Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 24, Number 2, 2002, pp73-82

International Cooperation in a Post-disaster Scenario:
A Case Study from Gujarat, India
Rajib SHAW
United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Kobe, Japan
Masami KOBAYASHI
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Hiroyuki KAMEDA
Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Miki, Japan
Manu GUPTA
Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society, Delhi, India
Anshu SHARMA
Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society, Delhi, India
Yuko NAKAGAWA
United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Kobe, Japan
Michiko BANBA
Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Miki, Japan(Received for 21 Oct., 2002)

ABSTRACTIn the aftermath of the Gujarat Earthquake, January 26, 2001, several Indian and Japanese organizations joined
together in a rehabilitation initiative to produce a model village, with specific focus on upgrading community’s
living conditions and emphasis on livelihood issues. The initiative was based on the needs and priorities of thecommunity. The cooperation scheme involved different stakeholders from government, non-government, andacademic institutions. A mechanism for turning knowledge into practice has been developed, which is regarded
as an example of implementation technology. The lessons learned from the implementation of this initiative areapplicable to other parts of the world and other types of disasters.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The earthquake of January 26, 2001 (magnitude 7.7, USGS)
devastated the entire state of Gujarat in Western India, causing
extensive loss of life and property. The impact was particularly
severe in the Kuchchh district and neighboring areas and 13,000
lives are estimated to have been lost. More than 300,000 buildings
collapsed and more than twice that number were severely damaged(Earthquake in Gujarat, 2001). This was a tragic blow to theregion which had suffered from draught and the aftermath of two
cyclones within the past three years. The devastation affected thearea socially, economically and physically. As part of the longterm rehabilitation process, a joint initiative was undertaken thatincorporated various organizations in India and Japan. It was
aimed at the rehabilitation and reconstruction of a village, as amodel of earthquake-safer houses and emphasized the upgrading
livelihoods in the community. The importance of this initiative isthat it provides a model of rehabilitation and tries to establish aframework of mutual cooperation among different stakeholders
and organizations in the post-disaster scenario.
2. PROBLEM OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Disaster assistance is a complex issue with several dimen-

sions. Government, non-government, international organizations
have their own stakes in disaster assistance programs, and links
must be established among them, as well as with the community.
In other words, a post-disaster rehabilitation program should beseen as an opportunity to work with communities and serve local
needs. The relationship between natural disasters and development
is a far-reaching issue. On one hand, development is regarded asdeterministic and a major cause of vulnerability. On the other, it isregarded as a vehicle necessary for vulnerability reduction (Lewis,1999). Relief and development often lead to burdens on the recipient government, but also may often fail to serve the actual purpose
and to reach the people in needs. The linkage between the disaster,aid, development, and relief is controversial, as discussed by
Middleton and O’Keefe (1998). They argued that in many cases,
humanitarian aid is linked to political factors, and needy communities become victims of political battles.
Past disasters in India show that in the post-disaster scenario
there have been many role players that included national, international and local non-government organizations (Reddy et al.,2000). Whereas all the role players had commitments for development work, lack of available skills, strategic planning, and cooperation among similar organizations often have led to disorganized
relief and rehabilitation programs (Jigyasu, 2000). The situation

KEY WORDS: Cooperation, Community, Livelihood, Rehabilitation, Earthquake

74

R. SHAW, M. KOBAYASHI, H. KAMEDA, M. GUPTA, A. SHARMA, Y. NAKAGAWA, AND M. BANBA

regarding rehabilitation is the more alarming due to the inability toregain sustainable livelihoods, as well as stakeholders not to sharing the responsibilities (Parasuram and Unnikrishnan, 2000). The
traditional approach to post-disaster rehabilitation (MERDP, 1998)
and the findings of a recent field survey made in Latur,
Maharashtra, India by the senior author (Latur was hit by a strong
earthquake in 1993, had more than 8,000 human casualties) poseimportant questions related to rehabilitation. These are community
need, community ownership and participation, inter-disciplinary
and multi-stakeholder cooperation, and livelihood and the sustainability issues.
In contrast to the traditional approach, a people-driven
approach has been incorporated in the current initiative. Table 1
contrasts the traditional approach and the one incorporated in thecurrent initiative as related to the above-mentioned issues. We
here describe a scheme of cooperation among various stakeholders
for the development of a village community. International cooperation is shown to be able to reach the grass-root level, provided
there is strategic planning and that different stakeholders can work
together to achieve a single goal.
3.

