Who governs reconstruction? Changes and continuity in policies, practices and outcomes - Rebuilding After Disasters: From Emergency to Sustainability - page 159

95 per cent of the households were fully satisfied. This approach proved to be
an effective way of mitigating some of the risks of owner-driven reconstruc-
tion as pursued by the government, namely the risk of the special needs of
the most vulnerable people being neglected.
The government's owner-driven approach without any additional NGO
support was almost equally popular, with 93.3 per cent of households re-
porting satisfaction with their post-earthquake housing situation. Ironically,
satisfaction was highest among those who obtained the minimum compensa-
tion of 40,000 Rs, which was given to rebuild dwellings classified as 'fully
damaged huts'. Before the earthquake, their housing situation was generally
poor, so even the minimum compensation allowed for an improvement.
People's positive judgement about the quality of their new houses was
confirmed by our detailed observations, which indicated that the quality
of construction was generally good and that the houses were seismically
safe. High construction quality was also found by the National Council
for Cement and Building Material (NCCBM), which was appointed by the
GSDMA as a third party quality audit. By December 2002 the NCCBM had
inspected nearly 100,000 houses and found a rate of conformity with the
governmental building codes of over 95 per cent. 1 Citizens' clear preference
for owner-driven reconstruction was also confirmed by a survey carried out
by Abhiyan, which found that only 39 per cent of the people who obtained
a house from an NGO would opt for this solution in the case of a future ca-
lamity. On the other hand, 91 per cent of the people who opted for financial
compensation would again choose the same option. 1
Our research also covered three villages that benefited from what we
defined as a participatory housing reconstruction approach. The approach
gave people an active role in the construction of their houses and a say in
choosing the materials and determining the design and location of the house.
The case refers to one of the few agencies that relied on local building skills
by promoting improved stone masonry. This resulted in houses that did not
differ significantly from those reconstructed by the people themselves, under
the owner-driven approach. The overall satisfaction with the participatory
housing approach averaged 90.8 per cent. The reason why the houses built
under this approach were less appreciated than self-built houses is that they
were comparatively small and people believed that with the same amount of
money they could have built larger houses themselves.
The level of satisfaction decreased significantly when houses were built
by contractors. Only 71.8 per cent of the people who received a house
built by a contractor in situ were generally satisfied and only 64 per cent
expressed satisfaction with the quality of construction materials. The agency
replaced local materials such as stone-masonry walls and tiled roofs with
flat concrete-roofed houses, which are poorly suited to the local climate.
Contractors' profit-oriented approach was also held responsible by many
people for the low quality of construction, which manifested itself through
the same problems as found in Maharashtra.