Demolition, forced evictions and wellbeing in the city
Jaideep Gupte, Dolf te Lintelo, Sheela Patel, Vinod Kumar Rao, Allister McGregor, and Rajith Lakshman
Background paper to the main report
2
Demolition, forced evictions and wellbeing in the city1 Jaideep Gupte2, Dolf te Lintelo3, Sheela Patel4, Vinod Kumar Rao 3, Allister McGregor5, and Rajith Lakshman
14 March 2019
Abstract The paper is based on a study of people’s wellbeing in seven informal settlements in three cities in India (Mumbai, Vishakaputnam and Raipur). We find evidence to support the view that cities concentrate livelihood and other opportunities. However, only small proportions of the sampled labouring poor living in informal settlements thrive, and if they do, they do so on only a limited number of wellbeing goals. We find that people who have experienced demolition have a different set of priorities, and have a lower sense of achievement on the lifegoals they value, than people who have not experienced demolition; and that this pattern is evident for both women and men who have experienced demolition. Poignantly, we find that the dampening of satisfaction with achievements on lifegoals is also evident at the intra-household level, that is, a person’s outlook on their achievement on the life goals they value is lower than other members of the same household who have not experienced demolition, even when they are of a similar age, have similar levels of education, have similar occupation profiles, and live in the same dwelling. However, we also find that the negative impact of demolition on people’s wellbeing dissipates over time, and importantly, is mitigated when the process of eviction does not involve demolition and is facilitated through local participatory action.
I. INTRODUCTION
Understanding and managing urbanisation in developing countries is one of the major global policy challenges for the first half of the 21st century. Rapidly growing towns and cities are increasingly recognised as powerhouses of economic development, employment generation and as having the potential to be great drivers of improvements in human wellbeing. At the same time, the lived experiences of a significant proportion of city residents are also determined by extreme impoverishment, substandard housing, dominated by informal employment, insecure and hazardous working conditions, environmental degradation and unrest. What is worse is that one of the direct outcomes of growth and prosperity in cities is an increasing number of people, usually the most marginalised or least resourced urban residents “living on the edge of legality under informal tenure arrangements” (du Plessis 2005), are being evicted against their will, without consultation and without compensation or alternative housing. Forced evictions, or the involuntary removal of persons from their homes or land, directly or indirectly attributable to the state, has been described as “another sort of refugee crisis in the developing world” (Emmel and Souza 1999: 1118). Global estimates suggest that forced evictions displace more people than armed conflict. Compulsory land acquisitions to make way for road or rail network improvements are now commonplace in the large cities of the developing world (IBRD 2009: 18). These large-scale
1 This paper is an outcome of a one-year study on Informal Work and Wellbeing in Urban South Asia, funded by the Department for International Development's (DFID) South Asia Research Hub (SARH). 2 Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Email for correspondence: [email protected]. [Grant details, and acknowledgements]. This paper is an outcome of a one-year study on Informal Work and Wellbeing in Urban South Asia, funded by the Department For International Development's (DFID) South Asia Research Hub (SARH). 3 Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex 4 Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) 5 University of Sheffield 3 infrastructure projects often have financial and technical support from international aid agencies (Cernea 1988, 1993; ADB 1998; DFID 2010), and necessitate the relocation of informal settlers or ‘squatters’ from within city limits (for example, in India see Ramanathan 2005; in Thailand see Viratkapan & Perera 2006; or in Kenya see Macharia 1992). These programmes are driven by the thinking that informality in slums is a primary cause of urban poverty since it forces people into illegal and unregulated economies (de Soto 2001). As a result, relocation initiatives treat evicting informal settlements as their core objective, while improving material conditions of those evicted is under prioritised. Subjective and relational implications on evictee wellbeing is almost never considered, and this underscores the long-standing need to better understand the circumstances in which poor urban governance creates opportunities and threats on the everyday lives of those who live in and migrate to cities (Satterthwaite and Mitlin 2013; Walker et al. 2013). Even well-intended urban development interventions have unanticipated side effects. It will come as no surprise that slum demolitions, a common urban development intervention that has no such benevolent aims, has clear negative impacts on the wellbeing of slum inhabitants. Substantial research has been done on the negative impacts of forced relocation on social and economic wellbeing of evictee households, like for example, economic hardships, disruption of the social fabric, and a feeling of uprootment (see amongst many others Crane et al. 1997; Dupont 2008; Takeuchi et al. 2008; Hazareesingh 2001; Lall et al. 2008). Cernea (2000) famously pointed out that when eviction and relocation leave people worse off, this is often caused by joblessness, marginalisation, food insecurity, social disarticulation as well as poor service provision. Social movements mobilised around the right to housing have shown alternative best practices underpinned by strong levels of community organization (see for example Patel, d’Cruz, and Burra 2002). And yet, forced evictions involving demolitions continue unabated, while the conditions of evictees fail to be systematically incorporated into research on, and the process of, urban planning. Justifications built around eminent domain legislation, to serve a “greater common good” or to make a city more “efficient” dominate, even if the evictions run directly counter to various international covenants and human rights declarations (Roy 1999). In this paper, we first illustrate the use of wellbeing metrics as a way to articulate who is thriving, just surviving or outright failing in Indian cities. In line with a growing set of studies, we find that an analysis of wellbeing priorities and satisfaction levels is consistent with objective indicators of material deprivation in urban contexts. Furthermore, a focus on wellbeing helps us interrogate for whom opportunities arising from agglomeration materialise, and in what ways these opportunities connect with people’s own life goals. This spreads the focus of our analyses wider than a narrow view of material deprivation, to include subjective and relational wellbeing, thereby addressing the inadequacies traditional measures of depravation and quality of service provision face in describing the everyday realities and vulnerabilities of women and men in urban contexts (see Mitlin 2005, Mitlin and Satterthwaite 2013 for a wider review of the adequacy of depravation measures in urban contexts). Based on these findings, we move to a comparative analysis of wellbeing priorities, and the satisfaction levels on life goals, of three groups: those who live in informal settlements and (a) have never experienced forced eviction; (b) have experienced forced eviction involving demolition in the recent past; and (c) have experienced forced eviction involving demolition in the distant past. We use a combination of secondary data analysis and a ‘bottom-up’ human wellbeing assessment methodology, to present empirical evidence on patterns and gradations of wellbeing success and failure that are emerging for women and men across these three groups. The paper is based on a study of seven informal settlements in three cities in India (Mumbai, Vishakaputnam and Raipur), in which we collaborated with slum-dweller and residents’ organisations to collect wellbeing data on 1385 individuals, roughly half of whom were women, in 702 households. We find evidence to support the view that cities concentrate livelihood and other opportunities. However, only small proportions of the sampled labouring poor living in informal settlements thrive, and if they do, they do so on only a limited number of wellbeing goals. It is important to note that while tenure insecurity was a prevailing issue, and the threat of possible eviction always loomed large, none 4 of our study sites were under a immediate order of eviction during our data collection. Our approach to interrogating the impacts of forced eviction due to demolition was therefore retrospective. We use two entry points for identifying respondents who have experienced forced eviction. The first are a set of questions that ask if they people have moved into the settlement, whether this was through a Government-aided voluntary resettlement scheme, because of being forcibly evicted from their previous residence, or because they voluntarily moved, for instance, to seek a job or due to marriage. Separately, we also asked respondents to self-identify if their dwelling had been involuntarily demolished in the past 12 months, in the 5 years before that, or if their household had not experienced demolition at all over this period. Our retrospective approach has two main benefits: first, it enables a comparison between those who have experienced forced evictions and those who have not without the need to trace evicted households to where ever they relocated to. Second, it allows a type of temporal perspective on the long-term impacts of forced evictions, again, without the need to trace households post-eviction. This approach does have its drawbacks. We cannot study the impacts of any one specific demolition drive for example. Nor can we be certain that there are no other mitigating or tertiary factors that may have also influenced people’s wellbeing outcomes and outlook on life within the time period of study. To minimise any resulting biases and uncertainties we randomise the selection of our respondents, we average our results over a large number of respondents, and we compare results from a variety of sites across a variety of cities with varying social, political, infrastructural and economic characteristics. We critically assess the impact of forced evictions and home demolition on people’s wellbeing at a number of levels and in complex ways that change over time. Using spatial and material characteristics of their dwellings, and the socio-economic descriptors of the women and men who have experienced demolition, we establish that this grouping of people is indeed a distinct one from the rest of the sample. We then look at the overall patterns in wellbeing priorities and satisfaction on achievement on life goals of those who have experienced demolition compared with those who have not. We subsequently break this down in a variety of ways to narrow down on issues relating to the city, the settlement, gender, and intra-household relationships. We find that (a) people who have experienced demolition have a different set of priorities, and have a lower sense of achievement on the lifegoals they value, than people who have not experienced demolition; (b) that this pattern is evident for both women and men who have experienced demolition; and (c) the dampening of satisfaction over achievements on lifegoals is also evident even at the intra-household level, that is, a person’s outlook on their achievement on the life goals they value is lower than other members of the same household who have not experienced demolition, even when they are of a similar age, have similar levels of education, have similar occupation profiles, and live under the same roof. However, we also find that (d) the negative impact of demolition on people’s wellbeing dissipates over time, and importantly, (e) is mitigated when the process of eviction does not involve demolition but is facilitated through local participatory action. Building urban housing, roads, public transport, drainage systems and electricity supplies, even the creation of green spaces, all play a role in determining the resilience of cities and their residents. However, when the very processes that produce the built environment, also endanger the most vulnerable or least resourced residents, these processes cease to be inherently benevolent or sustainable. A systematic understanding of the short- and long-term impacts of demolition drives continues to be an important element of an overall evaluation of the processes of urban development and renewal. Based on our findings we argue that a focus on wellbeing allows such evaluation to centre on the everyday lives of people who have experienced forced eviction, and doing so links directly to the issues that matter the most to them – a key premise behind the participatory and inclusive aspirations of the Sustainable Development Goals. Demolition is the antithesis of this perspective as it embodies an abrupt, absolute and often dramatic rupture of the political processes involved in the forced movement of people. Our analysis highlights that counterproductive impacts of the increasing numbers of demolition drives leading to the displacement of vast numbers of people across urban India, and 5 therefore highlighting the need for participatory approaches that are focussed on the priorities of marginalised and lesser resourced urban residents as they seek to take part in the political process of trade-offs and consensus building, no matter if doing so prolongs the process of urban development and renewal. Given that people’s priorities as well as the levels of achievement on life goals differ significantly across sites and also between socio-economic groups differentiated by gender, for instance, we acknowledge that the policy responses to protect and promote wellbeing may need to be different at the local level and in respect of different groups (in keeping with McGregor, Camfield, and Woodcock 2009). The rest of this paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, we briefly describe the state of evictions due to demolitions in urban India. These are becoming more frequent and more acute. We next describe the wellbeing methods we have employed and situate them in relation to the literature on urban deprivation and displacement. In section 4, we outline the institutional, infrastructural, political and demographic characteristics at the city- and site-level, moving to Section 5 in which we present data on the overall wellbeing outcomes in our study sites. We show this to be consistent with objective indicators of urban deprivation. In Section 6, we focus specifically on the impact of forced evictions due to demolitions on people’s wellbeing priorities, and their sense of achievement on the lifegoals they value. Section 7 concludes.