MISSION AND GOAL: EMPHASIS ON SAFETY
AND SUSTAINABILITY

Experiences for past earthquakes in India (Latur, 1993,
Jabalpur, 1997, Chamoli, 1999) show that rehabilitation programs
usually focus on the reconstruction of houses with the assistance ofnational and international resources. The massive reconstruction
program undertaken after the Latur earthquake, funded by theWorld Bank, was able to improve the living conditions of the people by the construction of houses through the use of formal construction sectors (Salzar, 1998). There was a serious problem
however in that local communities were not involved in theprocess, and livelihood issues were not incorporated. In long-term

perspective, therefore lessons learned from disasters often are forgotten, and opportunities available following a disaster are notproperly utilized for sustainable development. This problem is
specific not only to India, but to other disaster-prone developing
countries as well. While developing strategic planning for the current initiative, the key issues listed in Table 1 therefore wereemphasized. Two particular aspects were highlighted; how to havesuccessful practice at the local level and how to establish a modelof cooperation applicable to different parts of the world and different types of disasters. The current initiative was planned for rehabilitation to make a model village, in which the focus is on different livelihood elements as well as the reconstruction of houses andinfrastructures. The mission of this initiative was to achieve safer
and sustainable livelihoods through community self-help, cooperation and education. The goal was to develop a standard model fora disaster-resilient community, which would serve its particulardevelopment needs and be a model for others.
The current initiative is taking place in two villages, Patanka
and Datrana, in the district of Patan, about 280 km northwest of
Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat, India (Figure 1). The distance
between the two villages is approximately 10 km. These villages
were chosen because of the location and accessibility (having a
critical location has impact on surrounding villages), the interest
and motivation of the village leaders and community members, theinvolvement and networking of local non-government organizations, and the interest of diverse stakeholders in working together
in the same target area. Table 2 gives statistics for the two villages. Both are of moderate size, and suffered considerable damage. The collapse rate of buildings was higher in Patanka, than in
Datrana.
4. ROLE PLAYERS: DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS
Various organizations from the government and non-govern-

Table 1. Comparsion of the traditional and suggested approaches in post-disaster rehabilitation program.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN A POST-DISASTER SCENARIO:A CASE STUDY FROM GUJARAT, INDIA

Fig. 175

Location of the most severerly affected areas and the project site in Gujarat Insert：Map of India showing the location of Gujarat.
Hevily shaded areas show the maximum damage zones.

Table 2. Statistical Data for the two affected villages in the study.

ment sectors, and academic and research institutions in India andJapan cooperated and contributed to this initiative. The United
Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) was responsible for overall coordination and for formulating strategies to be
discussed with its counterpart, a non-government organization the
Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society(SEEDS). Liaison with the governments of both India and Japan
was the prime role of the UNCRD, whereas SEEDS took the leading role in field implementation. The Earthquake Disaster
Mitigation Research Center (EDM) was keen to study the technicalaspect of rural non-engineered construction, and the process bywhich safer construction practices are adopted. This was done
through a confidence building program in association with a local

