1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 socioeconomic 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

6. 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

7. Old and New Malkondji

8. 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

11. New Malkondji

13. The new houses

14. The new houses

15. 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.

16. Transformations at settlement level: Densification
Village at the time of reconstruction (1996)
Village plan in 2011

17. Construction of temples

18. Transformations of houses
Chronology of
extensions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Kitchen
Tulsi vrindavan
Storage
Living
Delaj
Toilets

21. 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.

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 socioeconomically more sustainable
•
Extensive use of salvaged building materials
•
Less grievances about inequities and
corruption

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

32. New Fadsar

33. 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)

34. 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

35. The new houses (2004)

36. 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.

37. 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

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

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

40. Adaptations and transformation of houses
Chronology
•
•
•
•
•
Compound walls
Pankh (veranda)
External kitchen
Shaded area for cows
Construction of
bathroom

41. 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.

42. 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.

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

44. 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!

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

47. Constraints
•New village located on floodprone 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

48. Lessons learnt from Gujarat
• If financial and technical
support are adequate ownerdriven reconstruction leads to
better results than agencydriven reconstruction
• Relocation may have some
advantages in terms of
allowing people gradually to reappropriate themselves and
restore old village and houses
• Lack of community
participation in design and
construction leads to long-term
negative consequences

49. 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

50. House Design specifications by the Government of Tamil Nadu
Source: Government of Tamil Nadu guidelines for
reconstruction, 2005

51. 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

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. The traditional kura house
Typical Kura house spaces
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Main entry
secondary entry
Thinnai = closed veranda
Attu Kottai: goat shed
Ullarai = inner, private room
Pooja Arai - The prayer room
Samayal kottai : kitchen shed
Samayal arai : kitchen room
Kazhivurai – toilet, built by agency
Open bathing area
7
8
3
4
1
2
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
1a
6
5
1b

56. A newly built traditional kura house
7
8
4
3
1
2
1a
6
b

58. 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.

59. 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%

60. 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 200506 (36 m2 )
2. NGO B: 231 houses built in 200708 (30 m2)
3. NGO C: 66 houses built in 200809 (36 m2 )
4. NGO-D: 50 houses built in 201112 (42 m2)
5. NGO-E: financial support for
ownner-driven reconstruction
6. Government of Tamil Nadu: 33
houses built in 2010-11 (36 m2 )

61. 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

62. 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

63. 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.

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. Beautification and personalization

69. 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

70. 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

71. 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

72. 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

73. 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