II. EVICTIONS AND DEMOLITION IN URBAN INDIA
Over the last decade, India’s urban population grew by over 90 million, representing a 31.8 per cent increase. This was 2.6 times the corresponding decadal rise in its rural population. These trends together imply that the least urbanized country out of the ten largest global economies has, for the first time, signalled a fundamental shift towards urban living. The Institute of Town Planners, India estimates that urban areas will contribute up to 75 per cent of India’s GDP by 2030. Successive governments have looked to position urban centres, with their access to markets, infrastructure and credit, as economic engines that can also act as flywheels of rural growth. Urban transformations associated with these changes in population shares are credited with lifting millions of people out of poverty. In 2009, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, of the Government of India, produced a National Urban Poverty Reduction Strategy’ (N-11024/5/2002/UPA-III 2008) which promised “A New Deal for the Urban Poor”. The strategy aimed to create ‘slum free cities’ and was the first instance the right to shelter was acknowledged in India. However, in the years that followed, we have witnessed the mass eviction of the urban poor from lived space, at times to make way for mega-scale infrastructure projects, but often also involving the criminalisation of informal housing of the poor, while regularising, and even enabling the informal urbanisation of the wealthy and powerful (Roy 2003). One out of every six households in urban India (17.4%) lives in an informal settlement (slum), while the total number of people living in informal settlements was estimated to be 65 million in 2011 (as per the Indian Slum Census 2011), and, as one study estimated, there is a gap of 700 to 900 million square meters of commercial and residential space that is required to accommodate India’s urban population in 2030. With cities like Mumbai and Delhi, where around 60% and 50% of the population respectively lives in informal settlements, continuing to attract high levels of investment in real-estate development, there continues to be a risk that investment strategies will be diverted into serving a narrow set of interests, and become more divisive than inclusive. This risk is greatest for those who live in informal settlements who may be excluded from using, or worse, may be displaced (or adversely affected) by new infrastructure. The real crisis is that land and property markets are such that new investment into high-end apartments continues unabated despite the unsold stock, and all the while, these developments are also displacing those urban residents who informally inhabit cities. The risk of ever greater numbers of informal dwellers being evicted from urban areas grows. The Government of India does not have any official data on forced evictions and displacement, civil society organizations have estimated that since independence (1947), at least 65-70 million people 6 have been displaced in India, as a result of such ‘development’ projects (HLRN 2014). Several city-level initiatives have however chronicled the magnitude of ongoing evictions. In Delhi, for example, over a thirteen-year period between 1990 and 2003, just over 51,000 houses were demolished under ‘slum clearance’ schemes. However, in the following three years alone, at least 45,000 homes were demolished (Bhan 2009). In Kolkata, 77,000 slum dwellers were evicted in 2004 (Menon et al, 2007).
III. METHODS FOR SITUATING WELLBEING IN THE CONTEXT OF URBAN DISPLACEMENT
Methods of assessing wellbeing as a component of multidimensional poverty have begun to emerge over the past two decades. In recent years, we have witnessed a growing interest in wellbeing methodologies in developing and developed countries. For example, the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Chile and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have made efforts to measure wellbeing of their nations to better reflect the social, economic and environmental progress of countries. The wellbeing methodology adopted in this paper deliberately uses both universal and highly local reference points and parameters of wellbeing. In brief, the bottom-up research process involved community profile assessments and FGDs with male and female community members in slum settlements. These exercises were designed to identify community priorities of wellbeing, drawing on the collective aspirations, values and experiences of individuals in the investigated settlements. We next situated these community specific wellbeing indicators and priorities within a global body of research on wellbeing. We then construct an Integrated Wellbeing Survey (IWS) instrument to collect data on locally relevant indicators of wellbeing that have been identified by urban slum communities themselves, combined with indicators emerging from the global wellbeing literature. The survey instrument is then administered to the main male or female (paid and unpaid) worker in a household across the selected research sites. Individuals are asked to reflect on issues that are only about themselves, about their households, and about their communities because people’s wellbeing is affected by how satisfied they are about their own achievements in life, about their relationships with their partner and also about their functioning within communities. As we show in the following sections, we perceive this is as a strength of the methodology, not a weakness. By distinguishing who is thriving and who is failing, our approach “help us understand which of these cities and communities within them are places of opportunity for whom, and in what ways they provide pathways either to opportunity or to immiseration and indignity” (te Lintelo et al. 2018: 392). Our focus group discussions with women and men in the study sites interrogated what it means to live a good life, what resources they need to live the life they aspire to have, and what they think about the resources and opportunities they presently have to fulfil their aspirations. From these discussions we distilled 34 life goals, which we subsequently took back to approximately 100 households in each study site, and to allow an intra- household view, we interviewed both the primary earner (be they male or female) and their spouse, and asked them to weigh each goal according to how important they felt the goal was to them, and how satisfied they were with their level of achievement on that goal, alongside a range of other questions on wellbeing and urban deprivation. We also record the geospatial location of each household interviewed.6 Our sampling strategy takes into consideration that issues of information asymmetry may or may not occur for individuals and communities. That is, the preferences and therefore the priorities of individuals or communities may be influenced by misinformation or a lack of information. This is known to have particularly adverse impacts on the outcomes of the poor, wherein a lack of information about rights they are entitled to or the services that are available to them increases their vulnerability to risks.
6 Where express informed consent for recording location was provided by the respondents 7
There is a vast amount of evidence supporting this, for example, in the literatures on the various impacts of hygiene and cleanliness on health (eg. Graf et al 2008), impacts of breast-feeding on early childhood development (eg. Edmond et al 2006), and impacts of having access to information on disaster resilience (eg. Besley and Burgess 2000). In Mumbai, housing developments for relocating pavement basket weavers drove higher incidences of ill-health (Burdett and Taylor 2011). Walker et al. (2013) found that slum upgrading efforts in Mumbai that involved high rises confer some material benefits of particular interest to women and the disabled, such as closer water connections and toilets, but also disrupt social networks, which play a large role in how women and the disabled meet other material and needs, thus eroding sources of subjective and relational wellbeing. The point of a wellbeing approach is that individuals’ own preferences and priorities, however idiosyncratic, are analysed. a. Wellbeing priorities and wellbeing outcomes We deliberately pair subjective questions that assess the importance that respondents give to certain wellbeing aspects, and their satisfaction with the levels of wellbeing achieved on these. For example: 6.1b) How important is the safety and security of the area you live in to you? 6.1c) How satisfied are you with the level of safety and security in your community? The pairings were carefully constructed for 34 wellbeing goals (see Annex. for the full list of importance- satisfaction pairings). Unlike other instruments used to assess urban poverty, these pairings allow us to establish the extent participants value a particular resource as well as the extent to which they are satisfied with their attainment of that resource. The strength of this approach is that individual participants are able to apply a weighted importance response to questions that have been used by previous quality of life studies (Renwick and Myerscough, 2007; Woodcock, Camfield, McGregor & Martin, 2008). We use the importance-satisfaction pairings in to compute ‘weighted scores’. The scale for all importance questions was derived from 5 possible answer options: ‘Very important’, ‘Somewhat important’, ‘Neither important nor unimportant’, ‘Somewhat unimportant’, ‘Very unimportant’. The assigned weight of zero fully discounts those items ranked ‘Very unimportant’. The remaining four categories then receive a weight expressed as a fraction of 4, as presented in the table below. Satisfaction scores are simply on a scale of 1 to 5, with ‘Very unsatisfied’ receiving 1 point, and ‘Very satisfied’ receiving the maximum score of 5. Importance Scale Score Satisfaction scale Score Very important 4/4=1 Very satisfied 5 Somewhat important ¾=0.75 Somewhat satisfied 4 Neither important nor Neither satisfied nor 2/4=0.5 3 unimportant unsatisfied Somewhat unimportant ¼=0.25 Somewhat unsatisfied 2 Very unimportant 0 Very unsatisfied 1 Table 1: Importance and Satisfaction scales b. Illustrating wellbeing priorities and outcomes as jagged teeth charts We present the wellbeing priorities (calculated as the mean importance score for each goal) and wellbeing outcomes (calculated as the mean satisfaction score for each goal) of the communities graphically to illustrate the interactions between the perceived importance of particular goals and the levels of satisfaction reported on the goal. By presenting them in ranked order of goal importance, it is 8 possible to highlight the disjuncture between the priority of goals and the perceived level of satisfaction of them. This type of graphical representation is a powerful way of illustrating gaps in achievement and in aspiration, which can be beneficial for policy recommendations and which gives some indication of the ways that public policy outcomes are failing to match people’s own visions of what is important for a good life (see McGregor, Camfield and Woodcock 2009).