non-government organization, the National Center for People’sAction for Disaster Preparedness (NCPDP). A consortium ofJapanese NGOs, called NGOs Kobe, provided their experiences ofcommunity development after the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake of 1995. NGOs Kobe also funded a significant part ofthe current initiative. Funding also was received from the Ministryof Foreign Affairs of Japan through its Grass-root Assistance
Program, and additional funding on livelihood issues were soughtfrom the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The
Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA) took aleading role in disseminating the experience to other parts ofGujarat, as did the National Center for Disaster Management(NCDM) to other parts of India. Thus, a team of various organizations with different mandates and objectives was assembled towork for the local communities. The initiative had following different components:- Reconstruction of housing and infrastructures,- Upgrading of livelihoods,- Training of masons and engineers,- Confidence building program for earthquake safer rural housing,and- Dissemination of experiences.
Different activities were planned to obtain these components, which are
discussed in the next section. Table 3 shows the responsibilities of thevarious stakeholders, and Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of those
responsibilities.

76

R. SHAW, M. KOBAYASHI, H. KAMEDA, M. GUPTA, A. SHARMA, Y. NAKAGAWA, AND M. BANBA

Table 3. Task-Stakeholders relationship.

Fig. 2

5.

Scheme for cooperation by various stakeholdes in the rehabilitation program. Organizations in italics are the Indian counterparts，
the others Japanese organizations. For abbreviations, please refer
to Table 2.

PROJECT ACTIVITIES: FOCUS ON LIVELIHOOD
AND COOPERATIONAs stated, while obtaining earthquake safer construction, thefocus should be on upgrading living conditions, and making people
more self-sufficient, thereby creating a disaster-resilient community. Major project activities are shown in flow-chart in Figure 3.
Timeframes for the major activities and milestones are provided in
Figure 4. Work started with the relief activities of SEEDS immediately after the earthquake. Considerable time elapsed between
the first community meeting in the village and the start of actual
construction work.

Fig. 3

Flow chart of the activities of the current initiative as partof sustainable development program.

5.1 Establishing the Context:
This was the first step of the initiative, in which all the different organizations identified their objectives and roles in the project. There were two aims to achieve; to understand needs at the
local level, and to establish coordination among the various stakeholders. Social mapping was used for the first purpose, and stakeholder mapping for the second. As part of the social mapping, several community workshops were organized, in which local peopleINTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN A POST-DISASTER SCENARIO:A CASE STUDY FROM GUJARAT, INDIA

77

interacted with the team in an exchange of views and ideas (Figure5). Moreover, several team meetings were arranged to discuss thescope of work and responsibility of each stakeholder. The overall
framework of the initiative was formulated based on identificationof the concept, philosophy, and basic methodology. A three-levelcommittee was formed to run the project effectively, and the policy
framework and coordination mechanism were established (Table
4). As shown in the table, the steering committee, which madepolicy and provided the overall direction of the project, waschaired by the local NGO. The working group, which implemented work in the field, was composed of representatives from local
government, and local NGOs and chaired by the local government
head. This ensured involvement of the government sectors andsharing of financial and human resources. The third committee

Fig. 4

Project activities time frame and milestones.

Fig. 5A village community workshop provided the opportunity tounderstand the needs and priorities of the local pepole.

Table 4. Tri-level committee for effective project implementation.

