Average)
Among the two contractor-driven approaches reviewed by earthquake, this was not the case in the CODEN villages,
this study, 71.8% of households expressed overall satis- where levels of housing before the earthquake were
faction with their housing situation under the CODIS satisfactory.
approach. However, while people were generally happy with
the location and size of their homes, they were less pleased This study provides empirical evidence that the growing
with the quality of materials and construction, which are the trend towards financial support to owner-driven post-
main factors used by humanitarian agencies to justify disaster housing reconstruction is socially, financially and
employing professional construction companies. Contractors technically viable. It shows that, in a context where people
prefer industrial construction materials and technologies, are traditionally involved in building their own dwellings,
which may not be suited to the local climate. The profit given adequate financial and technical support they have
imperative may also compromise the quality of the work. the capacity to construct houses that are more likely to
respond to their needs and preferences than houses
Finally, CODEN. This was by far the least popular approach. provided by outside agencies. The study confirms many of
In these villages, only 22.8% of people were satisfied with the drawbacks and risks associated with a contractor-
their housing. Since the main difference between CODIS driven approach: inflexibility, cultural insensitivity, failure
and CODEN reconstruction concerned resettlement, we to adapt to local conditions, and a tendency to introduce
might expect location to be the key issue. In fact, however, external construction materials ill-suited to the local
this was not the case. Dissatisfaction and frustration in the climate, and which are difficult to maintain and upgrade.
CODEN villages was linked to a wide range of issues. The
majority of households reported problems, such as cracks These conclusions are not based on project evaluations by
in walls and ceilings, leaks and poor-quality doors and ‘experts’, but on what affected people themselves thought
windows. Only 3.5% of households said they were about different post-disaster housing reconstruction
satisfied with the construction. People also complained approaches. The clear conclusion is that the cheapest
about lack of participation, the elite capture of decision- approach to post-disaster housing reconstruction was the
making and project benefits, bald discrimination in favour most effective in reaching the most neglected com-
of the local elite and the disruption of family networks. munities, and addressing their housing requirements.
Where people had the option of staying in their old houses, Conversely, the most expensive approach may have made
they refused en masse to move to the new village. the rich richer, and the poor more vulnerable. Funding
agencies and NGOs should reconsider their role in post-
It is perhaps ironic that the project that enjoyed the least disaster housing reconstruction and support people’s own
appreciation among its beneficiaries was on average by far initiative, rather than providing them with what outside
the most expensive, costing around three times more than agencies believe is good for them. Cash-based approaches
the non-contractor projects. In addition, while in each case are viable in emergencies, are more empowering and more
there was a significant increase in the number of post- dignifying. These goals are fully in line with most NGOs’
earthquake houses compared to pre-earthquake levels, objectives, but need to be translated into operational
the most striking disparities are in the CODEN villages. strategies. We hope that this study, by allowing hundreds
Whereas in the villages which were assisted through a of people to tell us what they needed to restore their
subsidiary approach the increased housing may to some livelihoods, will encourage agencies to look again at how
extent be attributed to poor housing conditions prior to the they respond to housing needs after disaster.
25
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 26
Annex 1
Checklist for village profiles
1. General situation before and after the 4. Emergency aid: local initiatives
earthquake
• What were the immediate needs and problems?
• Human population by community and occupation • How did the community respond to those needs?
• Migration • Who took initiative and leadership in organising
• Animal population emergency aid?
• Total amount of agricultural land • What difficulties and constraints did they face in
• Dry land providing emergency aid?
• Irrigated land • What among the items and skills needed to provide
• Type and number of irrigation systems emergency aid were available, and what was missing?
• Crops cultivated on dry land
• Crops cultivated on irrigated land 5. External emergency aid
• Type and number of irrigation schemes
• How many farmers own irrigation schemes? • When did the first external relief arrive?
• For how long have they practiced irrigation? • What type of government relief did you receive? When?
• Original village layout, with hamlets and related • What other agencies provided relief to this village?
population What (e.g. food, temporary shelters, clothing, water)?
• Domestic water sources and supply systems When? How long?
• Communal infrastructure (schools, temples, chowraha, • Did some volunteers from outside come and stay in
etc) your village for some time? What did they do? How long
did they stay?
2. Domestic water supply situation • Was there a FFW programme?
• Did some agencies provide cash relief?
• What was the drinking water situation before the • Who did what and when?
earthquake? Quality? Quantity? Seasonal problems? • How/by whom was external relief coordinated?
• Where did people of different communities and • Was relief adequate? What was good, what was not so
hamlets get drinking water? good?
• Where did they get water for washing clothes, bathing
and for their animals? 6. Disruption of daily life
• How far did they have to walk to fetch drinking water?
• How was the domestic water situation 10 years ago? • How long was communication with the outside world
• What changes occurred in the water supply situation, disrupted?
and how did it affect their lives? • How long were water, electricity supplies, etc disrupted?
• What problems are they facing due to water problems? • How long were schools closed?
• How long were health centres disrupted?
3. Earthquake • How long were markets disrupted? Why?
• How did the earthquake affect agricultural activities?
• What happened? • How did the earthquake affect animal husbandry?
• Number of casualties and wounded people • What other activities and occupations were disrupted?
• Did animals die? For how long?
• Damage to public infrastructure and services: • When did life return to normal? What remains the same?
• temples What changes in your daily life have occurred since the
– mosques earthquake and why?
– markets
– water supplies 7. General questions about govt. compensa-
– electricity tion, NGO adoption and relocation
– public telephones
– post offices • What government compensation were you granted for
– roads the reconstruction of your houses?
– health centres • What government compensation did you receive for the
– schools reconstruction of your houses?
• Damage to houses by neighbourhood • How many agencies came to offer their assistance for
the reconstruction of your village?
26
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 27
Annex 1 Checklist for village profiles
• What did they offer? • What type of houses?