B
A
Figure 1 – Sample jagged teeth diagram In the sample illustration in the diagram above, we can see that individuals have low levels of satisfaction over their achievement on goals they ranked as having low importance to their life (grouping A). Conversely, the example also shows individuals having high levels of satisfaction on goals they rank as having a high level of importance in their life (grouping B). Thus, creating an upward slope of sorts. This upward slope presents a positive overall picture, even though individuals display low levels of satisfaction on Goals 1-7. The fact that they do not rank these goals as important in their life implies that their low levels of satisfaction on these goals do not have a significant impact on their wellbeing. We also explicitly include objective indicators, which measure goal attainment (so to follow on in the earlier example on safety, we measure objectively whether self-reported violent incidents occurred in the community) objectively to provide comparison.7 From a policy perspective therefore, it is critical to not only understanding people’s objective achievements of goals, but also their subjective opinions on goal achievement weighted by how importantly they rank those goals. In addition, we colour code the bars to indicate lower than average (in red) and above average (in green) satisfaction scores. In some instances, we split the satisfaction scores on a Likert 5-point scale into ranges of 4+ scores in green indicating satisfaction with achievement on that goal, scores below 3 in red indicating dissatisfaction with achievements on that goal, and scores below 3 in amber to indicate responses that are neither tending towards ‘satisfied’ nor ‘unsatisfied’. c. Institutional conditions at the city-level The absolute size of a city can have tangible impacts on the quality of life of its residents, though this relationship is not necessarily straightforward. The size of the city is arguably correlated with levels of access to and control over government funding, with for example, large cities in India dominating national urban funding schemes such as the JNNURM (Mahadevia 2011). Residents of large cities may benefit from the positive externalities resulting out of economies of scale and proximity (Fujita and Thisse 2013). However, they may also suffer from higher levels of pollution, crime and violence (Moser
7 Also see http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/what-works-wellbeing-cross-cutting-specification_tcm8-32396.pdf 9
2012). At the other end of the spectrum, small cities tend to be deprived of the political and economic influence of megacities, which can significantly impact, for example, their ability to set in place systems that build resilience against disasters (Cross 2001). Emergent cities may be characterised as those in greatest flux, having substantial social change through sizeable arrivals of migrant populations, rapidly growing informal economies, relatively low administrative capacities unable to deal with growing populations, thus offering particular potential for non-state arrangements to emerge that govern informal workers ability to earn. These emergent cities are less likely to attract large-scale urban development investments (especially in infrastructure), compared with established cities and megacities. Moreover, urban characteristics such as size, density, diversity and complexity can also provide insights into defining key social determinants such as health outcomes (Ompad et al 2007). For example, “density is considered as crowding and, therefore, enhancing transmission of infectious diseases, in fact, density also enables public health programs to reach large sectors of the population efficiently. Diversity increases a cultural richness in cities but can also lead to cultural clashes; diversity necessitates tailoring interventions to meet the needs of different subpopulations. Finding the right balance between these competing pressures of density and diversity is a constant challenge for planners of urban health interventions… cities [also] have a rich array of social and human resources, from dense social networks and many community organizations to numerous formal and informal service providers. These human resources and the social capital inherent within them constitute key assets for intersectoral urban health promotion and may make it easier to operate in multiple sectors, even with limited resources” (Vlahov et al 2007: i22). The size and growth rate of a city is therefore reflective of complex interactions between multilevel systems wherein cities are inextricably linked to other sociopolitical levels, ranging from neighbourhoods, to interconnected urban areas that form metropolitan ‘regions’, as well as national level dynamics. As resources are limited, these interactions are not only characterised by inter-sectoral competition within cities (that is, simultaneous demands for education, employment, crime prevention, environmental protection, and sanitation for example), but also inter-city competition, as municipal authorities vie for larger shares of a limited pool of national resources (see for example Lawrence 2006). This allows us to delineate three broad types of urbanising contexts in order to be reflective of distinct sizes and stages of urbanisation, and thus allow us to examine how their diverse economic, socio- political and institutional conditions can constitute threats or opportunities for informal workers: emergent cities (small to medium-sized cities that are experiencing higher urban growth than other comparable cities); secondary metros (medium to large sized cities which may or may not be experiencing rapid growth) and mega cities (the largest of cities that continue to expand and grow).
Type of city Administrative Governance Urban Population Poverty capacity develop’t dynamics incidence investments Emergent Weak, highly Flux, Least likely Rapid growth Very high pressured innovation through migration Established Fair Relatively Likely Internal growth + High stable migration Mega cities Moderate, Relatively Most likely Slow internal High improving stable growth + migration Table 2: A schematic overview of diverse institutional conditions in three city types (te Lintelo et al. 2018)
10
As per India’s most recent census (2011), cities of more than 100,000 people, which are classified as Class I Cities, now account for 70.2% of the total urban population. Within this group of cities, the percentage of population in 5 million plus and 1-5 million city size classes has been growing steadily over time, while cities and towns in size classes of less than 100,000 people account for a steadily declining share of the urban population.
Share of urban population by size of city, India 45 38.8 40 35.7 33.5 35 31.5 31.4 30.8 29.8 27.6 30 >5 million 25 22.6 21.1 20 1-5 million 20 17.4 16.7 15.6 15.6 100,000-1million 15 12.1 <100,000 10
5 % share of urban population urban of share % 0 1981 1991 2001 2011
Figure 2 – Share of urban population by size of city, India. Source: Census of India 2011. Provisional Results. In Table 2 and 3 (see Annex), we rank the 53 Indian cities that currently have more than one million residents by their absolute size in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011. If we trace back the growth of the 53 cities, some key trends are evident. Firstly, in 1981, all but 12 of those cities had populations below one million (shaded in yellow). By 1991, only half of the cities had populations below one million, and this dropped further in 2001, when only 17 cities continued to have populations below one million. At the other end of the spectrum, the number of cities with five million plus residents (shaded in orange) has grown from three in 1981, to four in 1991, to six in 2001 and eight in 2011. The number of cities with one to five million residents (shaded in green) has shown a similar growth, from accounting for roughly 17% of the cities in 1981, to 36% in 1991, to 55% in 2001 and 85% in 2011. Subsequently, we rank the same 53 cities by their average decadal growth rate in Table 4, in which we highlight three bands: those cities with an average decadal growth rate of 5% or more, those that grew on average between 2 and 5%, and those that grew on average less than 2%. It is evident that while the number of cities in the highest growth-band has steadily dropped, the number in the other two bands has increased. It is also evident that there is a very high degree of movement between bands, with a significant number of cities moving across all three bands over the three time periods, while a few have moved through only two bands, or have stayed within the same band. Taking both sets of ranking together, it is possible to select several cities within each of our typologies. For example, Mumbai and Kolkata fit the mega-city typology in that their substantially large populations grew at a steady or declining average decadal rate. Vishakhapatnam, Ludhiana and Nagpur, for example, display similar characteristics, but at a significantly lower size threshold, and would thus fit well into our second typology of secondary metro. And lastly, cities like Kota, Raipur or Asansol, for example, are all cities that were in the smallest size category in 1981, but have consistently posted high average decadal growth over all time periods, causing them to move up into a higher size category. We therefore categorise such cities as ‘emergent’. Based on these rankings, we purposively sampled informal settlements in Mumbai (mega-city), Vishakhapatnam (secondary established) and Raipur (emergent). 11
Site selection: Within each site, in each sampled household, we sampled the primary earner (male or female) and their spouse. To do this, a broad conceptualisation of ‘primary earner’ was used, which in particular including unpaid care workers, workers who are either self-employed, waged under informal labour conditions in either informal or formal sector, casual wage workers, homeworkers and informal enterprise employers. Single-headed and single-gender households were not excluded. Household selection at the site-level was based on a spatially randomised system. Adjoining households were not selected, but a systematic interval was maintained while accounting for cohabitation and stacking of households. This minimised the amount of spatial sub-clustering, and therefore limited the design effect, while ensuring coverage of the entire site. To minimise interviewer influence, the random selection was done by site supervisors, while the survey instrument was administered by a team of enumerators. In order to ensure that the sample still covered an equal number of female and male informal workers, our research teams employed a booster sample administered at the site level, wherein additional households were sampled in the event that the required number of women and men were not achieved through the original sampling.
Male Female Total respondents Respondents HHs Hanuman Nagar, 100 100 102 Mumbai Indira Nagar, Mumbai 99 98 100 Mankhurd, Mumbai 101 97 101 Kashiram Nagar, 99 99 100 Raipur Suraj Nagar, Raipur 95 98 97 Suryatheja Nagar, 97 100 100 Vizag RP Petha, Vizag 102 100 102
Sub-Totals 693 692 TOTALS 1385 702 Table 3 – Number of respondents sampled by site and gender, and total number of households by site
12
Hanuman N Indira Na Mankhurd Kashiram Suraj Nag Suryathej RP Petha Total
Avg. Age (yrs) 53.0 39.0 44.1 38.4 36.4 43.2 39.3 41.9
s
c i
t Avg. Monthly HH s i 172.6 146.1 122.3 119.5 89.8 78.7 65.4 113.4
t Income (USD)
a
t
s
l
e Avg. HH Size 4.11 3.79 4.51 5.07 4.82 3.66 3.67 4.23
v
e
l
d
l Avg. #M/ Avg. #F 1.15 1.12 1.13 0.98 1.04 0.99 0.98 1.05
o
h e
s Experienced
u 8 (8%) 5 (5%) 9 (9%) 24 (24%) 14 (14%) 60 (61%) 68 (67%) 188 (27%)
o demolition H Never expereinced 94 (92%) 95 (95%) 94 (91%) 75 (76%) 87 (86%) 39 (39%) 34 (33%) 518 (73%) demolition
Paid Workers # (%
l 111 (55%) 103 (52%) 97 (48%) 106 (54%) 109 (54%) 30 (15%) 47 (23%) 603 (43%)
e of total) v
e Paid workers without L
107 (96%) 100 (97%) 83 (87%) 95 (90%) 104 (96%) 27 (93%) 46 (98%) 562 (94%) t
s contract
n c
i
t
e
a
d t
n All without contract 197 (98%) 195 (98%) 189 (94%) 187 (94%) 198 (98%) 195 (99%) 206 (100%) 1367 (97%)
S
o p
s Paid workers w/o e