78

R. SHAW, M. KOBAYASHI, H. KAMEDA, M. GUPTA, A. SHARMA, Y. NAKAGAWA, AND M. BANBA

was chaired by the village government representative. This
ensured implementation at the target level and that the initiative
would comply with the expectations and needs of the villagers. A
proper reporting system that ensured the flow of information bothways was established. The current area of study is located in Zone
5 on the Earthquake Hazard Map of India (the highest hazardzone), in which future earthquakes are anticipated to occur(Vulnerability Atlas of India, 1997), therefore, establishing thecontext was considered as one of the most important step for
avoiding devastating damage in future earthquakes.
5.2 Preliminary and Detail Surveys:
The basic survey had two different aspects, physical andsocial. A preliminary survey was made of each house to obtain theinitial damage scenario. During this survey, information on social
structure and livelihood also were collected. Caste system is acharacteristic feature of the affected area for many centuries. Most
livelihoods are based on this caste system (SEEDS 2001). Eachcaste has a specific role to play in the society. During the social
survey, while gathering information on economic status and livelihood, it also was necessary to categorize the village in terms of thecaste system. This was followed by a detailed house-to-house survey, the measurement of houses, and the classification of damage.
5.3 Demonstration Testing and Training:
In spite of visual observations of the damage, construction
practices have remained the same, and vulnerable constructions
still being built even after the earthquake (Shaw and Sinha, 2001).
This was attributed to several reasons: lack of confidence in traditional construction methods, lack of available low cost and affordable technology, and lack of trained, skilled masons. The important aspects of rural non-engineered constructions therefore needed
to be identified by demonstration and training that involved the
local community in order to provide them with confidence in existing building materials (Shaw et al., in press). The main message ofthis demonstration and training program was that damage wasdone to rural constructions mainly due to the lack of proper use oftechnology, not to poor construction materials. The important
steps were to build awareness, confidence, and capacity among thepeople of the local communities, masons and local engineers. A

Fig. 6preliminary training program was conducted in the village so thatpeople would understand the importance of earthquake-resistantconstruction at little additional cost.
In demonstration training programs, two identical half-size
models of rural houses were constructed on a locally built shaking
table in the field and tested to underscore the importance of earthquake safety elements. The experiment and training programs
were carried out in the presence of the local masons and people inorder to reinforce confidence in the earthquake-resistant construction techniques to be used. Figure 6 shows the first of the test
series, in which two models were constructed from stones and mud
mortar, after which one was retrofitted with locally available materials. At the end of testing, the retrofitted building had minor
cracks, whereas the other building had collapsed. This visualexperiment, with explanations, inspection, and measurements gave
immense confidence to the community. Four such testings wereconducted on houses built with different construction materials andconstruction techniques.
Another important aspect of the training program was mason
training, in which trained masons from Kathmandu, Nepal provided training for local masons from the affected village of Patanka.
Through that program, the Patanka masons had the chance to visit
Nepal and see the work of the Nepalese masons. This also gave
great confidence and experience to the local masons.
5.4 Civil Works:
Both villages suffered significant damage, and most buildings
needed reconstruction (SEEDS 2001). Civil work on actual house
construction started after the initial preparation, survey, and initialtraining workshop and is currently carried out as a participatory
approach through community involvement, by which the local people are able to contribute to the process and learn. Certain expenses were shared by the local people in terms of their labor; and outside contributions involved construction materials and cost effective earthquake safer building technology. Civil works consistedof three components: upgrading basic facilities (education, healthand child care), livelihood recovery, and housing recovery.
Upgrading basic facilities consisted of the planned retrofitting ofschools, constructing health centers and a new child care center.
Livelihood recovery focused on the construction of a community

Shake table demonstration tests. Normal construction（model right），impproved constrution with retrofitting （model left），
Photo：left before testing，right：after testing.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN A POST-DISASTER SCENARIO:A CASE STUDY FROM GUJARAT, INDIA

Fig. 7

Damage to a rural house built of stone and timber.
Collapse of the roof and failure of the walls produced
the major damages to such structures.

