Looking back at agency-driven housing reconstruction in India Case studies from Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu

C Jennifer Duyne Barenstein, PhD

With Akbar Nazim Modan, Katheeja Talha, Charanya Khandhada and Nishant

Uphadhyay

CDMHR/BSHF Reconstruction Conference

Coventry, 15-16 January 2014

Questions

• What is the overall physical condition

of the houses several years after

reconstruction was completed?

• To which extent did people adapt and

transform their agency-built

settlements and houses ?

• What were the purposes of their

adaptations?

• How did the introduction of new

housing designs and building

technologies influence their own

building practices?

• What challenges and constraints did

they face in their attempts to transform

their houses?

Research methods

• 3 years independent research project

funded by the Swiss National Science

Foundation and SDC

• Interdisciplinary multi-sited case

studies (anthropology and

architecture)

• Year 1: Field research in 4 villages in

Maharashtra 18 years after the 1993

earthquake

• Year 2: Field Research in 2 villages in

Gujarat 12 years after 2001

earthquake

• Year 3: In-depth field research in 2

villages and participatory appraisals +

household survey in 8 villages in

Tamil Nadu after 2004 Tsunami

The Latur earthquake of 30 September 1993

The earthquake

• 8000 people killed

• 2500 villages and 190,000 houses

partially damaged

• 52 villages and 28,000 houses fully

damaged

Government reconstruction policy

– Fully and severely damaged villages were

rebuilt in relocated sites by GOI or NGOs

– House sizes and homestead plots based

on land ownership

• Large farmers: house 770sqf; plot 480

m2

• Medium farmers: 400 sqf; plot 240 m2

• Small/landless farmers: 250 sqf;

plot150 m2

Overall reconstruction outcome in Maharashtra 18 years after the earthquake (1993-2011)

• In all villages most houses are inhabited by

their original owners or by their children

• Significant difference in quality of

settlement and houses between villages

• 90% houses made some extensions with

quality varying depending on socio-

economic conditions

• Prevailing materials for roof: GIS sheets

(people still scared of EQ!)

• Prevailing material for walls bricks, stone,

cement blocks, mud, often used in a mixed

combination

• Self-built extensions are not EQ resistant

• Large size of new villages allowed

extensions leading to densification

The case of Malkondji

The village

Size of old village: 5.81 ha

People killed by earthquake: 7

People injured: 5

Size of new village: 22.77 ha

Population (1993): 1562 (281 hh)

Population (2012): 2865 (360 hh)

Reconstruction approach

• Participatory NGO-driven reconstruction in

relocated site at 600 m from old village

• Involvement of socially and environmentally

sensitive professional planners and architects

• New village plan inspired by traditional layout

(clusters of houses)

• Good construction quality

• Public spaces and plantation of trees

Outcome

• High level of satisfaction

• Overall good physical condition of houses

Old and New Malkondji

Housing before the earthquake

Building materials

87% of the people lived in traditional

Malwad houses characterized by

Stone walls with mud mortar, wooden

frame, heavy mud covered roof

Spaces and items

•Dhelaj: Entrance Porch

•Chaukhat: Threshold at entrance

•Osri: Shaded semi open area around

court

•Tulsi Vrindavan: Sacred plant in the

court for worshipping

•Uttarand: Series of mud pots kept

over one another containing first

seeds of the harvest and kept for good

luck and prosperity.

•Soban: Storage space for firewood

and cattle fodder.

•Deoghar: Family shrine

•Gotha: Cattle house

•Kanagi: Huge grain containers made

of wattle and daub.

3D Model of the typical Malwad Construction

New Malkondji

The new houses

The new houses

The new houses

• NGO built houses with two rooms and toilet and bathroom on all the plots.

• House was on one end of the plot.

• Government added a single room or three room house in same plot for those entitled to larger houses as per policy.

• Building material: Concrete cement blocks with RCC flat roof

Village at the time of reconstruction (1996) Village plan in 2011

Transformations at settlement level: Densification

Construction of temples

Chronology of

extensions:

1) Kitchen

2) Tulsi vrindavan

3) Storage

4) Living

5) Delaj

6) Toilets

Transformations of houses

Beautification and personalization • The house walls though made in various materials like stone, bricks and concrete

blocks, express attempts to put the traditional embellishments on the wall. • Many houses painted their entrances with two mythical door guards in order to

welcome prosperity. • Entrances transformed to resemble the traditional Dhelaj.