R contract or soc. 163 (81%) 167 (84%) 159 (79%) 175 (88%) 185 (92%) 126 (64%) 155 (75%) 1130 (80%) Protection Table 4 – Descriptive statistics of sample
IV. INSTITUTIONAL, INFRASTRUCTURAL, POLITICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SITES
In the following section, we introduce each of our study sites, and describe the everyday conditions, status of service provision and the prevailing institutional conditions. This information helps contextualise the wellbeing data presented in subsequent sections. a. Sites in Mumbai Hanuman Nagar, PN 37 A ‘declared’ slum with a population of about 20000, this 3 decades old slum is situated on municipal land. Residents claim some as original settlers, and some being relocated here by the state agencies. What looked more like a forest in the beginning, and infamous for criminal activity, is now a thriving community with multi-storied concrete houses. There is a clear trajectory of accessing the basic services – first settlers in 1985, municipal water in 1987, electricity in 1990 and what started as a single toilet, the settlement now has access to 50 public toilets. Key livelihood among men include vending, driving, or working as labourers, security staff and other private jobs, whereas women work as maids or take up home based income activities. Water is supplied by the city, but connections are shared between houses, with exceptionally few depending on bore wells. Toilets are majorly (80%) public, with a small minority having their own toilets. Residents pay nominal monthly fees to access the toilet but complain of ill maintenance. Electricity is available uninterrupted to both households and street lighting. Government run pre-primary and primary schools exist within or close by. Minor flooding was reported during regular monsoons, but the widespread destruction during the 2006 Mumbai monsoon floods was promptly noted. Not bringing out any particular illness as an issue, while there are private clinics close to the settlement, municipal services are further away. Having benefitted from a prior housing scheme, families are hopeful of more housing programs. While some families started to occupy the land, others were relocated to this place by the city government. The original land title is with the Central Government. Mahila Milan operates a credit and savings scheme. Disputes are resolved through group and community meetings. Indira Nagar, HE 84 Located on airport land in densely built area, Indira Nagar is a notified but a small slum with 132 households living for over 50 years. Though having faced evictions in the past, the dwellings show all characteristics of established urban slum settlements and aspire for redevelopment in the same 13 location. Livelihoods range around labour work, selling vegetables, rickshaw driving and even working in the formal sector. 80% of men are involved in this type of work, only 20% women reported working mainly as domestic help. Majority have shared water connections, with a minor 10% having their own connections that get Municipal supplied water. Electricity supply is fairly uniform, formal and not perceived as unaffordable. Sanitation is communally accessed at a monthly fee, though its sewage disposal continues to be a challenge. Garbage collection is through the city’s collection program. Local public transport is mostly used for daily commute. While health centres themselves are not present within the settlement, they are easily accessible. The main challenge perceived by the residents is the struggle to get land tenure, as the land belongs to the Airports Authority of India, a national government body. Formed as one of the oldest slum dweller’s federation since 1995, the federations have been negotiating for housing current residents in situ, yet allowing for land to be used for commercial purposes. The residents began putting money aside for contributing to the redevelopment but have discontinued now due to their disillusionment with the tenure plans. Unjust practices of the subsidized food grain distribution centre is cited as the other challenge. Mahatma Phule Nagar, Mankhurd Originally inhabited on marsh land, but now situated close to a railway station, and away from the Mumbai city centre, Mahatma Phule Nagar settlement was notified in 1990. With about 13 huts that were erected in 1977, the settlement now has about 1300 housing units. This over 50 years old settlement has faced evictions in the past, but once the demolitions stopped in 1980, families invested in building more permanent houses, with several units that have now doubled up vertically, offering renting spaces. Each housing unit is built with brick, mortar, tin roof sheets and has lockable front doors. Shared taps that provide 24 hours water supply from the city are present through the settlement. Community toilets are accessed by paying a monthly fee, garbage is dumped in a common place which also doubles up as a space where the children play. There are no street lights, however each unit has electricity connection. Elementary education facilities are available in the slum, and children go to other schools nearby for further education. The health care facilities accessed is mostly private. Men work as Government servants, in private companies, and some as casual labourers. Women take up home based jobs, working as house help and selling vegetables. The community has a police unit located inside the settlement which is unoccupied, however residents perceive that the settlement is quite peaceful. b. Sites in Raipur Kashiram Nagar A mostly resettled slum, it includes the Sindhi community which resettled after the partition of India and Pakistan, and has secure tenure, and many others who were resettled with a 30 year lease. This having expired now, there is uncertainty among the people around their security. With about 650 families living in the settlement, mostly living in permanent houses, nearly half of the slum residents are renters. A multi cultural and multi religious migrant community inhabited slum, it has specific areas inhabited by Muslims, Cobblers and other communities. The residents are occupied in myriad types of occupation with clear difference between the older and the younger generation. While the older work mostly in the unorganized sector, the younger residents work in formal institutions such as shopping malls and private companies. Bidi making used to be a popular home based work among women, who have now taken to other jobs due to low wages. Except for a marginal number that own their water taps, most others share municipal water, however a few ground water sources exist as well in the settlement. Though the water is available for just an hour each day. About half now have toilets in their homes, a few use poorly maintained communal toilets, and a small number defecate in the open. Garbage collection is municipal body owned. Elementary education facilities exist in the slum, and children do study in Government schools. Both public and private health care facilities exist within that are accessed by the residents. Residents claim that originally being donated by a trust, the land is now appropriated by the city administration. Starting with a settlement with minimal services in about 2001, 14 after which the settlement now formed a part of a newly constituted state of Chattisgarh, several important services and facilities have come up in the slum now. Community groups, women’s saving groups exist in certain capacity in the slum. Kashiram Nagar community is divided in three sections - Mochi Mohallah (A backward Caste community), Muslim Mohallah (Muslim Community) and mixed community Mohallah. Muslim Mohallah also incorporates the Sindhi community. The residents are mainly from Chhattisgarh/Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh (Figure) Suraj Nagar As a land allotted to about 20-25 families by the state government, Suraj Nagar was established in 1968. After which it was incorporated as a slum within the city in 2004-05, an event seen as leading to much development within the settlement, as perceived by the residents. With over 400 structures, nearly half are permanent while other are semi permanent structures, and boasts of metalled access roads. Men work as casual labour, vegetable vending, some working in private as well as public institutions. About half of the women in the settlement reported working, though there was a general perception that women don’t work but stay at home and take care of children. Water is accessed mainly through borewells, some individual, some shared. Toilets too are individual where present, over half of the residents defecate in the open. Most have electricity. Garbage collection is by the city, however quite rampant. There are no clinics in the slum, however immunisation, maternity and child care services are available, as well as NGO assistance on HIV prevention and treatment. A private primary school exists within, but education access is mostly outside the settlement. Residents have access to ID cards and have also formed associations including women’s savings groups. Suraj Nagar used to be grazing land for livestock of the nearby Labhandi village. In 1968 the Tahsildar (state government official) allotted this land for human settlement by 20-25 families of Labhandi. The settlement was named as Suraj Nagar. City boundary redrawing meant that in 2004-5 the settlement became part of the city to be declared a slum, and this has led to many improvements in the settlement. There are a total of 450 structures in the slum, 425 of which are residential and 25 residential cum commercial. About 50% structures are pucca made up of brick walls and tin roof and 50% are semi- pucca structures. The population of the settlement is about 2000-2500. The road which connects Suraj Nagar to the National highway is muddy, but the settlement itself benefits from metalled roads developed in the last five years. Privately owned motorcycles or auto rickshaws and public buses are the main modes of transport. But where possible people prefer to walk. There are 3-4 community borewells/hand pumps in the settlement used by 75% of the population whereas the other 25% have private borewells inside their houses. There are no community taps in the settlement but the borewells were provided by the government. Some 40% of houses have toilets. For those families below the poverty line (75% of these), in the last two years the government has provided soak pit toilets under the BSUP scheme. The remaining 60% of families defecate in the open. There is no community toilet in the settlement. Twice a month the RMCcollects garbage from the settlement but residents were saying that this system only works on a complaint basis. Electricity was installed in the last two years and today almost 95% of the families have electricity meters in their houses. There is no private or government dispensary in the settlement; people mainly use the government clinic which is one to 1.5 kilometres away near Labhandi. The local NGO Chetana works on HIV-AIDS yet nobody in the community talks about it. For immunisation/ pre natal/post natal care, government people come to the Anganwadi once or twice in the week. There is one Anganwadi in the settlement, however the teacher is often absent. There is one private primary school. For secondary school, children have to go away from the settlement. Residents said that there is only 60% literacy rate in the settlement and on average children studied up to the 8th standard. There is only one lawyer and one policeman in the settlement; these are the only two influential people in the settlement. The ownership of the land is disputed. Some residents declared that the RMC has given them the land on lease. Many families have voter’s identity cards as well as ration cards. There are about three community groups 15 active in the settlements and 2-3 women have started a savings society. As there is no police chowky, the community solves disputes amongst themselves. c. Sites in Vishakapatnam Suryateja Nagar Located on about 4 acres of state government land, Suryateja Nagar is an 18 year old settlement, sandwiched between the road and a large drain. As a part of the city periphery, with the expansion of Vizag city limits, this now falls within its territory. Therefore it has not faced evictions