Looking back at agency-driven housing

reconstruction in India
Case studies from Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu

CDMHR/BSHF Reconstruction Conference

Coventry, 15-16 January 2014
C
Jennifer Duyne Barenstein, PhD
With Akbar Nazim Modan, Katheeja Talha, Charanya Khandhada and Nishant
Uphadhyay
 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. 3D Model of the typical Malwad Construction
•Deoghar: Family shrine
•Gotha: Cattle house
•Kanagi: Huge grain containers made
of wattle and daub.
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.
Transformations at settlement level: Densification

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

Construction of temples
Transformations of houses

Chronology of
extensions:
1) Kitchen
2) Tulsi vrindavan
3) Storage
4) Living
5) Delaj
6) Toilets
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.
The new village in 2013

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
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 Several influential families received more than one house and therefore
betakh, deli and large plots of land. This enabled them to recreate traditional spatial
dela typologies like the deli, betakh and the dela, unlike the owners of smaller
plots.
Transformation of The obviously unsuitability of the agency house for a cattle herder’s
a small house family shows the pitfalls of a one design fits all approach.
Unmodified 72 % of the unaltered houses are found in the smaller areas where
house 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

7
• 1a Main entry 8
• 1b secondary entry
• 2 Thinnai = closed veranda
• 3 Attu Kottai: goat shed
• 4 Ullarai = inner, private room 4 3
• 5 Pooja Arai - The prayer room
• 6 Samayal kottai : kitchen shed
• 7 Samayal arai : kitchen room
1
• 8 Kazhivurai – toilet, built by agency 2
• 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 1a
• Kuliyal arai: bathroom

6
5 1b
A newly built traditional kura house

7
8

4 3

1
2

1a

6
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 One of the first extensions made by the majority of the people is to
secure induvidual plots by constructing organigc fence or brick
Boundary fencing compound walls. This investment was of pivotal importance to
or compound wall regain a sense of privacy and the traditional outdoor oriented
lifestyle.
Convertion of The addition of an external kitchen aided the transformation of the
original kitchen in to a pooja room. This was frequently observed as
kitchen to the occupants preferred privacy in the pooja room.
Pooja room
Addition of Almost equal importance was given to building an entrance verandah ,
extension are made with thatch or concrete or cement board, aimed at
Entrance and gaining outdoor thermal comfort as well as to protect the building
Verandah from extreme climatic conditions and was made to 60% of the houses.
 The terrace is transformed into a space with multiple uses by
Addition of constructing a simple thatch roof. Not only does it protect the house
thatched roof from the extreme climatic conditions, it also facilitates the occupants
to terrace 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