Achievements

Plot size, position of core house and compound walls allowed to reproduced culturally appropriate housing conditions leading to high levels of satisfaction

Challenges

• Local masons do not master RCC construction

• Most people cannot afford high quality construciton

• Extension did not include anti-seismic features

• Use of hybrid materials

Lessons learnt from Maharashtra

• Design and physical condition of

buildings does not look impressive but

was satisfactory and allowed for

extension

• Settlement layout and plot size are of

crucial importance to enable extensions

• Importance of right placement of house

in plot

• Plantation of trees is essential for

thermal comfort

• Community participation led to positive

results and long-term satisfaction

• In spite of exposure to safe building

technologies unsafe building materials

practices persist for walling

• Strong preference for GIS sheets as

roofing material out of fear of EQ

The Gujarat earthquake of 26 January 2001

The disaster

•Killed 20,000 people

•Damaged one million houses

•Affected 7,633 villages and towns

•Fully destroyed 300 villages

Reconstruction policy

•Government policy: People could choose between government supported owner-driven reconstruction and agency driven reconstruction

•Agency driven reconstruction (NGOs, private companies): degree of community participation varied but in many cases was limited and reconstruction was contractor-driven.

•Communities’ preference: Given a choice, over 73% of the villages opted for owner-driven reconstruction

•However 272 villages were reconstructed by 72 NGOs and private companies

Overall reconstruction outcome 12 years after the earthquake

• Majority of people who did not opt for ODR

would make this choice if a disaster would

again damage their houses

• Highest level of satisfaction (94.5% of

respondents fully satisfied

• People who opted for ODR could move back

to their houses earlier

• Quality of construction was good (sample:

136 houses)

• Most cost-effective approach

• Culturally, environmentally and socio-

economically more sustainable

• Extensive use of salvaged building materials

• Less grievances about inequities and

corruption

The case of Fadsar

Location: Gujarat, Jamnagar district

Size: 8 ha

Population

2001: 1379 people

2012: 1500 people

Religion: 100% Hindu

Livelihoods: Cow herding and farming

Social organization: Caste-based, mainly Ahir, divided in about 15 sub-castes

Spatial organization of old village: clustered village divided 5 caste-based neighbourhoods

The old village

Old Fadsar is located on a slightly elevated ground which protects it from floods during the monsoon. It has an important temple visited during festivals by hundreds of pilgrims from all over Gujarat

Housing before the earthquake

Building materials

Walls: Stone and/or bricks with

mud or cement mortar

Roofing: terracotta tiles

Spatial organisation

• Pankh = open veranda

• Osri = closed veranda

• Ordo = interior rooms

• Rasodu = kitchen

• Faliyu = courtyard

• Dela = entrance

• Deli = covered space for cattle

• Bethak = guest room

• Chokadi = bathroom

New Fadsar

New Fadsar

Size: 16 ha (old village 8 ha)

Location: Flood prone lowland

Reconstruction approach • Contractor driven in relocated site

• No community participation

• 317 Houses with different sizes and

homestead plots based on land

ownership

• Large farmers: house 770sqf; plot

480 m2 (84 houses)

• Medium farmers: 400 sqf; plot 240

m2 (165 houses)

• Small/landless farmers: 250 sqf;

plot150 m2 (68 houses)

The new houses

Size

• Cat A: 50 m2 on 400 m2 plot

• Cat B: 40 m2 on 250 m2

• Cat C: 30 m2 on 100 m2 plot

Design

• Urban

• Small porch

• Living room

• 1-2 bedrooms

• Kitchen in backside

• Toilet block

• No bathroom

• No compound walls!

Building materials

• Walls: Brick

• Roof: RCC sloping roof

• Windows and doors: Plywood

The new houses (2004)

The new village in 2005 Construction was completed in 2003 but many families refused to move and until late as in 2005. There are signs of immediately extensions - particularly of the boundary wall, pankh and the kitchen.

Occupancy Rate • 92% of houses are occupied mainly

by their original owners

Adaptations and Transformations • 77 % of the houses made

• Extensions

• 4 houses were transformed in

• Temples

• Few houses are also used for

• commercial purposes (shops, mill)

Most common chronology of

transformations 1) Compound wall

2) Verandah

3) External kitchen

The new village in 2013

Large house transformed in temple: the Sikorta Ma Temple of the Kumbharwadias in the new village

Medium-sized house converted into three shrines for three different goddesses important to the Wankh community

Adaptations and transformation of houses

Chronology

• Compound walls

• Pankh (veranda)

• External kitchen

• Shaded area for cows

• Construction of bathroom

Addition of

betakh, deli and

dela

Several influential families received more than one house and therefore large plots of land. This enabled them to recreate traditional spatial typologies like the deli, betakh and the dela, unlike the owners of smaller plots.