so far. Currently negotiating housing rights under the new Government housing program, the perceptions of tenure security is unclear from just the conditions of housing. There are about equal number of housing units that are constructed with more permanent materials as there are ones with temporary materials. Most men work as carpenters, masons, auto drivers, while women sell fish and engage in casual labour. Ground water is used through shared hand pumps and drinking water is supplied through a single tank that is refilled each day by the city. Except for a marginal number of families that have their own toilets, most defecate in the open. Minor flooding at times was reported, which was however mitigated through a boundary wall that separated the drain from the slum, and this was negotiated by the residents with the local political leader. Electricity is mostly shared, and streetlights exist as well. Health and education services are accessible, but the residents gave several instances of assistance from World Vision towards challenges with health care, and supporting the housing program as well. A registered community group does exist which claims to have negotiated for several changes in the settlement’s condition and access to services. It is now in negotiation to participate in the subsidized housing program of the Government. Some 60% of dwellings uses temporary materials (such as thatch, mud, plastics, un-joined asbestos sheets, etc.) as the primary building material; the remainder use semi-permanent/permanent materials (such as bricks, mortar, corrugated tin sheets, etc.). Houses are mostly made from stones. Some use bricks and have roughly plastered the walls. There are no reinforced concrete structures and all houses use tin/asbestos sheets for the roof. They all have lockable front doors. There is no dominant social group in the community. R.P. Petha, Ward 39 Located on a small patch of empty land near a railway line, RP Petha derives its name from the name of the area. Sitting under a railway overbridge, about 200 families have been living for over 15 years, with a significant number of families that are temporary and belong to migrating populations. Evidently, every single house is made of temporary materials such as plastics, with no lockable doors. A recent cyclone destroyed the settlement permanently, only to be restored after materials were donated from well-wishers. The residents are engaged in low paying livelihoods such as selling phenols, repairing gas stoves, bird keeping and selling. Water access was negotiated through help from local NGOs, but toilet access continues to be a challenge. Young women predominantly use public toilets for washing and for toilet use, however most others use bushes near the track for defecation or bathing in the open. Each household uses oil lamps and street lights form major source of lighting at night. A small makeshift school constructed within the settlement is used as a primary school, but very few continue beyond elementary schooling. Occupational health challenges were reported, and nil state-run health care service meant, the residents paid high bills at private medical service. The residents see being registered, counted and identified as the most important aspect for their tenure security. Some now have IDs, but the focus is to consistently improve on it. With assistance from NGOs, and being registered helped them get access to some basis such as drinking water and street lights. The President of the slum’s registered society says “now with the ID cards, I think we are more secure. To me, getting the voters ID card is a great milestone and I am very happy and proud about it. Next I want to get ration cards for everyone.” 16
V. IMPACT OF FORCED DISPLACEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF DWELLING
a. Wellbeing and urban deprivation In the sites sampled in India, ownership of dwelling and ease of access to drinking water were ranked in the top ten priorities of communities most often. In the table below we indicate those goals that were consistently ranked in the top 10 (that is, in at least 4 out of 7 sites). And while a number of goals never made it on to the top ten list in any site, we are able to conclude that despite small intra-site contextual differences, the wellbeing priorities that people report are similar, suggesting that women and men across the seven informal settlements we studied face similar types of wellbeing challenges. That said, we find do find that levels of satisfaction with achieved wellbeing outcomes differ considerably between study sites and, importantly also between gender. This affirms that although the challenges may be broadly similar at an aggregated level, the policy responses to protect and promote wellbeing may need to be different at the local level and in respect of different groups (McGregor et al., 2009). Avg. # of sites in importance which the Goal score goal was Goals never ranked in the top 10 ranked in the top 10 Ownership of dwelling 7* Ability to observe religious practice Protection from work-related Ease of access to drinking water 6 hazards Ease of access to medical Enclosed toilet facility 5 interventions Access to Dwelling 5 Image of settlement Ability to bring change in the Space for living 5 community Schooling for children 4 Respect from others Connections with people to find Ease of access to toilet 4 work Good relations between young-old Quality of construction materials 4 generations Affordable drinking water 3 Deriving dignity from work Appropriate Clothing (Family Good relations between new-old members) 3 residents Good relations within families 3 Good relations with outsiders Appropriate Clothing (Self) 3 Time with relatives 2 Autonomy in work 2 Access to site 2 Access to Latrines 2 Safety and Security 2 17
Good Landlord 2 Access to work place 1 Good physical and mental health 1 Affordable healthcare 1 Control over decisions 1 Links with Govt officers 1 Table 5 – Summary table of wellbeing goals ranked most often in the top 10 * ‘7’ indicates that the goal was ranked in the top-10 in all sampled sites
We find that in the more established sites in Mumbai, people are generally satisfied with their levels of achievement, though some stark difference between the ranking and satisfaction levels of women and men percolates through. In Indira Nagar, for instance, both women and men are highly dissatisfied with their landlord, however, while women rank this as their top priority, men rank it as their lowest priority. Satisfaction levels in the more precarious sites in Vishakhapatnam are understandably much lower across the board, and this pattern is consistent with the objective indicators of deprivation in these sites like the overwhelming use of temporary materials for dwelling construction (mud, tarpaulins, and bamboo), the precarious nature of the site (under a railway bridge for example) and the precarious nature of work (production of cheap chemical cleaners for example). A comparison of average household incomes, average household size and average age of respondents across the study sites shows that while these indicators are relatively similar (see summary table above), people’s wellbeing priorities (ranking of goals) and outcomes on these priorities differ considerably. This complexifies the nature of urban deprivation, delinking it from standard measures of consumption poverty, and bringing to bear a range of material, subjective or relational, and institutional dimensions that feed into the experience of poverty, and which produce a range of outcomes including an above average sense of satisfaction on some goals, and a lower sense of satisfaction on other goals. Disaggregating by gender, we find that women and men have different priorities, and achieve different levels of satisfaction on those lifegoals. Though the gender disaggregated picture reveals different priorities and achievement for women and men, the rate at which women and men achieve below average sense of satisfaction is not significantly different.8 We illustrate this for each of the seven site-level in Figures 3a and 3b below. Life goals are listed in the order of importance (lowest to the left, highest to the right) while the height of each column indicates the level of satisfaction achieved on that goal. The bars are marked in red if the satisfaction level on that lifegoal falls below the average level of satisfaction across all goals in that site. Figure 3a presents the aggregate picture, while 3b is disaggregated by gender. b. Forced evictions and demolitions Even though none of our study sites were under the imminent order of eviction, tenure insecurity continued to be an important issue, and the potential threat of possible eviction always loomed large. Our approach to interrogating the impacts of forced eviction and demolition is retrospective. Based on our focus groups and prior knowledge, we created two separate entry points to identify the experiences of forced eviction and demolition amongst respondents. One entry point was through a set of questions that ask to self-identify if their dwelling had been demolished in the past 12 months, in the 5 years before that, or if their household had not experienced demolition at all over this period. We first take notice of a relative degree of spatial clustering when mapping these three groups. The experience of demolition is concentrated within a few of our study sites, but there are demolition experiences
8 We calculate a Chi2 statistics to test for difference in the ratios of below-average to above-average levels of satisfaction between women and men. None are below .05, and we are able to reject significant differences between ratios for women and men. 18 reported in all sites. There also appears to be some degree of clustering within sites. This is particularly evident, for example, in RP Petha, where the majority of respondents were long term residents (red dots), but those who had been forcibly evicted from their previous dwellings (green dots) were clustered in the South-East end of the settlement. In Suraj Nagar, a majority of residents had voluntarily been relocated there, but longer-term residents were all clustered in the North-West end of the elongated settlement. See Map 1 below.
Hanuman Nagar Suraj Nagar 5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s s y k y s s s y s k s s s s y
d d n o e n n e h e g e e e e d d p o d n e e n h e e e d n g d d e e p
c c
l t e t s o a s i t l e o s a t s i
r n r t t t e r t r n e t t
r r r r r r
i s s i i s s i
d l i c l d l l c i
o g o r o g n r n e r o g o r g n o n e
i n i n
o i i i e u i i r m u h o i i u i i i r m e u h
e r e o u r t m e u o e r t m r
o a o a o o
n e e s n e s e
t t f a i t t a i f
l n _ r a r _ r _ n r a r _ l r
f f
o s e o s e
_ g h t e o l _ t g h l e o
d a a t t c u n t t d a t c a n t t u t
f f
c c c c
g c w i t g w c t i
i a a e t t r i a e t t a r
d m m d
a a
i l i l
_ _
z v _ o a v z _ a o
t _ r m h o o a _ _ h t r o m a o _
c c a c a c
w w
s e s t s e s t
i h o l a e h i l o a e
r r
n h t h t n
d e d e
t z l t z l
o l s c o l c s
a b e b a e
a a _ a _ a
e e
n r e n r e
c m m n c m m n
a m a m
c r l r c l
u a u a
l g a _ m g a l _ m
e o n r o e n r
i i
n n
n n
j a j a
r a r a
r h r h
e w e w
o h o h
f _ f _
e e
e o f e o f
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l e f l f e
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Indira Nagar Suryatheja Nagar 5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s k s y s s y s s k y s s y s s
d d e o n e n h e n e e g d e p e d n d d e n e e d e h e n d e e g p o
c c
l t o s e t a i s l s t s t a e o i
r r n t t t e r n r t t t e
r r r r r r
i s s i s i i s
d l i l c i l d c l
r r r r
g o g o o n n e o g o g o e n n
i n n i
o i u i i e r i i m h u i o u i e i u i i r h m
e o r e u t m r e e o m r r t u
o a o o o a
n s e e s e n e
t a t f i t f i a t
l n r a _ r _ r r l n a r _ r _
f f
o s e e s o
_ g e h l o t _ g t l h e o
d a a n t t c t u t d t c t a t u t n a
f f
c c c c
w g c i t i w c g t
i e a a t t r a i a e t t r
d a m d a m
i l l i
_ _
z v o _ _ z v o
a a
t _ o m r h a o _ r _ t m h a o o _
c c a c a c
w w
s e s t s t s e
i h a l o e i h l o a e
n h t r n h t r
d e e d
t z l t z l
c o l s l s o c
a b e e a b
a a _ a _ a
e e
n r e e r n
c m m n c m m n