• How and why did you decide on this particular agency? • How was the location decided?
• Why did you decide to relocate your village? • Are they satisfied with the location of the houses?
• Did all villagers agree? • How was the design of the house decided? Were you
• Did some households or communities refuse to join involved? How?
this reconstruction programme? Why? • Are they satisfied with the design of the house?
• How did you get the land for the new village? • Who constructed the houses?
• How was the layout of the village decided? • Was the community involved with the selection of
• Are you satisfied with the layout of the village? contractor?
• Positive and negative aspects of new village site • Are they satisfied with how decisions were taken?
• Are some communal facilities missing? (chowraha, • Did they face any problems with the contractor?
market place, solid waste disposal, etc.) • What was the role of the community and of future
• If you could go back in time, would you again decide to house owners during the construction period?
relocate? • What was the role of future house owners during the
construction period?
8. Repair and reconstruction of community • How good is the quality of the construction?
infrastructure • Did they have a formal responsibility in quality control?
• When were houses completed?
• What repair and reconstruction works were done? By • When did they take over the houses?
whom? • What is their opinion about the latrines? Are they
– Schools: sufficient or too many? Are they used?
– Temples: • Do they know/were they told how much money was
– Mosques: given for the reconstruction of their village? Did they
– Markets: have any control/information about financial issues?
– Roads: • If they had been given the money instead of what they
– Telephones: have been given, how would they have reconstructed
– Post offices: their houses and village?
– Water supply systems:
– Health centres: 10. Present situation and general questions
– Tree planting:
– Others: • At present, what are the main remaining problems of
• How and by whom were these works decided? the village:
• How was the location decided? – In relation to the earthquake:
• Satisfaction with design, location, quality of construction – Not in relation to the earthquake:
and present functioning • Can you give us the name of a village nearby which
according to you has been better rehabilitated than
9. Repair and reconstruction of private your village? What is better there?
houses • Can you give us the name of a village nearby which
according to you has been worse rehabilitated than
• How many pre-earthquake houses were repaired in this your village? What is worse?
village? By whom? • Can you give us the name of a village nearby which was
• How many houses were reconstructed in this village? reconstructed without NGO help? What is your opinion
By whom? about that village?
27
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 28
Annex 2
Household questionnaire survey
Village name: Name of the interviewer:
Date: Survey number:
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1.1 Name of the household head: 1.2 Name of the respondent:
1.3 Relation with the H/H head : 1.4 Name of the community:
1.5 Official Status Gen/OBC/BC/SC/ST/NT 1.6 Religion: Hindu/Muslim/Other Specify
1.7 Location of residence:
II. SITUATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD BEFORE AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE:
2.1 Situation pre- and post-earthquake:
Sr. No. Name Rel. to Age Source of Income

