Management of Slums

Characteristics

Rural Push Factors

Urban Push Factors

Intro

Strategies

Large Scale Public Housing

Self-help Schemes

slum upgrading

site-and-svc scheme

  1. substandard housing/illegal & inadequate building structures. built w/ non-permanent materials e.g. corrugated iron, w/ earthen floors
  1. overcrowding & high density. small rooms, high occupancy rates. shared room for cooking, sleeping.
  1. lack of basic svc.s (food, sanitation facilities, electricity, clean H2O, waste collection systems etc.)
  1. unhealthy living conditions & hazardous locations. due to open sewers, lack of pathways, uncontrolled waste dumping. slums may be found on land unsuitable for building (too steep), close to factories w/ toxic emissions (polluted)
  1. poverty & social exclusion. low Y is cause of slums. slum dwellers often not recognised by gov. slums perceived to have high lvls of crime.
  1. insecure tenure, irregular/informal settlements due to lack of any formal doc entitling occupant to occupy land/structure so slum dwellers often prevented from acquiring mortgage loans from banks. may be forced to move.
  1. min. settlement size to be classified 'slum'. e.g. Kolkata requires min. 700m2 w/ 300 ppl or 60 h/hs

insufficient land quantity & poor land quality. land may not be suited to many crops-> shortages of cultivable land-> move

agricultural inefficiency like inefficient farming practices & scarcity of investment capital-> limit cap. of agri sector to provide for pop. limited dev. of other sectors restricts local employment opportunities

high pop. growth rates + failure to cater adequately to needs of growing pop. (X enough jobs, facilities)

agricultural intensification & intro of modern farming practices. to improve productivity, in M'sia, thousands of paddy farmers displaced as gov. invests in major irrigation schemes

future prospects: ppl more willing to endure ST difficulties in hopes of better prospects of economic gain & improved welfare in LT

bright lights (glamour of city life): non-economic factor. social attractions of a city.

wage & employment differentials: higher wages, more job opportunities. may live in poor conditions but consider themselves better off economically than before

slum: heavily populated urban area characterised by substandard housing & squalor (dirty due to poverty)

past: declined housing over time as no/low maintenance by lower-Y ppl who rent @ low cost. present: vast informal settlements (expression of urban poverty). quality varies.

railway stations in India have resident pop. illegal but better access to g&s, less travel time, closer to city

slums: env. aspects of area. squatter settlement: illegal urban dev. on land not owned/rented by occupants

failure of gov. housing prog.s (SS X match DD, X enough budget allocated)-> ppl seek alt shelter

decent, affordable housing is basic requirement for human well-being yet much of pop. in cities of LDCs have most basic shelter. e.g. Dhaka (Bangladesh) 3.7m2 Washington DC 60m2 (per person)

e.g. (DC) HK: overcrowded (one place separated into 6-7 "parking lot" units) w/ shared facilities (1 toilet, kitchen) due to long waiting list for public housing (10 years), which is super ex (high DD, low SS)

large no. of migrants to city-> growth of slums + young adults predominate so high lvls of natural pop. increase

e.g. (LDC) Manila: ppl live in Smokey Mountains (dumpsite: unhygienic, polluted air from burning) bc could not survive in big city. not a residential area so has substandard housing (shelters of wood & plastic) & lack basic svcs (no H2O & electricity. have to pay to use toilets) Smokey Tours as source of Y

e.g. (DC) S. Africa: whites are minorities & discriminated (social exclusion) live in tents & caravans @ camps. clean.

gov. led project. usually provides basic services (H2O, electricity) & are kept affordable (gov. needs to balance DD/SS of land)

limitations: only effective if loan schemes/subsidies are offered, to support push for home ownership. may lead to other prob.s e.g. become new form of slums.

(success): SG in 1960s. HDB created estate. Now, >80% live in HDBs in satellite towns (w/ amenities like schools, medical centres)-> LT sol.

approaches & their successes varies, depends on wealth of country. not transferrable (what works in a country may not work in another)

(failure): 1972 Karachi Dev. Authority discontinued housing project due to lack of funds (a prob. commonly faced by countries w/ low lvls of dev, due to limited financial ability). only 800 flats were built & none went to beneficiaries

insertion of basic infra into neighbourhood. done in situ (place of origin), to reduce costs & disruption (than if were to move somewhere else)

(success): Jakarta's Kampung Improvement Programme. paved roads, provided health clinics & drainage canals for >500 kampungs-> LT sol.

limitation: must consider unique characteristics & type of slum

(failure): Dharavi Redev. Project failed as slum dwellers felt that gov.'s plan did not have their interests in mind, even lost faith-> refused Mhada's attempt to carry out redev.

local gov. lays on some amenities in a new place (relocation) but encourage slum dwellers to upgrade their buildings w/ grants/charity aid, according to certain guidelines

new land is divided into plots that can be rented & built upon. must be given ownership of land

criticisms: failed to recover costs (pay subsidised rates but sometimes, still cannot pay), inability to prevent a middle-class takeover

(failure): Metroville, Karachi in 1973. >4000 plots avail. but in '83, only 700 occupied, mostly by middle class (bc high costs to the poor)

(success): Incremental Dev. Project in Hyderabad. loan scheme was set up. pop. risen to over 2000 fam.s