a m m a
c r l l r c
u a u a
l g a m _ l a _ m g
e o n r n e r o
i i
n n
n n
j a a j
r a a r
r h r h
w e e w
o h o h
e _ f f e _
e o f e f o
t t o t o t
t t
o o
l f e l f e
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
c a a c
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Mankhurd RP Petha 5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s s y k y s s s s y y s s k s s
d d n o e e n n e e g d h d e e e p d e n n d n h e e d e e e g o d e p
c c
l e t s s t o a i l s t s t e o a i
r t r n e t t r t n t r t e
r r r r r r
i s i s i s i s
d l l c i l d i c l
o r g o o g r n e n g o o o g r r n n e
i n i n
m r r m
o i u i u e i i i h o u e i i i u i i h
e r u m o t e r e m e r t o u r
o a o o o a
n e s e n e s e
t i t f a f t t a i
l _ n r r a _ r r n l r a _ r _
f f
o s e o s e
_ t g o h e l _ g t h l e o
d a t a t t c n u t d t t a c t n t a u
f f
c c c c
g c w i t i c g w t
i a a t t e r i a a e t t r
d a m a d m
i l l i
_ _
z v _ o a _ z v a o
r _ _ m h o t o a _ r m t h o a _ o
c a c a c c
w w
s s
e s t s e t
i o a h l e h i l o a e
n h t r h n t r
d e e d
t z l t z l
o l c s l o c s
e a e a
b b
a _ a _ a a
e e
n r e r n e
c m m n c m m n
a m m a
c r l r c l
u a u a
l g a m _ l a g _ m
n o e r n e o r
i i
n n
n n
j a a j
a r a r
r h r h
w w
e e
o h o h
f e _ f e _
e f o f e o
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l f e l f e
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w w e
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Kashiram Nagar 5
4
3
2
1
0
l l l l
t t t t
s y s s k s s y
d n n e e e o h e n g d d e e e d p
c
l t e s o s t a i
r t t n r t e
r r r
i s s i
l d i c l
o o r g g r o n e n
n i
o i i u i i u i m e r h
e u m r e t o r
a o o
n e s e
t t a i f
_ r a n _ r r l
f
e o s
_ t g h l o e
d t t c a n t u t
a
f
c c
g c w i t
i a e t a t r
a m d
i l
_
v _ z a o
r h m _ t o _ o a
c a c
w
s e t s
i h o l a e
t h r n
d e
t z l
o l c s
e b a
a _ a
e
n r e
m m n
c
m a
c r l
u a
g a _ l m
n o e r
i
n
n
j a
a r
h r
e w
o h
e f _
e o f
t t o
t
o
l f e
t
o
_
h d
g t
c a
l
a
k i
a
r
e w
u
o w
h
b w
Figure 3a: Wellbeing priorities and satisfaction on life goals across sites Height represents the level of satisfaction on a life goal; below site-average satisfaction scores are marked in red. 19
Hanuman Nagar - M Hanuman Nagar - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s s y y s k s s s s y k y s s s
d d n o e n n e g e e h e e d e d p d d n n o e e n h e e e g e d e p d
c c
l t t e o s s a i l t e t s a i o s
r n t r t t e r r n t t t e
r r r r r r
i s s i i s s i
d i l c l d l c i l
o g r o o r n g n e o o g g o r n n e r
i n i n
o i e i i u i u r i m h o i i i e u i i r m h u
e r e u t o m r e r o e u r m t
o a o o a o
n e s e n e e s
t f t a i t t a f i
l n _ r a r r _ l n a _ r r _ r
f f
o s e s o e
_ g h t e l o _ g h e t o l
d a a t n t c u t t d a a t t u c t n t
f f
c c c c
c g i w t g w c i t
i a a t e t r i a e a t t r
d m d m
a a
i l i l
_ _
z v _ a o z v _ o a
t _ r o h m o _ a t _ m r o h a o _
c c a c c a
w w
s e s t s e s t
o i h a l e i h o l a e
n h t r n h t r
d e d e
t z l t z l
o c l s o s l c
a b e a b e
a a _ a a _
e e
n r e n r e
c m m n c m n m
a m a m
c r l c r l
u a u a
l g a _ m l g _ a m
e o n r e o n r
i i
n n
n n
j a j a
r a r a
r h r h
e w e w
o h o h
e f _ e _ f
e f o e o f
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l e f l e f
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Indira Nagar - M Indira Nagar - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s s y s y k s s s k s y s s s y
d d e n e o e n h n e e d e d g p e d e o n n e e h n g e d p e e e d d
c c
l o t s e t a i s l t o s e i a t s
r n t t r t e r r t n t t e
r r r r r r
s i i s i s s i
d l i l c d i l l c
g o r g r o o e n n g o r o g r o n n e
i n i n
o i u e i r i i m i h u o i u i i i i h m r e u
e e t r u o m r e o r u t e r m
o a o a o o
e n e s n s e e
i i
t f a t t a t f
l n a r _ _ r r n r a _ r _ r l
f f
o s e s o e
_ g e t l o h _ g h l o e t
d n a t a t c t u t d a a n t t t c u t
f f
c c c c
c g i w t w g c i t
i a e t a t r i e a t r t a
d a m a m d
i l i l
_ _
z v _ a o z v a o _
t o m _ h r a o _ _ o t m r a h o _
c c c c
a a
w w
s e s t s e s t
i h a l o e i h o l e a
n h t r h r t n
d e d e
t z t z
l l
c o l s c o l s
a b e b a e
a a _ a a _
e e
n r e n r e
c m m n c m n m
a m m a
r c l c r l
u a u a
l g a m _ g m a _ l
e o n r o e n r
i i
n n
n n
j a j a
r a r a
r h r h
e w w e
o h o h
e _ f _ e f
e o f e o f
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l f e f l e
t t
o o
_ _
h d d h
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Mankhurd - M Mankhurd - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s s y y s s k s s s y k y s s s
d d n e e o n e g n e d e h e d e p d d o n e n n e e e g d p h e d e e
c c
l e t s s t o a i l t e s t s o i a
r t n e r t t r t r t e n t
r r r r r r
i i s s i s i s
d l l c i d l l c i
r o g o r n o g n e o r g o o g r n e n
i n i n
o i i u u e i i m r i h o i u i i e u m i h r i
e m r u e t o r e r u o m t r e
o a o o a o
n e s e n e e s
i i
t t f a t t f a
l _ n r r a r _ l _ r n a r _ r
f f
o s e s o e
_ t h g o e l _ g t o h l e
d t a a t t n c t u d a a t t t c n u t
f f
c c c c
g c i t w g w c i t
i a a t t e r i a a t r e t
d a m d a m
i l i l
_ _
v _ z o a z v _ o a
r _ _ t o h m a o _ r _ m h o o t a
c a c c a c
w w
s e s t s e s t
o a i l h e i o e h a l
n h t r n h r t
d e d e
t z t z
l l
o c l s o l c s
e b a b e a
a _ a a _ a
e e
n r e n r e
m c m n c m m n
m m
a a
c r l c r l
u a u a
l g a m _ l g a _ m
n o e r o n r e
i i
n n
n n
a j j a
a r a r
r h h r
e w w e
o h o h
f e _ f e _
e f o e f o
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l e f l f e
t t
o o
_ _
d d
h h
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Kashiram Nagar - M Kashiram Nagar - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s y s s k s y s s y k s s s y s
d n n e e e e h o n g d e e d e d p d n n e e e o h e d n g e e d d e p
c c
l s e t o s a t i l t e s o s t a i
r t n t t r e r t r t n t e
r r r r r r
i s i s i s s i
l d c i l l d i c l
o o r g g r o n e n r o o g g e r o n n
n i n i
o i u i i i u m i r e h o i i u i i u i e m r h
e m e u t r r o e u o r m e t r
a o o a o o
n e s e n e s e
t t i a f t t a i f
r _ a n r _ r l _ n a r _ r r l
f f
e o s e o s
_ t g h l o e _ t l g h o e
d t t c a n a t u t d t c t a a n t t u
f f
c c c c
c g i w t g c w i t
i a e t t a r i a e t a t r
a m d a m d
i l i l
_ _
v _ z a o v z _ a o
r h m t _ o _ o a r m h _ t o _ a o
c a c c a c
w w
s e t s s e t s
i h o l a e i h o l a e
t r n t n r
h h
d e d e
t z l t z l
o l c s o l c s
e a b e b a
a _ a a _ a
e e
n r e n r e
m c m n c m m n
m m
a a
c r l c r l
u a u a
g a _ m l g a l _ m
n e o r n o e r
i i
n n
n n
a j j a
a r a r
r h h r
e w e w
o h o h
e f _ e f _
e f o e o f
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l e f l f e
t t
o o
_ _
d d
h h
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Suraj Nagar - M Suraj Nagar - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s y s s k s s y y k s s s s s y
d e e n o h e n e n e d e e g d d p o d n e e n d h d e g d e e e n e p
c c
e l t s o a t s i t l e o s a s t i
r n e t t t r t r r n t e t
r r r r r r
i s s i i s i s
l l d c i d l l c i
r g o n o o g r n e o r g o r e g n n o
i n i n
o i u i i i i m r e u h o i i u i i i r u m e h
e e u r m r t o u o e r t e m r
a o o a o o
n e s e n e s e
t a i t f t t a i f
_ n r r a l _ r _ n l r _ a r r
f f
o e s o s e
_ g t h o l e _ l h t g e o
d t c a a t t u n t a d t c a n t u t t
f f
c c c c
c g t i w g w c t i
i e a t t a r i a e t t a r
a m d a m d
i l i l
_ _
v z _ o a v z a _ o
h t _ a r m o o _ _ h r o t m o a _
c a c c a c
w w
s e s t s e s t
h l i o a e h i o l a e
t n r t n r
h h
d e d e
t z l t z l
o l s c o l c s
a b e b e a
a _ a a _ a
e e
n r e n r e
c m m n c m m n
a m a m
r c l c r l
u a u a
g a _ l m g a l _ m
e o n r o n e r
i i
n n
n n
j a j a
r a r a
r h r h
e w e w
o h o h
e f _ e f _
e o f e o f
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l e f l f e
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
e w e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w Suryatheja Nagar - M Suryatheja Nagar - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s y k s y s s s s k y s s y s s
d n d e n e d e h e d e n e e p g o n d d e e e n d e n h e d e e g o p
c c
l s t s t a i e o l s t s t o e a i
r r r r
n t t e t n t t t e
r r r r r r
s i i s s i i s
i l d c l i d l c l
o g o e g o n n r r o g o g o e n n r r
n i n i
o i u i e u i i r h i m i o u e i i u i i r h m
e e o m r r t u e e o m r r t u
o o a o o a
s e n e s e n e
t f a i t t i f t a
r l n _ a r r _ r l n a r _ r _
f f
e s o e s o
_ g t l e h o _ t g l h e o
d t c t a u t t n a d t a t c t u n t a
f f
c c c c
i w c g t w i c g t
i t r i t r
a a e t a a e t
d a m d a m
l i l i
_ _
_ a z v o _ z a v o
r _ t h m o a o _ r _ t m h a o o _
a c c c a c
w w
s t s e s t s e
h i l a e o i h l o a e
n h t r n h t r
e d e d
t z l t z l
l s o c l s c o
e a b e a b
_ a a a _ a
e e
r e n e r n
c m m n c m m n
m a m a
l r c l r c
u a u a
l a _ m g l a _ g m
n e r o n e r o
i i
n n
n n
a j a j
a r a r
r h r h
e w e w
o h o h
e f _ f e _
e f o e f o
o t t t o t
t t
o o
l f e l f e
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
a c a c
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
w e e w
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w RP Petha - M RP Petha - F 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
0 0
l l l l l l l l
t t t t t t t t
s y y s s k s s s y y s s k s s
d e n h n e n e e e d d e e o d g p d d e n n n h e e d e g o e e d e p
c c
l s t s t o e a i l s t s t e o a i
r r r r
t n t t e t n t t e
r r r r r r
i s i s i s i s
l d i c l l d i c l
g o o g o r r n e n g o o o g r n r n e
i n i n
o u e i i i u i i r m h o i u e i u i i i r h m
e m e r t o r u e m r e u t o r
a o o o o a
n s e e n e s e
f t a t i t f t a i
r n a r l _ r _ l n r r a _ r _
f f
o s e o s e
_ g t l h e o _ g t h l e o
d t t c a n t t u a d t t a c t a n t u
f f
c c c c
c i g w t i g c w t
i a e a t t r i a a e t t r
a m d d a m
l i l i
_ _
_ z v a o _ z v a o
_ m r t h o a o _ r _ m t h _ o a o
c c c c
a a
w w
s s e t s s e t
h i l o a e h i o l a e
h t n r n h t r
e d e d
t z l t z l
l c o s l o c s
e a b e a b
_ a a _ a a
e e
n r e r n e
c m m n c m m n
m a a m
r c l r c l
u a u a
a l g _ m l a g _ m
n e o r n e o r
i i
n n
n n
a j a j
a r a r
r h r h
e w e w
o h o h
f e _ f e _
f e o e f o
t t o t t o
t t
o o
l e f l f e
t t
o o
_ _
h d h d
g t g t
c a c a
l l
a a
k i k i
a a
r r
w e w e
u u
o w o w
h h
b b
w w
Figure 3b: Wellbeing priorities and satisfaction on life goals for women and men across sites 20
Height represents the level of satisfaction on a life goal; below site-average satisfaction scores are marked in red. Chi2 statistics to test for difference in the ratios of below-average to above-average levels of satisfaction between women and men shown in brackets: Hanuman Nagar (1), Indira Nagar (.32), Mankhurd (.63), Kashiram Nagar (.90), Suraj Nagar (.62), Suryatheja Nagar (.81), RP Petha (.23)
Map 1: Site level maps showing households who report having experienced demolition Shows concentration of demolition experience within some of the study sites. We also asked respondents if they people have moved to the settlement, whether this was through a Government-aided voluntary resettlement scheme, because of being forcibly evicted from their previous residence, or because they voluntarily moved to seek a job or due to marriage. By cross- tabulating responses to our questions on the experience of demolition and the experience of forced eviction, as we have done in the table below, we are able to validate our prior assumption that these two categories are not entirely overlapping. While at first this might seem counterintuitive to the popular perception that demolition and forced evictions are linked as varying degrees of outcomes in the same process, we find that most people who experience demolition continue to live in the same place (presumable by rebuilding their shelter post-demolition). Indeed, the cross-tabulation suggests the sample converges into three groups: (a) a group who have not experienced demolition nor do they report being forcibly evicted (499 respondents); (b) a group who have experienced the demolition of their dwelling but do not report having to move from that location (220 respondents); and (c) a group who report being relocated being voluntarily resettled as part of government relocation scheme, but not experiencing either demolition nor forced eviction (364 respondents). Groups a, b and c are labelled in the table below. 21