Transformation of a small house

The obviously unsuitability of the agency house for a cattle herder’s family shows the pitfalls of a one design fits all approach.

Unmodified house

72 % of the unaltered houses are found in the smaller areas where spatial and economic constraints often collide.

Reconstruction outcome

• Initial dissatisfaction with new

village and houses was very

high. In 2004 over 90 of the

people were not satisfied

• Over the years people adapted:

Those who could afford it

transformed and extended their

houses

• Poor people could not afford it

but their housing conditions in

old village were not necessarily

better

• Over the years people

discovered advantage of

relocation: they re-appropriated

themselves of the old village!

Achievements Thanks to relocation people were able to re-appropriate themselves of the old village Housing conditions of poorest people improved

Constraints

•New village located on flood-prone lowland

•Poor construction quality

•House design culturally inappropriate and did not consider extensions and transformation needs

•People’s building capacity did not improve

•People’s transformations and extensions are generally not seismically safe

Lessons learnt from Gujarat

• If financial and technical support are adequate owner-driven reconstruction leads to better results than agency-driven reconstruction

• Relocation may have some advantages in terms of allowing people gradually to re-appropriate themselves and restore old village and houses

• Lack of community participation in design and construction leads to long-term negative consequences

The Indian Ocean tsunami and its impact in Tamil Nadu

The disaster

•10,880 people killed

•150,000 houses destroyed (Official estimate)

•80% of death and damages in Tamil Nadu’s Nagapattinam district

Reconstruction policy:

Government invited NGOs to rebuild full villages

on relocated sites at min. 200 m from High Tide

line

Government defined regulated house designs,

building technologies, and plot size

Building materials: Brick walls, flat RCC roof, with

or without RCC columns, Brick foundation,

cement mortar and plaster.

House size: 30 m2

Plot size: 125 m2 in rural areas

House Design specifications by the Government of Tamil Nadu

Source: Government of Tamil Nadu guidelines for

reconstruction, 2005

Overall reconstruction outcome 9 years after the tsunami

• Huge quantity but poor quality of houses also for non-affected people

• Reconstruction is still on-gong under new governmental project with World Bank funding in what became mass social housing programme

• Due to land shortage many new settlements built on very flood prone land

• Government started projects to make-up for poor construction quality

• Most people start making transformations and planting trees as soon as they move in the new house

The case of Seruthur

Location: Tamil Nadu, Nagapattinam district

Population: 3000 people

Religion: 100% Hindu

Livelihoods: Fishing, Labour, Migrant Labour in SE Asia countries

Caste: 100% Meenawar (Fishermen)

Village size

Old: 8 ha

New: 10.72 ha

Spatial organization of old village: organic clustered village facing the sea with few narrow paths leading to the beach. Houses oriented along the east west direction.

The old village

One portion of the village was built on a dune and was higher than the rest of

the village. The rest of the village, including its oldest part and the area around the temple were built on a lower plain.

The traditional kura house

Typical Kura house spaces

• 1a Main entry

• 1b secondary entry

• 2 Thinnai = closed veranda

• 3 Attu Kottai: goat shed

• 4 Ullarai = inner, private room

• 5 Pooja Arai - The prayer room

• 6 Samayal kottai : kitchen shed

• 7 Samayal arai : kitchen room

• 8 Kazhivurai – toilet, built by agency

• 9 Open bathing area

Optional spaces

• Thala vasal: front open space (optional)

• Kooram: an intermediate private space that leads to the ullarai when there is more than one

• Kuliyal arai: bathroom

3 4

1 2

5

6

7

8

1a

1b

A newly built traditional kura house

3 4

1 2

6

7

8

1a

b

The new village in 2008 First phase of NGO construction was completed in 2008 and the people were force evicted from temporary structures to occupy allotted house against their will in some case.