H/H At Present Before Earthquake
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
2.2 Ownership of land and other assets before and after the earthquake:
Before Earthquake After Earthquake

a) Agricultural Land (in acres)
1. Irrigated land
2. Dry land
b) Livestock
1. Cow
2. Buffalo
3. Sheep/goat
c) Ownership of Shops
1. Type and value of shop building
2. Value of goods stored
3. Monthly sales
4. Monthly income
d) Other Assets (e.g. cart, tractors,
motorcycles, flour mill?)
28
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 29
Annex 2 Household questionnaire survey
2.3 Give details about the houses you owned BEFORE the quake
Property Owner’s Name House Type* Construction Plot House No. of Dist. from Damage
No. Year Area Area Rooms from Category**
Village
Centre
1
2
3
*) House Type 1: kutcha: ,2: Semi Pucca:,3: Pucca

**) Damage category: As assigned by govt.
2.4 Give details about the houses you owned AFTER the quake
Property Owner’s Name Repair/ If Reconst: If Ex-situ: Type of const. No. of Rooms Size
Reconst/ In situ/ Dist. from
Abandon Ex situ Village Centre
1
3
4
2.5 Where did your family primarily live BEFORE THE earthquake?
a) Village b) Wadi c) Other Places (give details)
2.6 Where did your family primarily live AFTER the earthquake?
a) Old Village b) New Village c) Wadi d) Other Places (give details)
2.7 Before the earthquake, did you have any outstanding loans? YES/NO
If yes, give details:
Purpose Source Amount outstanding at Amount outstanding today

the time of earthquake
Loan 1
Loan 2
Loan 3
Loan 4
2.8 As a consequence of the earthquake did you take any loans? YES/NO
Purpose Source Total amount taken Amount outstanding today
Loan 1
Loan 2
Loan 3
Loan 4
29
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 30
III. DIRECT LOSSES INCURRED DUE TO EARTHQUAKE:
3.1 Did any of your household members die during the earthquake? YES/NO
a) Age:
b) Relation to h/h head:
c) Occupation:
d) Expenses related to the death:
Own Expenses Rs.
Assistance by Government, NGO & others Rs.
e) Any permanent loss of income due to the death? YES/NO

f ) Did you receive any compensation for the death of the family member? YES/NO
If yes, Amount: Source:
3.2 Were any of your household members injured during the earthquake? YES/NO

a) Age: b) Relation to h/h head: c) Occupation:
d) Expenses related to the his/her medical treatment
Own Expenses Rs.
Assistance by Government, NGO, others Rs.
e) Did the injury cause any loss to the h/h income?

(1: Temporary loss, 2: Permanent loss, 3: No loss)
3.3 Loss or damage caused to other assets due to earthquake:
Sr. No. Asset No./Qty. (unit) Nature of damage

1. Cows
2. Buffaloes
3. Goats/Sheep
4. Seeds
5. a) Indigenous agriculture Implements
b) Iron modern implements
6. a) Well
b) Bore well
c) Pump room
d) Pump & motor
7. Tractors
8. Motorcycle
30
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 31
3.4 Did the quake disrupt any of your household members’ regular activities? If so, for how long? With what consequences/ losses?
Sr. No. Relation to h/h head Type of disruption Time span
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IV. HOUSEHOLD COPING MECHANISMS:

4.1 As a consequence of the earthquake, did you sell any land or other assets? YES/NO
If YES, please give details:
Sr. No. Asset Quantity Amount received
1. Land Acre
2. House Nos.
3. Cow Nos.
4. Buffalo Nos.
5. Goat/sheep Nos.
6. Seeds Y/N
7. Furniture and household implements Y/N
8. Agricultural implements Y/N
9. Tractor Y/N
10. Motorcycle Y/N
11. Jewellery Y/N
12. Others
4.2 As a consequence of the earthquake did you and your family members migrate? YES/NO
4.3 As a consequence of the earthquake did you and any of your family members return from outside? YES/NO
4.4 Did your family spend own money to restore your properties? YES/NO
If yes, How much money did your family spend to restore your properties?
Sr. No. Property Amount spent
1. House
2. Shop
3. Agricultural assets
31
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 32
4.5 Did you receive any financial or material help from the relatives/friends? YES/NO
If yes, give details
Sr. No. Nature of assistance Amount received
1. Financial
2. Material
3. Others (Please Specify)
V. GOVERNMENT REGISTRATION AND COMPENSATION OF LOSSES:
5.1 Did government made an assessment of the damage to 5.4 If resurvey is done were you satisfied with the
your properties? YES/NO reevaluation? YES/NO
If NO, state why If NO state why
5.2 Were you satisfied with the assigned damage category 5.5 Are you satisfied with the overall compensation?
and estimated value for your property? YES/NO YES/NO
If YES, go to q. 5.5. If NO, state why If NO state why
5.3 If you were not satisfied with the initial evaluation did 5.6 Did you receive full government compensation?
you go for reevaluation? YES/NO YES/NO
If NO state why If NO state why
VI. HOUSING RECONSTRUCTION:
6.1 How was/were your house(s) reconstructed?
Property No. Mechanism of Reconstruction ***Level of Self- Involvement

Role of NGO* Role of Gov**
1.
2.
3.
*NGO: **Gov: ***Level of Self-Involvement:

1: Full reconstruction 1: Compensation for full 1: Nil
2: Financial assistance construction 2: Employed hired labour
3: Assistance in the form of materials 2: Material on subsidised rate 3: Contributed as unskilled labour
4: Technical assistance 3: Technical assistance 4: Contributed as skilled labour
VII. SATISFACTION ABOUT HOUSES – RECONSTRUCTED BY GOVT. COMPENSATION:
7.1 Please give the details about your satisfaction in relation to the following (Please tick):
Sr. No. Features Satisfied Not satisfied N.A.
1. Location of the house
2. Size of the homestead plot
3. Size of the house
4. Quality of materials
5. Quality of construction
32
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 33
7.2 Are you satisfied with the house(s) you have reconstructed with government compensation? YES/NO
7.3 What are the POSITIVE FEATURES of your present house when compared to your original house before the earthquake?
7.4 What are the NEGATIVE FEATURES of your present house when compared to your original house before the earthquake?
7.5 Did you make any modifications to the house? YES/NO
Sr. No. Feature Addition Y/N Type of const. Was the feature present in
earlier housing? Y/N
1. Chali
2. Shelter for livestock
3. External kitchen
4. Compound Wall/Veranda
7.6 Did you undertake any repair work due to poor quality of construction? YES/NO
If yes, give the details:
Sr. No. Item Time of Repair after Possession Total Expenses
1.
2.
3.
4.
7.7 Is there any amenity in the house that is provided and not used by you?
Sr. No. Item Usefulness Explain
1. Toilet
2. Bathroom
3. Roof Water Harvesting
4. Tank
5. Hand pump
6. Others
(1: Very Useful, 2: Somewhat useful, 3: Not of much use, 4: Inconvenient)
7.8 How good was the technical advice provided by the government?
a) Insufficient b) sufficient
7.9 How good was the quality of the materials supplied by the government?
a) Good b) poor
33
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 34
VII. SATISFACTION WITH HOUSES – RECONSTRUCTED BY NGOS OR WITH NGO SUPPORT
8.1 Please give the details about your satisfaction in relation to the following (Please tick):
Sr. No. Features Satisfied Not satisfied N.A.

1. Location of the house
2. Size of the homestead plot
3. Size of the house
4. No. of rooms
5. Quality of materials
6. Quality of construction
8.2 Are you satisfied with the house(s) you have received from NGO or reconstructed with NGO support? YES/NO
8.3 What are the POSITIVE FEATURES of your present house when compared to your original house before the earthquake?
8.4 What are the NEGATIVE FEATURES of your present house when compared to your original house before the earthquake?
8.5 Did you make any modifications to the house? YES/NO

Sr. No. Feature Addition Y/N Type of const. Was the feature present in
earlier housing? Y/N
1. Chali
2. Shelter for livestock
3. External kitchen
4. Compound Wall/Varanda
6. Others
8.6 Did you undertake any repair work due to poor quality of construction? YES/NO
If yes, give the details:
Sr. No. Item Time of Repair after Possession Total Expenses