N ever Experienced Demolition experienced Total demolition Eviction demolition Never moved (a) 499 (b) 220 719 Forcibly evicted from 41 29 70 previous dwelling Government (c) 364 39 403 resettlement Missing values 170 42 212 Total 1,074 330 1,404 Table 6: Cross-tabulation of Forced evictions and demolitions. Groups (a), (b) and (c) are labelled There are clearly distinguishable material differences between those who have experienced demolition, and those who have not. Looking at the materials the dwellings are built from (see Table 2 in Annex), we find that the walls, floors and roofs of the dwellings of people who have experienced demolition were predominantly made of temporary or semi-permanent materials (that is, walls were non-existent or made of cane or re-used/refused wood, roofs made of rustic mats and floors made of dung, for example), whereas the floors and roofs of the dwellings of people who had not experienced demolition were predominantly made of permanent materials such as cement. Those who have experienced demolition do not have toilets or piped water connections inside their current dwellings and predominantly defecate in the open, while those who have not predominantly have dwellings equipped with piped water and septic tanks. We also see that those who have experienced demolition have educational achievements significantly lower than those who have not experienced demolition (they have mostly never been to school, or only up to lower secondary, compared with higher attainment amongst those who have not experienced demolition). This presents a complex of the precariousness of living conditions that may suggest that the negative impacts of forced evictions due to demolition last well beyond the immediate impacts of demolition. People carry forward vulnerabilities acquired as a result of demolition, and that people who are already marginalised or less-resourced remain tied up in a cycle of risks leading to vulnerabilities leading to further risks, of which forced evictions are a part. Alternatively, the use of semi-permanent or temporary build materials may simply be indicative of a resilience strategy, as dwellings made of these materials are quicker to dismantle in preparation of an imminent threat of demolition, and indeed cheaper to re-construct after demolition. This multi-layered spatial and physical complexity is particularly telling in that it corroborates other in-depth studies from various regions of the world that describe informal settlements as heterogeneous and complex formulations of different and overlapping spatio-temporalities, life-stages, and points in various processes of production, sustenance and destruction in the city, as opposed to sites that are singular and homogeneous in the ways residents experience the risks and vulnerabilities associated with deprivation (Appadurai 2002, Auerbach 2017, Baptista 2015, Bristol 1991, Chant and McIlwaine 2015, Datta 2012, Fox 2014, Graham 2011, Mitlin and Satterthwaite 2005, Parks 2013, Perlman 2010, Rodgers 2009, Roy 2009, Weinstein 2008). Based on spatial and material characteristics of their dwellings, and the socio-economic descriptors of women and men who have experienced demolition, in the previous section we have established that 22 this group of people is indeed a distinct group. We understand the distinctions as arising from complex relationships between risks and vulnerabilities. We therefore find it meaningful to interrogate whether and in what ways this group’s outlook on life is different from those who have not experienced demolition. We find that the rankings of lifegoals are significantly different between respondents who have (a) experienced demolition but have not relocated; (b) been voluntarily relocated under a government scheme; and (c) have not been evicted or experienced demolition (as shown in Table 3 in the Annex).9 Furthermore, comparing satisfaction levels between women and men who have experienced demolition, and those who have not, we find that these are significantly different across gender. Those who have experienced demolition exhibit lower levels of satisfaction on the goals they rank as important (higher amber and red bars in the top two graphs in Figure ).
Figure 4: Satisfaction levels on lifegoals between men and women who have experienced demolition and those who have not. The dots indicate statistically significant (Chi2 tests <0.05) difference between men vs. women (black) and between the two demolition outcomes (red). We further disaggregate the comparison of achievement on life goals between (i) those who have experienced demolition in the preceding 12 months, (ii) those who have experienced demolition in the past 6 years but not in the preceding year, (iii) those who have been evicted and have moved (forcibly or voluntarily) but have not experienced demolition, and (iv) those who have not experienced forced evictions or demolitions in this time period. This comparison allows us to place these four groups in order, beginning with group (i) who display the lowest levels of achievement levels, moving to groups (ii), (iii), then group (iv). In the graph below, For each group (i) to (iv), we graph average satisfaction levels on each goal. Average satisfaction levels for group (iv), shown in green, are consistently higher than the other groups (except for a few goals), while satisfaction levels with achievement on lifegoals for group (i), shown in red, are consistently the lowest. This tells us two things: First, that the negative impact of demolition on a person’s subjective assessment of their achievement on lifegoals dissipates over time. And second, that in instances of eviction where demolition is not involved, that is, eviction is carried out with consent and the evictees agree to relocate, the negative impacts on social and
9 All ranks are tested using Spearman’s R, differences are tested using Chi 2 or simple t-statistics… 23 relational wellbeing goals appears to be lessened (the impacts on physical and material goals is the same) as compared to instances of forced evictions involving the use of demolition.
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65 l l t s y s s l t t s e a ge g b o rk e s n n n th s e e b y rd ss fe ld rs se n e t s ll se c n s rd se e m ri n in jo tr o m u e io io l e as g jo m o e li o e io ac e e i n e u o a ac rd o e a h n ti r r t t a c e a o l c d ou ig f c sk ea e tr f e l a h t h t n o w t ild ra la e c m n d c w i h l sp sa c t m f p z a c lo io c y m h e h a ss i o n a e ts e a ss e at a ss k a ss m c t it a am c ne r y e e t la t n u n r g e e il e r e r h e c n f f c t r c u le o w in it c o r te c o k c ld e g ge v m a c a i o v s c t t a c w r c i nn i u o hc a b o li a a o a u d ed g t e o t t w r ss w b co l r j le te e ea a i a c h hc to c lt w a ea h
No Experience of Demolition Experienced Demolition in the past 12 months Experienced Demolition in the past 6 years (not past 12 months) Moved (forcibly or voluntarily) but not experienced demolition Figure 5: Average satisfaction score on life goals between for four groups (i) those who have never experienced demolitions, (ii) those who have experienced demolition in the preceding 12 months, (iii) those who have experienced demolition in the past 6 years but not in the preceding year, (iv) those who have moved (forcibly or voluntarily) but have not experienced demolition.
c. The experience of demolition and intra-household comparisons Finally, we turn to intra-household comparisons. Our sampling strategy identified 51 households where only one member of the household has experienced demolition. We treat this as a unique group to provide us with particular insights at an intra-household level. We interviewed 110 individuals (57 men and 53 women) in these households. These women and men are very similar in age, have very similar levels of education, occupation profiles, and live under the same roof as their family members, but are differentiated by a past experience of demolition.
24
Experienced Totals demolition
No Yes
Male 29 28 57
Female 26 27 53
Sex
Male 35 40 37
Female 32 33 33 Avg.Age None, never been 25 24 49 to s Primary (class 1-5) 11 10 21 Lower Secondary 8 6 14 Up to SSC (class 9- 4 9 13 10) Up to HSC (class 3 6 9 10-12) Some college but 3 0 3 not Graduate/ 1 0 1
postgraduate Education Housework/caring 20 18 38 for Daily wage earner 8 5 13 Manual Labour 3 2 5 Street vendor 4 8 12 Domestic Worker 0 3 3 Shopkeeper 1 2 3 Businessman 1 0 1 Clerk/ Salesman 2 2 4 Service/ officer/ 0 1 1 man Skilled labour 10 10 20
Other 6 4 10 Main activity Main Table 7: Profile of members of the 55 households that had individuals who had experienced demolition as well as individuals that had not experienced demolition. Comparing wellbeing outcomes between these two groups shows noticeably lower satisfaction levels amongst those who experienced demolition (smaller green bars, and higher amber and red bars), and this difference is significant on three goals: on ability to practice religion, relations to government officials, and having the right connections that can help in getting a job. To look closer at these three goals, in Figure 7, we graph the differences in satisfaction levels between individuals for each of the 51 25 households. Households 1 through 51 are shown on the horizontal axis, while the vertical axis shows the level of satisfaction. The top end of each bar indicates the higher level of satisfaction amongst the members of that household, and the bottom end indicates the lower level of satisfaction amongst the members of that household, on the relevant goal. The bar is marked in red if the satisfaction score of the household member who has not experienced demolition is higher than the household member who has experienced demolition. The bar is marked in green if the opposite is true, that is, the satisfaction score of the member who has experienced demolition is higher. The length of the bar indicates the difference between the two scores within a household. As we can see from this intra- household comparison, which is aimed at isolating the impact of demolition to the furthest extent possible, there are significantly more red bars than green ones, implying the experience of demolition is associated with lower levels of satisfaction on lifegoals.
Experienced demolition (55 respondents from 51 households)
100%
%
0 %
75% %
5
%
6
%
8
% % % %
2
5
3
% % %
5
% %
5 5 5 5
% %
6
%
% % 6
9 9 9
% % %
1 1
6 6 6 6
%
3 3
%
5 5 4
6 6 6
% %
%
6 6 6
7 7
% % %
8
7 7
0
7 7 7
1 1
2
7 7 7
4 4 4
7
%
% %
8
8 8
8
8 8 8
0
1 1
9 9
50% 9
%
%
%
%
5
%
3
0
%
7
%
3 8
25% 3
5
5
2
7
2
%
2
%
2
5
1
3 3
) 0%
%
n
o
i t
r Not expereinced demolition (55 respondents from the same 51 households)
o p
o 100%
r
P
(
s l
75% %
%
%
0
3
%
e
%
5
6
%
6
%
% % %
9
%
%
1
6
% %
% % %
3
%
% % % %
v
5 5 5 4
6
% 6 % %
6
7
8 8
8 8 8
7
9
% % % % %
%
0 0 0 0
7 7 7 7
7
2 2 2
7
7 7
7 7 7
%
% 7
5 5 5 5 5
e 6
8 8 8 8
8 8 8
l
1
1
8 8 8 8 8
8
9
50% 9
n
o
i
t
c %
a 25%
%
6
f
%
1
3
8
% %
s
3
3
%
7 1
i
6
2 3
t
2 a
S 0%
l l l
t t
s s y s y s k s
e e e e e n g d e e h n e e n b n d e d
c
a o t s l
t n r r
r r
i s s s
s c s s s l c d
e n r o g o o o g
n
r i e u i m i j i o
m t m e r o e
r o o
e e e
i
u a a a f a a a t t
r a l n
f
e l
e h t g o
o n t a d
d f
c c c
i w
o p t e e t a e e a n a i
l m d a
l w
t p l
i n z
h o m t r
c c a c
s s s
h a o h i o
n h
e y e
e s s l s e i t
h c m o a
m a e
a a a
l r k t
r t
s t r
c
a
i
i
s s c s n
g c y r u
n m a h l
a e n
t
e c
s
f u t
f
o e e r n
e e t e
n o o
e
t e t t
w i c r e
e m k v
d a
l i
c c c g
a
l
i r
g i
v w
o c i u a n
o
s
i c c c
l o b o
w d
c c
u d n
g
t
a a a s
o
a h
b e w
o
j
s
t
r t
e l
c
e
e
e r
l
a
t
i c
a
e
a
c
o
c
t
h
a
w
h
t
l
a
e h
Goals (ranked at country level)
Figure 6: Satisfaction levels in 51 households in which one adult member experienced demolition and at least on other adult household member had not experienced demolition. The black dots indicate statistically significant (Chi2 tests <0.05)
26
5
4
n o
i 3
g
i
l
e
R
.