The new village in 2011 Number of agency built houses: 584 Number of inhabited houses in old village: 113 out of 570 Occupancy rate: 87% Transformations: 52%

The new houses

• 6 different NGO’s were involved at various stages of reconstruction

• Reconstruction approach: Largely Contractor-driven in relocated site without community participation expect for one NGO

• House an plot size varies from one NGO to another NGO’s and their contribution : 1. NGO A: 200 houses built in 2005-

06 (36 m2 ) 2. NGO B: 231 houses built in 2007-

08 (30 m2) 3. NGO C: 66 houses built in 2008-

09 (36 m2 ) 4. NGO-D: 50 houses built in 2011-

12 (42 m2) 5. NGO-E: financial support for

ownner-driven reconstruction 6. Government of Tamil Nadu: 33

houses built in 2010-11 (36 m2 )

Collective adaptation at settlement level

• Demand for more houses than were

actually damaged to satisfy housing

needs of new generations

• Refusal to move to new houses

• Repair of houses in old village

• Collective demolition of poor quality

NGO-built houses

• Collective monitoring of construction

• Construction of temple in new

village

• Repair of temple in old village

Transformation of NGO-built houses

87% occupancy rate

52% of house owners made extensions or transformations

No house used for other purpose

Main type of extensions

• Construction of:

• boundary fence (veli) or Compound walls

• Entrance veranda

• External kitchen

• Kitchen converted into pooja room

• Construction of bathroom and toilet

• Terrace shelter

• Raising the ground level of homestead plot

• Plantation of trees

Addition of Boundary fencing or compound wall

One of the first extensions made by the majority of the people is to secure induvidual plots by constructing organigc fence or brick compound walls. This investment was of pivotal importance to regain a sense of privacy and the traditional outdoor oriented lifestyle.

Convertion of kitchen to Pooja room

The addition of an external kitchen aided the transformation of the original kitchen in to a pooja room. This was frequently observed as the occupants preferred privacy in the pooja room.

Addition of Entrance and Verandah

Almost equal importance was given to building an entrance verandah , extension are made with thatch or concrete or cement board, aimed at gaining outdoor thermal comfort as well as to protect the building from extreme climatic conditions and was made to 60% of the houses.

Addition of thatched roof to terrace

The terrace is transformed into a space with multiple uses by constructing a simple thatch roof. Not only does it protect the house from the extreme climatic conditions, it also facilitates the occupants to sleep there during summers or while entertaining guests, further clothes are also dried here.

Plantation Cases exist where no material extensions have been made but with dedicated tree plantation efforts, climatic comforts are achieved. It is also seen that instead of constructing a structure for the entrance veranda, occupants have created a basic skeleton for creepers, extensions of this kind or basic plantation is made in 10% of houses.

Beautification and personalization

Achievements

• Housing condition of poorest people in improved

• Young couples got opportunity to set up independent household

• In Serethur community gained awareness about the quality issues and became more engaged in quality control

• People are getting land titles (process ongoing)

• In spite of the fact that new village is scattered social cohesion could be maintained

• Through upgrading and proper maintenance houses may be durable

• People could retain old village and houses

Challenges and constraints

• Village divided in 3 relocation sites

• Distance from sea has negative impacts

on livelihoods

• New settlement is too dense and plot

size too small for making extensions

and planting trees

• High investments required to make

houses livable in agency houses

• Lack of open space for livelihood

activities and social social interaction

• Water logging

• Poor construction quality

• No consideration for traditional

settlement layout and lifestyle

• Inadequate knowledge of new building

technology

Lessons learnt from post-tsunami reconstruction in Tamil Nadu

Value of local building materials needs more recognition

Very difficult to attain durable concrete houses in local climatic conditions

Many international NGOs put too much trust on local partners

More attention needs to be given to overall habitat (tree conservation and plantation), local culture and lifestyles

GENERAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

• Physical condition of houses several years after the disaster greatly depends on quality of construction and further maintenance, which depends on agencies’ commitment and communities’ financial capacity. More quality control is needed during construction!

• People have the willingness and capacity to transform their settlements and houses but may be constrained by lack of financial mean and technical guidance and other factors

• Settlement plan, plot size, location of house in provided plot, house design strongly influence adaptation and transformation needs and opportunities

• Due to economic constraints and insufficient know-how building practices tend to remain unsafe.

• Post-disaster reconstruction accelerates but not necessarily to trigger technological changes in construction

• In most cases too little attention is paid to preservation and restoration of natural habitat (trees) which are of crucial importance for thermal comfort and livelihoods

• Settlement plans need to take into account the need for collective spaces and buildings that communities want to build themselves (e.g. temples)

• More efforts need to be made to preserve and improve local housing culture and building practices. This can be done enabling people to be in control of rebuilding their houses

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Jennifer Duyne Barenstein, PhD WHRC University of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland www.worldhabitat.supsi.ch with Akbar Nazim Modan Kateeja Talha Charanya Khandhada Nishan Uphadhyay