Slum upgrading consists of physical, social, economic, organizational and environmental improvements to slums undertaken cooperatively and locally among citizens, community groups, businesses and local authorities[1].The main objective of slum upgrading is to alleviate the poor living standards of slum dwellers. Many slums lack basic local authority services such as provision of safe drinking water, sanitation, wastewater and solid waste management. Slum upgrading is used mainly for projects inspired by or engaged by the World Bank and similar agencies. It is considered by the proponents a necessary and important component of urban development in the developing countries. However, many people do not believe that slum upgrading is successful. They point to the difficulties in providing the necessary resources either in a way that is beneficial to the slum-dwellers or in a way that has long-term effectiveness. Alternatives to slum upgrading include the construction of alternative tenements for people living in slums (rather than fixing the infrastructure itself) or the forced removal of slum dwellers from the land.
Contents |
Slums have posed a huge problem for developing nations because they are by definition areas in which the inhabitants lack fundamental resources and capabilities such as adequate sanitation, improved water supply, durable housing or adequate living space[2]. Many governments have tried to find solutions to the problem, and one of the proposed solutions is slum upgrading. Slum upgrading is essentially a strategy in which the infrastructure of a slum is improved, such as giving adequate water supply and sewage to the community. Additionally, because of the tenuous legal status of slum inhabitants, often strategies include the legalization of the right to the land on which slums are built.
The concept of slum upgrading, a strategy for the improvement in a slum’s infrastructure, is one that has evolved out of a period of unprecedented urban growth since the mid-20th century. In fact, nearly two thirds of the population growth that has occurred in that time period has been in urban areas[3]. Not only have we seen the growth of urban populations a whole, but the world has also seen phenomenal growth with regards to individual cities, including megacities (cities in excess of 8 million inhabitants) and hypercities (in excess of 20 million inhabitants). By 2015, the world will likely have 550 cities with a population greater than one million – an increase of 464 cities from 1950. Currently, only one city (Tokyo) has a population large enough to be considered a “hypercity.” However, by 2025 Asia alone may have eleven of these cities[3].
The key factor in this has been that the cities that have grown most rapidly have been cities in the developing world. For example, the cities of Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Lagos, Nigeria, are forty times larger than they were in 1950[3]. While much of this growth has come as a result of population explosion, mass migration from rural areas to the cities has accounted for a huge portion of this worldwide urbanization. The great increase in population has had tremendous implications in the urban ecology in the developing world. The major effect of this has been the rise of the slums[3].
Up until the 1970’s, countries took a very hands off approach to the difficulties of third world housing. In essence, there were three solutions taken seriously by the international community: subsidized mortgages, prefabrication, and “organized self-help” [4]. However, people began to recognize housing as a basic need, requiring more invasive measures and thus giving rise to the idea of slum upgrading [4]).
In 1972, John F. C. Turner published his book, Freedom to Build, in which he argued for a theoretical strategy to solve the problem of slums[5]. He argued that governments should not try to tackle the housing problem itself, but all of the components of the area. Thus, by implementing good sewage and clean water and good paths for people to walk on, people would gradually better their abodes on their own.
Many countries have shifted policies towards slum upgrading policies (where the inhabitants are not inherently evicted from their dwellings) and away from what was once the policy and practice of governments – eviction and bulldozing. Some countries, such as China, still hold the policy of bulldozing squatter settlements (which form the basis of many slums)[6], but other countries, such as Brazil, have shifted away from this strategy and worked on urban renewal projects via slum upgrading policies[7]. Slum upgrading proved easier and cheaper and without the public relations nightmare that comes with pictures of housing developments getting bulldozed.
Yet until recently, most countries had very little in terms of formal policy measures to undertake slum upgrading, and so the problem of slums has generally gotten a lot worse over the years. The World Bank has undertaken many major slum upgrading projects since the 1980s[8], but fundamentally, it does not solve the problem of slums – it simply helps fix the problems with current slums. Worldwide, there are approximately one billion people living in slums. However, that number is expected to rise to two billion by the year 2030[9], and the policy of slum upgrading will not affect the mass migration of the rural poor to the cities.
In 2000, the Millennium Development Goals were developed and agreed upon by all 192 UN member countries (“United Nations MDGs” 2010). Goal 7 was to ensure environmental sustainability, and one of the targets under this goal was “to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers”[2]. As the MDGs touched on the issue of slums, it has also refocused attention on how to alleviate the problem of slums. The UN-HABITAT officially supports the policy of slum upgrading, making it one of the foremost ways of urban renewal with respect to slums[7].
According to the 2006/2007 UN-HABITAT State of the World’s Cities Report, the countries of Egypt, South Africa, Mexico, Tunisia, and Thailand stand out in their efforts towards slum upgrading[10]. Indeed, their slum growth rates had fallen markedly in the various countries (though the fact that the growth rate is still positive speaks to the fact that slums are not going away or even shrinking). The report went on to say that in order to stem (or at least slow) the growth of slums in the world’s cities, countries are going to have to make some hard choices and make major financial commitments (with the help of the World Bank, a major player in the worldwide effort to promote slum upgrading) in order to accomplish the Millennium Development Goals towards lifting significant amounts of slum dwellers out of poverty[10].