center for women and a rain harvesting system for various uses ofrainwater. The major rehabilitation component was housing recovery, which included the retrofitting and reconstruction of homes.
The first milestone of the civil works was a demonstration housethat was erected for the most needy family in the village. This
markedly helped to build trust with the local communities and todemonstrate the earthquake safer construction practices.
Most of the houses in the area were traditional structures, builtof locally available materials. It is of utmost importance that local
traditions and culture should be taken into account during housereconstruction (Shaw, 2001). Traditional housing has two basic
characteristics; its spatial planning and building system (Shaw etal., 2001). At any given time both aspect are the products of evolution over hundreds of years. As a result both were optimized interms of the prevailing local context. Spatial planning took into
account the lifestyle of the people, and the building system’s protection of the house from climatic elements. The most common
building materials were stone, earth and local timber. These materials were used in a way that allows future total recycling, rendering the houses very environmental friendly. Typically the walls
were of stone masonry set in mud mortar, cement being used only
to seal open joints. Roofs were constructed of various kinds oftiles placed over timber understructures. Damage to the houses
mainly was caused by the failure of walls and roofs (Figure 7).
The heaviness of the roofs did much damage to the structure of thehouse. Walls were not jointed properly, and each one behaved differently during the shaking, thereby causing structure failure.
5.5 Awareness and Dissemination:
The project activities, which targeted the community and the
local and national governments, significantly raised awareness.
Dissemination of the experiences and outcome to different communities also was important. Dissemination was carried out
through the circulation of periodic reports, presentations at various
workshops and meetings, and by organizing training programs forthe masons of different villages. State and central governments
had important roles in the in-country dissemination, and UNCRD
had a vital role in international dissemination.

79

5.6 Impact Analysis, Monitor, and Review:
It was important to analyze and learn lessons from the current
initiative, in order to make the process applicable to other disasteraffected communities in India and the world. To this end, understanding of the real impact on the community, ascertaining the rateof adoption of earthquake safer building practices, and assessing
the possible transferability of the initiative to other locations wereneeded. Impact analysis was made through a set of questionnaires
and interviews over regular intervals of time. Two questionnaires
for local masons and engineers were designed, one to be given
before the demonstration testing, the other after it. Questionnaires
were repeated for four testings. The results are currently being
analyzed. Some highlights of the impact analysis findings are: 1)
the increased belief and confidence of people in retrofitting at minimum additional cost, 2) enhanced confidence in the use of stone
masonry with proper construction, 3) understanding of the greater
importance of construction technology than the building materials
used, and 4) the need for testing to be done at different locations
with different groups of people.
6. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CASE STUDY
The lessons can be summarized with reference to five issues
as stated earlier : community need, community ownership and participation, inter-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder cooperation,
livelihood issues, and sustainability. All are considered interrelated and inter-dependent.
6.1 Community Need:
This was the first lesson. In both villages, many day-to-day
issues required attention and focus. This was made clear at thevery first meeting with the community members. They did notwant just to rebuild their houses but to use the rehabilitation program as an opportunity for village development. Water was a serious long-term problem in the area, because most of Gujarat wasundergoing severe draught that had lasted three years. As a few
days of rain during the monsoon was the only source of water,
rainwater harvesting was needed. Most of the village peoples’
livelihoods were dependent on livestock, therefore food-grains forlivestock was another priority area. Community members also
wanted to learn safer construction practices, to give them status astrained masons, which could be linked to their livelihoods. They
were eager to learn such different elements of construction practices as iron-work and wood-work. Need for these practices had
increased in the post-earthquake period. Needless to say, such
lessons cannot be learnt in a single day. A rehabilitation program
therefore must be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of thelocal community in the process.
6.2 Community ownership and participation:
Chairmanship of the village level committee was given to thehead of the village, which was very significant in showing thatownership belonged to the people and community. Regular meetings at the village level, and the local decision-making process
helped to implement this. The participation of local masons andhome-owners in the construction process gave actual ownership of
the technology to the local people.

