This paper aims to report the findings of a study, which analysed the strengths and limitations of two distinct concepts used for post‐disaster housing reconstruction, namely, the donor‐driven and owner‐driven approaches.
Data were gathered through interviews, questionnaire survey and observations from government, non‐government organizations and the beneficiaries of owner‐driven and donor‐driven programmes in one of the affected districts.
The paper reveals that beneficiary satisfaction is higher on owner‐driven approach compared to the donor‐driven approach. Further, imposition of the buffer zone, non‐availability of suitable land and capacity constraints of the construction industry are identified as critical factors affecting the success of donor‐driven housing programme.
It was assumed that the quickest and most effective way to rebuild houses after a disaster is to employ the “donor‐driven” approach, where the government or an external funding agency leads the reconstruction process with the help of consultants and contractors procured for the project. Contrary to this popular view, this paper finds that there are limitations in this approach and that it may lead to housing that does not respond to needs of victims.
This paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of the two strategies used in housing reconstruction and highlights the need for building regulations and technical assistance as key to overcome limitations of the owner‐driven approach.