1.
2.
3.
4.
8.7 Is there any amenity in the house that is provided by the NGO that was not there in your old house?
If so give details:
Sr. No. Item Usefulness Explain

1. Toilet
2. Bathroom
3. Roof Water Harvesting
4. Tank
5. Hand pump
6. Others
(1: Very Useful, 2: Somewhat useful, 3: Not of much use, 4: Disturbing)
34
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 35
8.8 How good was the technical advice provided by the NGO? a) Insufficient b) sufficient
8.9 How good was the quality of the materials supplied by the NGO? a) good b) poor
IX. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH POST-EARTHQUAKE REHABILITATION AID
9.1 If you received a house from an NGO, did you have to renounce to government compensation? YES/NO
9.2 If you had known the type of house you would receive from the NGO, would you still go for this option or would you have
preferred government compensation?
a) I am satisfied with the NGO house b) I would have preferred Government compensation
9.3 Do you know the financial value of the house you received? YES/NO If NO go to 9.5
9.3.1. If you had a choice, would you have preferred to get the money instead of the house? YES/NO
9.3.2. If you had received the equivalent money would you have been able to:
a) Construct a better quality house.
b) Construct the same quality house.
c) Would not have been able to match the quality of the given house.
9.4 If you reconstructed a house with government compensation as well as got one from NGO, which of the two do you like more?
a) Government house b) NGO house
9.5 Are you satisfied with the overall quality of housing of YOUR OWN house? YES/NO
If NO please ask the following questions:

9.5.1 Are you satisfied with the quality of design? YES/NO
If no, state how it can be improved:
9.5.2 Are you satisfied with the quality of construction? YES/NO
If no, state how it can be improved:
9.8 Are you satisfied with over all effectiveness of rehabilitation of social infrastructure? YES/NO
If NO, please suggest measures that could have made it more effective?
X. PRESENT HOUSEHOLD SITUATION
10.1 At present what is your household’s overall situation compared with before the
earthquake?
Better Same Worse Don’t know