According to Habitat for Humanity International some common barriers to slum upgrades are:
According to the report, Alagados The story of integrated slum upgrading in Salvador (Bahia), Brazil, this Cities Alliance project focused on upgrading slums with single-family homes. The project known as PATS (Technical and Social Support Project) was a partnership between Cities Alliance, the Italian Government, and the World Bank. The main goal of the project was slum elimination in the area. This was to be done by moving the families from their informal settlement into single family homes in a newly developed area. Another goal of the project was community engagement and education. This program planned to incorporate educational programs that would teach residents how to improve their health, education, and economic status. Another goal was improving the resident’s access to services. In this model the program would give the families access to utilities such as garbage collection, connection to water, electricity, and sewage.
According to the report 984 families were transferred into new homes over a 5-year period. These families all had the opportunity to attend courses on how to improve other aspects of their lives specifically their health, education, and finances. At the time of this report 80% of the families had garbage collection, 71% were connected to water, 88% were connected to electricity, and 84% were connected to sewage. This model achieved the stated objective of reduction/elimination of the slum population in that area by almost 1,000 homes while improving other aspects of the families’ day-to-day life. [12]
The Marins-Pecheurs project, which was implemented by The Most Clearing House organization in Agadir Morocco, aimed to relocate families living in slums with minimal social disruption. This project had to work within the land constraints of the area since it was an urban setting in a country with land scarcity. Because of the land issues single-family homes were not an option and multi-family homes were seen as a better solution. The project created small row houses and apartments for sale and rent to squatters near their current site in Agadir. This was to be done by assisting the squatter families to demolish their shacks and to move their possessions to the new location. Because Morocco does not have a renting culture community engagement was incorporated into the planning process so that residents would be better able to understand the reasons and benefits for choosing a multi-family home model rather than a single-family home model.
The Marins-Pecheurs project re housed squatter households in multi-family apartments. The community, ANHI, and the local government developed the following format: 175 semi-finished row houses, 40 apartments units with a total of 450 apartments for squatter families. It also incorporated community involvement at every level and established community working groups to make certain the housing project fit the needs of the people. During the construction phase, many residents were able to gain paid employment in or related to construction work. [13]
In 2009, President Pratibha Patil of India announced that her government aimed to create a slum-free India within five years. In order to do that the government planned on investing large amounts of money into building affordable housing[14]. Thus, rather than improving the area, the government aimed to create entirely new homes for the urban poor. This idea of building new homes for the poor is one major idea that contends with the idea of slum upgrading.
China, by contrast, uses the more traditional (and controversial) method of getting rid of urban slums: bulldozers. Migrant workers moving to Beijing are met with the threat of their homes and abodes simply being demolished in an effort to keep the number of slums down. Because city residents must be officially registered in China (in contrast to India, where there is no prevention of rural people migrating to the city), low-income housing is unavailable to migrants living in demolished slums, creating a difficult situation for Chinese slum-dwellers[6].
Despite some successes and the support of the World Bank and the UN-HABITAT, not all people believe slum upgrading is the ideal choice for solving the problem of slums. In fact, there are a number of different players – such as local politicians – who would like to see the status quo concerning slums stay the same[15]. Yet beyond petty local politics, there are major problems with the slum upgrading approach, some of which have to do with the very nature of many slums themselves. For example, in order to lay infrastructure for slum upgrading projects, the governments inevitably have to buy land[16]. However, this raises tremendous difficulties when trying to figure out which land to buy, since slums are (by definition) so densely populated that some houses are literally on top of one another, making it difficult to bring any sense of organization to the areas[16].
The second problem with slum upgrading stems from the fact that land ownership is not clear. Many times slum dwellers are either transient dwellers or have informal arrangements with the community around them. As a result, as many governments try to go in and establish land rights, difficulties ensue. The World Bank has attempted to separate land ownership deeds and the actual development of infrastructure, but this creates whole new problems of its own. After all, if ownership is not clearly established, tenants are often unlikely to pay for the utilities they receive as a result of the slum upgrading projects. Developing nations cannot afford to provide free utilities for an extended period of time, so this creates a huge problem for attempts at slum upgrading[16].
Another criticism of slum upgrading is that the infrastructure built as a result must be maintained. In fact, because many governments try to cut the costs of slum upgrading via lower quality infrastructure, subsequent costs of maintenance are often higher. In fact, a minority (47 percent) of the World Bank’s urban projects are considered sustainable. Thus, for many of the projects, the one-time cost is not enough: slum upgrading projects are long-term commitments unless they are made with the ability to recover costs through revenue[16].
Finally, there is difficulty in establishing community and group efforts to bring about real improvement within the slum community. Slums are areas in which violence and conflict are rampant – yet often outside of the scope of knowledge of the government. Because community participation can significantly help the people who are actually doing the slum upgrading by shedding light on community issues that would otherwise hamper slum upgrading efforts, not engaging the community (either from a lack of effort or inherent lack of ability) makes slum upgrading much more difficult[16].