80

R. SHAW, M. KOBAYASHI, H. KAMEDA, M. GUPTA, A. SHARMA, Y. NAKAGAWA, AND M. BANBA

6.3 Inter-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder cooperation:
This was another significant lesson. Rehabilitation is a very
complex problem and should be approached from various different
disciplines, with the participation of various stakeholders. This isdefinitely a challenge because all organizations and stakeholders
have their own mandates and missions. The current project teamconsisted of civil engineers (structural engineers), planners, architects, social scientists, administrators, and policy makers. The initial meetings among these stakeholders were very important. The
clear-cut vision of each organization’s involvement was very useful during the early stage of the primary planning process.
Centralized coordination of different organizations was essential
for facilitation of the total program.
6.4 Livelihood issues:
As discussed earlier, both case study villages are relatively
economically backward. Therefore, livelihood issue was one priority area. The major livelihoods are farming, livestock herding,masons (and related construction workers) and laborers. Of these,
agriculture and livestock are the most seriously affected by climatic conditions. Another important livelihood alternative was smallscale handicraft industries for the women, which included gum
collection, embroidery, folk-art, and painting. This was specifically important in Datrana village where a community center is currently being made for the women’s livelihood programs.
6.5 Sustainability issues:
Sustainability is the most challenging issue, and provides thegreatest learning experience. This should be kept in mind from thevery beginning of any rehabilitation program. The exit-policies ofNGOs and/or other role players are very important.
Institutionalization of efforts is the key factor. At the village level,small scale CBOs (community based organizations), which would
be responsible for the sustainability effort in each village, wereformed. Networking among these organizations and linking withthe local NGO also were important factors. The actual impact ofthe project in the long term has yet to be seen, but, appropriate
measures are being undertaken on the sustainability issue.
7. MODEL OF COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TECHNOLOGY
Shaw and Sinha (in press) argue that to provide safer and sustainable livelihoods in a community, it is necessary to establish
linkages among the various stakeholders: the communities, governments at different levels, academics and non-government organizations. A post-disaster reconstruction program must be a
dynamic, flexible process, that reflects people’s priorities and aspirations, and it should seek a balance between affordability, technical feasibility, and the quality of life (Vatsa, 2001). In manycases, such projects are donor-driven rather than community-driven, project activities being decided by donor agencies or governments, rather than the communities themselves. Ownership ofsuch projects therefore belongs to governments or donor agencies.
Another issue is the involvement of different stakeholders. In mostcases, the government, non-government, and academic sectors
work separately with little or no interaction and have separate
goals and objectives (Eade, 2000).
Involvement of the community in a participatory way in owning both the problem and solution was undertaken at the local

Table 5. Factors necessary for an effective multi-stakeholder community initiative.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN A POST-DISASTER SCENARIO:A CASE STUDY FROM GUJARAT, INDIA81

ing closely with the end-users and involving them in the process
and the involvement of different stakeholders in achieving a single
goal. This initiative was regarded as a field experiment in implementation technology, which is the turning of knowledge into
practice. The model established is universal in nature, and can beused in other parts of the world, for all types of disaster.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Fig. 8Implementation technology is defined as the intersectionof empowerment，knowledge，and sustainability，basedon cooperation among various stakeholders.

level, by focusing on safety and the sustainability of lives andlivelihoods. Involvement of different stakeholders in India andJapan in working together with the communities, under a framework based on local needs and priorities was another area ofemphasis. Sensitization of the international community to those
local needs and priorities was done at the international level.
In summary, the basic elements in this initiative were thecommunity, its stakeholders, existing knowledge, confidence intechnology, and people’s ability to turn knowledge into practice.
The goals to be achieved were: to ensure safer living and sustainable livelihoods, to empower the communities, and to motivate
people through incentives. The tools used to achieve these goals
were partnership, cooperation, self-help, and participation.
Although the common practice for cooperation is from the central
to the local government, and only then to the community, thescheme used for the current initiative is indicative of the community-centered interaction of different stakeholders. For successful
rehabilitation, the important factors are participation and empowerment; flexibility and a time-frame; teamwork; identity and ownership; trust; and evaluation and transferability (Table 5).
Regardless of the developmental status of a country, existingknowledge and technology often are not converted to practice norbrought to the community level. So long as the end-users, i.e., thecommunities are not empowered, the sustainabilities of a safer lifeand livelihood are difficult to attain. The process of turningknowledge into practice has been called implementation technology (Kameda 2001). Figure 8 shows the conceptualization of
implementation technology as a continued process of common
standpoint on knowledge, empowerment, and sustainability, basedon the cooperation of related stakeholders. This implementation
technology process is exemplified by the initiative reported here.
8. CONCLUSION
Different stakeholders from India and Japan joined together inproviding a post-disaster scenario for the rehabilitation of two
Indian villages with specific focus on sustainable livelihoods. The
initiative was formulated based on the needs and priorities of each
community, and local people were involved in the decision making
process. Two important features characterize this initiative: work-