Economic
Health
Education
Housing
Village environment
Community life
XI COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS:
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR REMARKS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
11.2 OBSERVATIONS OF THE SURVEYOR
SURVEYOR’S SIGNATURE: SUPERVISOR’S CHECK:
35
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 36
Bibliography
Abhiyan (2003) Coming Together, vol. V. Bhuj: UNDP/ Abhiyan. Mahurkar, U. (2004) ‘Gujarat Reconstruction: The High Road to
Aysan, Y. and I. Davis (1992) Disasters and Small Dwellings. Recovery’, India Today, 27 September.
Oxford: Pergamon Press. Oliver, P. (1987) Dwellings: The House Across the World. Oxford:
Baldauf, S. (2001) ‘Aftermath: India Rises from Rubble with Old Phaedon Press.
Social Divides’, http://www.reliefweb.int. Oliver, P. (1980) ‘The Cultural Context of Shelter Provision’, in I.
Barakat, S. (2003) Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Davis (ed.) Disasters and the Small Dwelling. Oxford: Pergamon
Disaster, HPN Network Paper 43. London: ODI. Press.
Béteille, A. (ed.) (1983) Equality and Inequality: Theory and Oliver-Smith, A. (1990) ‘Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction and
Practice. Delhi: OUP. Social Inequality: A Challenge to Policy and Practice’, Disasters,
14:7–19.
Collinson, S. et al. (2004) Politically Informed Humanitarian
Programming: Using a Political Economy Approach, HPN Network Oliver-Smith, A. (1991) ‘Successes and Failures in Post-disaster
Paper 41. London: ODI. Resettlement’, Disasters, 15(1):12–23.
Davis, I. (1978) Shelter after Disaster. Oxford: Polytechnic Press. Parekh, B. (2002) Making Sense of Gujarat, http://www. india-
seminar.com/2002.
Downing, T. E. (1996) Mitigating Social Impoverishment when
People are Involuntarily Displaced, C. McDowell (ed.), Pathak, A. (2001) ‘“Orphans Can Be Adopted, Not Villages”: DMI
Understanding Impoverishment: The Consequences of Director’, Times of India, February.
Developmental-Induced Displacement. Providence, RI: Berghahn Peppiatt, D. et al. (2002) Cash Transfers in Emergencies:
Books. Evaluating Benefits and Assessing Risks, HPN Network Paper 35.
Dumont, L. (1988) Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its London: ODI.
Implications. Delhi: OUP. Platteau, J.-P. (2004) ‘Monitoring Elite Capture in Community-Driven
Duyne, J. (2004a) Local Initiatives: Collective Water Management Development’, Development and Change, 35(2): 223–46.
in Rural Bangladesh. Delhi: DK Publishers. Rani, U. (2004) ‘Core Issues In the Economy and Society of
Duyne, J. (2004b) The Role of Humanitarian Aid in Post- Gujarat’, in R. Baumgartner and R. Högger (eds), In Search of
Earthquake Gujarat: Emerging Issues. Zürich and Lugano: ESZ and Sustainable Livelihood Systems: Managing Resources and
SUPSI. Change. Delhi: Sage.
Ecosmart (2005) The Role of Humanitarian Aid for the Restoration Salazar, A. (1998) Disasters, the World Bank and Participation:
of Livelihoods in Post-Earthquake Gujarat: Analysis and Relocation Housing after the 1993 Earthquake in Maharashtra,
Interpretation of a Questionnaire-based Citizens’ Survey. India. Third World Planning Review, February, http://groups.
Mumbai: IL & FS Ecosmart Limited. yahoo.com/group/GUJARATDEVELOPMENT/message/64.
Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA) (2005) Salazar, A. (2002a) The Crisis of Modernity of Housing Disasters in
Grit and Grace. The Story of Reconstruction. the Developing Countries: Participatory Housing and Technology
after the Marathwada (1993) Earthquake, http:// www1.world-
GSDMA (2002) Gujarat Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction bank.org/finance/html/housingfinance/pdf/HousingDisasters.p
Project After 700 Days. Ahmedabad: GSDMA, http:// df.
www.gsdma.org/pdf/700days.pdf.
Salazar, A. (2002b) Normal Life after Disaster? 8 Years of Housing
Gupta, S. (2002) ‘A Rare Resilience: Quake-hit Gujarat Bounces Lessons, from Marathwada to Gujarat, http:// groups.yahoo.com/
Back’, The Times of India, March. group/gujaratdevelopment/message/64.
Harvey, P. (2005) Cash and Vouchers in Emergencies. London: Sharma, V. K. (1999) A Disaster Management Profile of India,
ODI. http://www.ndindia.nic.in.
Jigyasu, R. (2001a) ‘From “Natural” to “Cultural” Disaster: Skoufias, E. (2003) ‘Economic Crisis and Natural Disasters:
Consequences of Post-Earthquake Rehabilitation Process on Coping Strategies and Policy Implications’, World Development,
Cultural Heritage in Marathwada Region, India’, Paper presented 31(7): 1,087–1,102.
at the International Conference on Seismic Performance of
Traditional Buildings, Istanbul, www. anglia.ac.uk/geography/ Twigg, J. (2002) ‘Technology, Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction
radix/resources/jigyasu.doc. and Livelihood Security’ in Technology for Sustainable
Development, DFID, Infrastructure and Urban Development
Jigyasu, R. (2001b) ‘From Marathwada to Gujarat: Emerging Department, http://livelihoodtechnology.org.
Challenges in Post-earthquake Rehabilitation for Sustainable Eco-
development in South Asia’, http://www. grif.umontreal.ca/ UNDP (2001) From Relief to Recovery: The Gujarat Experience.
pages/i-rec%20papers/rohit.PDF. Delhi: UNDP.
Jigyasu, R. (2001c) Post-earthquake Rehabilitation in Gujarat: Nine UNDP/Abhiyan (2001) Coming Together: A Document on the Post-
Months After, A Field Assessment. Trondheim: Norwegian University Earthquake Rehabilitation Efforts by Various Organizations
of Science and Technology. Working in Kutch. Bhuj: UNDP/Abhiyan.
Jigyasu, R. (2002) Reducing Disaster Vulnerability through Local Wisner, B. (31 January 2001) Some Root Causes of Disaster
Knowledge Capacity: The Case of Earthquake prone Rural Vulnerability in Gujarat, Report for the American Friends Services
Communities in India and Nepal. Dr. Ing. Thesis. Trondheim: Committee, http://www. reliefweb.int.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology. World Bank/Asian Development (2001) Gujarat Earthquake
Joshi, V. (2005) The Role of Humanitarian Aid in the Restoration of Recovery Program: Assessment Report.
Livelihoods in Post-earthquake Gujarat: Analysis and Interpretation
of a Questionnaire-based Citizens’ Survey. Chennai: Ecosmart.
36
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 37
Notes
1 P. Oliver, Dwellings: The House Across the World (Oxford: Phaedon of Post-Earthquake Rehabilitation Process on Cultural Heritage in
Press, 1987), p. 15. Marathwada Region, India’, Paper presented at the International
2 See, for example, Sultan Barakat, Housing Reconstruction after Conference on Seismic Performance of Traditional Buildings,
Conflict and Disaster, HPN Network Paper 43, 2003; John Twigg, Istanbul, 2001, www.anglia.ac.uk/geography/radix/resources/jigya-
‘Technology, Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction and Livelihood su.doc; R. Jigyasu, ‘From Marathwada to Gujarat: Emerging
Security’, in Technology for Sustainable Development, DFID Challenges in Post-earthquake Rehabilitation for Sustainable Eco-
Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, 2002, development in South Asia’, http://www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/i-
http://livelihoodtechnology.org; David Peppiatt et al., Cash rec%20papers/rohit.PDF; R. Jigyasu, Post-earthquake Rehabilitation
Transfers in Emergencies: Evaluating Benefits and Assessing Risks, in Gujarat: Nine Months After, A Field Assessment (Trondheim:
HPN Network Paper 35, 2002; and Paul Harvey, Cash and Vouchers Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2002); Alex Salazar,
in Emergencies, HPG Discussion Paper, February 2005. ‘Disasters, the World Bank and Participation: Relocation Housing
3 Barakat, Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster. after the 1993 Earthquake in Maharashtra, India’, Third World
4 Oliver, Dwellings. Planning Review, February 1999, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
5 Barakat, Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster; GUJARATDEVELOPMENT/message/64; Alex Salazar, ‘The Crisis and
Twigg, ‘Technology, Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction’. Modernity of Housing Disasters in Developing Countries:
6 See Gujarat State Disaster Management Agency (GSDMA), www. Participatory Housing and Technology after the Marathwada (1993)
gsdma.org. Earthquake’, 2002, http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/html/hous-
7 GSDMA, Gujarat Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction Project After ingfinance/pdf/HousingDisasters.pdf; Alex Salazar, ‘Normal Life
700 Days, Ahmedabad, 2002, www.gsdma.org/pdf/700days.pdf. after Disaster? 8 Years of Housing Lessons, from Marathwada to
8 Abhiyan, Coming Together, vol. 5 (Bhuj: UNDP/Abhiyan, 2003), Gujarat’, 2002, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gujaratdevelop-
p. 29. ment/message/64.
9 Sushma Iyengar, personal communication, 16 October 2004. 15 Anthony Oliver-Smith, ‘Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction and
10 See Sarah Collinson, Politically Informed Humanitarian Social Inequality: A Challenge to Policy and Practice’, Disasters, 14,
Programming: Using a Political Economy Approach, HPN Network 1990.
Paper 41, 2004; E. Skoufias, ‘Economic Crisis and Natural 16 Luis Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its
Disasters: Coping Strategies and Policy Implications’, World Implications (Delhi: OUP, 1980; André Béteille (ed.), Equality and
Development, 31/7, 2003, pp. 1,087–1,102. Inequality: Theory and Practice (Delhi: OUP, 1983).
11 Twigg, ‘Technology, Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction’. 17 Oliver, Dwellings, p. 11.
12 Barakat, Housing Reconstruction after Conflict and Disaster, p. 31. 18 Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), Grit and
13 See T. E. Downing, Mitigating Social Impoverishment When Grace: The Story of Reconstruction, 2005, p. 48.
People Are Involuntarily Displaced, 2003. 19 Abhiyan, Coming Together.
14 See R. Jigyasu, ‘From “Natural” to “Cultural” Disaster: Consequences 20 Ibid., p. 50.
37
NP 54 crc 4/4/06 10:50 am Page 38
38
Humanitarian Practice Network
The Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) is an independent forum where field workers, managers
and policymakers in the humanitarian sector share information, analysis and experience.
HPN’s aim is to improve the performance of humanitarian action by contributing to individual and
institutional learning.
HPN’s activities include:
• A series of specialist publications: Good Practice Reviews, Network Papers and Humanitarian
Exchange magazine.
• A resource website at www.odihpn.org.
• Occasional seminars and workshops to bring together practitioners, policymakers and analysts.
HPN’s members and audience comprise individuals and organisations engaged in humanitarian
action. They are in 80 countries worldwide, working in northern and southern NGOs, the UN and
other multilateral agencies, governments and donors, academic institutions and consultancies.
HPN’s publications are written by a similarly wide range of contributors.
HPN’s institutional location is the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), an independent think tank on humanitarian and development policy. HPN’s publications
are researched and written by a wide range of individuals and organisations, and are published by HPN
in order to encourage and facilitate knowledge-sharing within the sector. The views and opinions
expressed in HPN’s publications do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Humanitarian Policy
Group or the Overseas Development Institute.
Funding support is provided by institutional donors (AusAID, CIDA, DANIDA, DFID, Development
Cooperation Ireland, MFA Netherlands, SIDA, USAID), non-governmental organisations (British Red
Cross, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Concern, International Rescue Committee, MSF, Oxfam, Save the Children
(UK), World Vision) and UN agencies (WFP).
To join HPN, complete and submit the form at www.odihpn.org or contact the
Membership Administrator at:
Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN)