The study was initiated when the first author was a researcher
in the Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center (EDM).
Contributions of EDM in different aspects are highly acknowledged. The authors thankfully acknowledge the help and cooperation of representatives of the local and regional governments ofIndia. Special thanks go to Mr. M. Murai and R. Suzuki ofNGOs-Kobe for their contribution and inputs. People of the villages who participated in the initiative are the owner of this project.
REFERENCES
Anderson M. B., Woodrow P. J. 1998. Rising from the ashes: development
strategies in times of disaster, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder,
USA, 337 pp.
Eade D. 2000. Capacity building: an approach to people centered development, Oxfam Publication, Oxford, UK, 226 pp.
Earthquake in Gujarat 2001. Directorate of Information Booklet, Gujarat
State Publication, Gandhinagar, India, 52 pp.
Jigyasu R. 2000. From natural to cultural disaster: consequence of postearthquake rehabilitation process on cultural heritage in Marathwada
region, India. In Earthquake-safe: lessons to be learned from traditional construction, UNESCO-ICOMOS conference,Turkey. Available at
http://www.ntnu.no/~rohit/Istanbul_illustrations.htm
Kameda H. 2001. EQTAP: A new challenge for realizing safety and sustainability against earthquake and tsunami disasters in the AsiaPacific Region. In: EdM technical Report 11, 15-24.
Lewis J. 1999. Development in disaster-prone places: studies of vulnerability, IT Publications, London, UK, 174 pp.
MERDP, 1998: Efforts at participatory rehabilitation and the role of community participation consultants, Maharashtra Earthquake
Rehabilitation Documentation Project, Report No. 4, Government of
Maharashtra Publications, Mumbai, India, 348 pp.
Middleton N. and O’Keefe P. 1998. Disaster and development: the politics
of humanitarian aid, Pluto Press, Chicago, USA, 185 pp.
Parasuraman S., and Unnikrishnan P. V. 2000. Disaster response in India:
an overview, In: India Disaster Reports: towards a policy initiative,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India, pp. 3-20
Reddy A. V. S., Sharma V. K. and Chitoor M. 2000. Cyclones in Andhra
Pradesh, Booksline Publication, New Delhi, India, 160 pp.
Salazar Alex 1998. Disasters, the World Bank and participation, relocation
housing after the 1993 earthquake in Maharashtra, India, available at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ GUJARATDEVELOPMENT/message/64.
SEEDS 2001. A profile of the village Datrana, SEEDS Publication, New
Delhi, India, 45 pp.
Shaw R. and Sinha R. Towards sustainable recovery: future challenges
after Gujarat earthquake (in press). Risk Management: an international journal.
Shaw, R., and Sinha, R. 2001. Preliminary Observations. GIS

82

R. SHAW, M. KOBAYASHI, H. KAMEDA, M. GUPTA, A. SHARMA, Y. NAKAGAWA, AND M. BANBA

Development, 3, 10-12
Shaw, R., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., Saita, J., Arai, H., Choudhury, M., Jaiswal,
K., and Pribadi, K. 2001. The Bhuj Earthquake of January 2001, IITEDM Joint Reconnaissance Report, 157 pp.
Shaw R. 2001. Problems and prospects of safer building practices, In:
Center Workshop of EDM, Kobe, December, 2001.

Vatsa K. S. 2001. Rhetoric and reality of post-disaster rehabilitation after
the Latur earthquake of 1993: a rejoinder, personal communication.
Vulnerability Atlas of India 1997. Building Materials and Technology
Promotion Council, Government of India Publication, New Delhi,
India, 580pp.