London, SE1 7JD
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0331/74

Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Email: hpn@odi.org.uk
Website: www.odihpn.org
© Overseas Development Institute, London, 2006.

Network Paper: Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake Gujarat A Comparative Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Network Paper: Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake Gujarat A Comparative Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Network Paper: Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake Gujarat A Comparative Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NP 54 cover crc 3/4/06 3:38 pm Page 3

Humanitarian Policy Group

Britain’s leading independent

Overseas Development Institute

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300

HPN e-mail: hpn@odi.org.uk

Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN)

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0331/74

Printed and bound in the UK

About the author

ISBN: 0 85003 797 2

Chapter 2 The owner-driven approach 5

Chapter 3 The subsidiary housing approach 9

Chapter 4 The participatory housing approach 11

Chapter 5 Contractor-driven reconstruction in situ 15

Chapter 6 Contractor-driven reconstruction ex nihilo 19

Chapter 7 Overall findings and conclusions 23

Annex 1 Checklist for village profiles 29

Network Papers 1995–2005

Good Practice Reviews

Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat

List of figures and tables

Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat

Emergency Earthquake Reconstruction Project

©Jennifer Duyne Barenstein

The chapters that follow discuss five different

• The owner-driven approach. The owner-

An extensive review of different post-disaster

©Jennifer Duyne Barenstein

Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat

of the Panchayat (the local government) and a

Financial assistance was disbursed in three

©Jennifer Duyne Barenstein

An owner-built house in Bhuj (Kachch district)

Table 1: Satisfaction with owner-driven reconstruction (%; N=136)

House location 100% 99% 95% 100% 100% 99%

House size 83 86 95 96 100 90

Quality of materials 100 92 95 96 100 94

Construction quality 100 94 95 96 100 95

Average 95.75 92.75 95.00 97.00 100 94.50

Chapter 2 The owner-driven approach

Earthquake-resistant housing 78% 90% 100% 67% 71%

House is commensurate with rural lifestyle 4 5

Availability of storage space 5 4

Future upgrading is feasible 5

Wooden doors and windows are provided 14

Flat slab roof is provided 14

External kitchen not provided or is too small 8 16

Cracks in the house 5 16

Inadequate storage space 19 12

Leakage in roof and walls 5

House does not have Chali (veranda) 14

Source: Household survey, December 2004–February 2005

between the government, civil society organisations and Construction quality

Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat

Several NGOs in Gujarat adopted a

©Jennifer Duyne Barenstein