t 2
a S
1
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Households
5
4
s
n
o
i
t a
l 3
e
r
. v
o 2
G
.
t
a S 1
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Households
5
4
s
n
o
i t
c 3
e
n n
o 2
C
.
t a
S 1
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Households
No Demol>=Demol No Demol Figure 7: Intrahousehold comparisons (for 51 households) of satisfaction levels on three goals between individuals who have experienced demolition and individual in the same household who have not experienced demolition. VI. CONCLUSIONS The built environment is not static, nor are the processes of urban development and renewal inherently benevolent. They are productive and sustaining as much as they are destructive. Demolitions, evictions, and resettlement have become commonplace, and are increasing, in urban India. “It is not uncommon to find a jhuggi dweller [someone who lives in an informal settlement], with the bulldozer at the doorstep, desperately trying to save whatever precious little belongings and documents they have, which could perhaps testify to the fact that the jhuggi dweller resided at that place” (as cited in Banda and Sheikh 2014). The act of demolition is invariably fraught with a high degree of immediate risk to persons and their property, as well as political and social confrontation which often precipitates into psychological trauma. The experience of demolition almost always entails a variety of collateral damage, including a loss of livelihood, a withdrawal of children from schooling, a breaking of social networks, damage to property and assets, and in the most extreme situations, physical injury or loss of life. How such an experience alters one’s outlook on life is a legitimate question to assess the true costs of urban development or renewal strategies that purport to positively contribute to the efficiency, liveability or sustainability of a city, but that also involve demolition of informal settlements. In this paper, we delink forced evictions from demolitions, and find that significant numbers of residents in informal settlements experience demolition of their dwelling, but not everyone who experiences demolition relocate. This suggests particular types of urban strategies and coping mechanisms employed by those who live in informal and precarious locations. For households to remain on in a location after demolition suggests that other political mediations, local negotiations and governance arrangements withstand the destruction of habitat and are leverage as a consequence. Ramanathan (2005) articulates this as the incomplete, arbitrary and selectively applied authority of the state to destroy habitat, while Subbaraman et al. (2014) have highlighted the practice of paying expensive 27 bribes to government officials including the police as part of a survival strategy to navigate insecure residential status. Understanding the complex relationships with wellbeing helps us interrogate and understand the nature of forced human movement within the city. In our critical assessment of forced evictions and demolitions, we find demolition is detrimental to people’s wellbeing at a number of levels. Those who have experienced demolition in the immediate past show the lowest levels of wellbeing satisfaction, lower than those who have experienced demolition in the distant past, as well as those who have not had their dwelling demolished. Intra-household comparisons which corroborate the site- level findings add important value and this offers a degree of clarification to the complex cycles of risk and vulnerability tied to the processes of forced evictions and demolitions in Indian cities. Our findings push us to lend support to local political and participatory initiatives that seek to create consensus, and support the rights of marginalised and lesser resourced urban residents. There are documented examples articulating best practices of how local participatory politics and social movements can help those who have experienced or are facing the risk of forced eviction negotiate the process of urban change. However, people’s priorities as well as satisfaction with the levels of achievement on life goals differ significantly across sites, cities and countries, and also between socio- economic groups differentiated by gender, for instance. Policy responses to protect and promote wellbeing may therefore need to be different at the local level and in respect of different groups and different geographies. 28 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY Appadurai, Arjun. 2002. Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics. Public Culture 14 (1): 21-47. Auerbach, Adam Michael. 2017. Neighborhood Associations and the Urban Poor: India’s Slum Development Committees. World Development 96: 119-135. Banda, Subhadra, and Shahana Sheikh. 2014. The Case of Sonia Gandhi Camp: The Process of Eviction and Demolition in Delhi’s Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters. New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research (CPR). Cities of Delhi Working Paper. Available at http://citiesofdelhi.cprindia.org/reports/the-process-of-eviction- and-demolition-in-delhis-jhuggi-jhopri-clusters/ Baptista, Idalina. 2015. ‘We Live on Estimates': Everyday Practices of Prepaid Electricity and the Urban Condition in Maputo, Mozambique. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (5): 1004- 1019. Bristol, Katharine. 1991. The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Journal of Architectural Education 44 (3): 163-171. Chant, Sylvia H., and Cathy McIlwaine. 2015. "Cities, slums and gender in the global south : towards a feminised urban future." London: Routledge,. Datta, Ayona. 2012. The illegal city : space, law and gender in a Delhi squatter settlement. of Gender, space and society. Farnham ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. du Plessis, Jean. 2005. The growing problem of forced evictions and the crucial importance of community-based, locally appropriate alternatives. Environment and Urbanization 17 (1): 123-134. Emmel, N. D., and L. D. Souza. 1999. Health effects of forced evictions in the slums of Mumbai. The Lancet 354 (9184): 1118. Fox, Sean. 2014. The Political Economy of Slums: Theory and Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 54 (0): 191-203. Graham, Stephen. 2011. Cities under siege : the new military urbanism. Pbk. ed. London ; New York: Verso. HLRN, Housing and Land Rights Network. 2014. How to respond to forced evictions: A handbook for Inida. New Delhi: Habitat International Coalition – South Asia. Available at http://www.hic- sarp.org/documents/Handbook_on_Forced_Evictions.pdf Lees, Loretta, Hyun Bang Shin, and Ernesto López Morales. 2016. Planetary gentrification. of Urban futures. Cambridge: Polity Press. McGregor, J. Allister, Laura Camfield, and Alison Woodcock. 2009. Needs, Wants and Goals: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Public Policy. Applied Research in Quality of Life 4 (2): 135-154. Mitlin, Diana. 2005. Understanding chronic poverty in urban areas. International Planning Studies 10 (1): 3-19. Mitlin, Diana, and D Satterthwaite, eds. 2005. Empowering Squatter Citizens: Local Government, Civil Society and Urban Poverty Reduction. London: Earthscan. Mitlin, Diana, and David Satterthwaite. 2013. Urban poverty in the global South : scale and nature. New York: Routledge. Parks, Michael J. 2013. Urban Poverty Traps: Neighbourhoods and Violent Victimisation and Offending in Nairobi, Kenya. Urban Studies. Patel, Sheela, Celine d’Cruz, and Sundar Burra. 2002. Beyond evictions in a global city: people-managed resettlement in Mumbai. Environment and Urbanization 14 (1): 159-172. 29 Perlman, Janice E. 2010. Favela : four decades of living on the edge in Rio de Janeiro. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Rodgers, Dennis. 2009. Slum Wars of the 21st Century: Gangs, Mano Dura and the New Urban Geography of Conflict in Central America. Development and Change 40 (5): 949-976. Roy, Ananya. 2003. City requiem, Calcutta : gender and the politics of poverty. Minneapolis ; London: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 2009. Why India Cannot Plan Its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of Urbanization. Planning Theory 8 (1): 76-87. Roy, Arundhati. 1999. The Greater Common Good. Bombay: India Book Distributor Ltd. Subbaraman, Ramnath, Laura Nolan, Tejal Shitole, Kiran Sawant, Shrutika Shitole, Kunal Sood, Mahesh Nanarkar, Jess Ghannam, Theresa S. Betancourt, David E. Bloom, and Anita Patil-Deshmukh. 2014. The psychological toll of slum living in Mumbai, India: A mixed methods study. Social Science & Medicine 119: 155-169. te Lintelo, D. J. H., J. Gupte, J. A. McGregor, R. Lakshman, and F. Jahan. 2018. Wellbeing and urban governance: Who fails, survives or thrives in informal settlements in Bangladeshi cities? Cities 72 (B): 391-402. Usha, Ramanathan. 2005. Demolition Drive. Economic and Political Weekly 40 (27): 2908-2912. Weinstein, Lisa. 2008. Mumbai’s Development Mafias: Globalization, Organized Crime and Land Development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (1): 22-39. 30 VIII. ANNEXURE – TABLES Table 1: 34 wellbeing goals Wellbeing goal Importance question always access to home How important is it for you to have access to your dwelling all year round? quality housing How important are the quality of construction materials of your dwelling to you? How important is it for you to be able to change things in your community if you able to change community would want to? How important it is for you to wear the right kind of clothes during important wear suitable clothing events or functions like celebrations or festivals? If you needed to find a job, how important is it to have good connections with connections paid work people in order to find paid work? How important is it for you to have control over decisions that affect your life in control decisions general? How important is it for you to derive dignity from your work? (e.g. your dignity from work coworkers/employer respects you, your contributions are valued, etc) How important is spending time with close relatives from outside your time with family household to you? How important is it for you that there are good relations between: d) Within family relations families children's education How important do you feel schooling is for your children? How important is it for you that there are good relations between: a) relations old-young Generations (old-young) within your settlement Generally speaking, how important is it for you that you have direct linkages relations with government with government officers in order to get access to schemes or services? personal health How important is it for you to be in good physical and mental health? affordable healthcare How important is it for you to have *access* to affordable health care? healthcare access ease How important is it for you to have easy access to such medical services? How important is it that people that do not live here have a positive image of reputation settlement your current settlement? How important is it for you that you have some level of autonomy/independence in your work (paid or unpaid)? Like decide on the autonomy in work number of hours of work, decide which jobs to take on or refuse, when to take leave/break etc. How important is it for you to have a landlord who takes good care of the responsible landlord houses and services in the settlement? always access toilets How important is it for you to have access to toilet facilities all year round? How important is it for you that there are good relations between: c) relations old-newcomers Newcomers and established households How important is it for you that there are good relations between: b) Settlement relations outsiders residents and outside visitors own house How important is it for you to own your dwelling? wear suitable clothing In your life, how important is it for you to observe religious practice? Considering all the members of your household, how important is the amount of space for living space you have for living (inside and immediately outside) your dwelling to you? safety in area How important is the safety and security of the area you live in to you? always access to site How important is it for you to be able to access the settlement all year round? easy access toilets How important is it for you to have easy access to a toilet facility? access enclosed toilets How important is having an ENCLOSED toilet facility to you? treatment by others How important to you is the manner in which people generally treat you? access affordable water How important is it for you to have AFFORDABLE drinking water? easy access water How important is having easy access to source of drinking water to you? How important is it for you to be able to access your place of work all year always access to work round? How important is it for you as a worker to be protected against work-related protection work hazards hazards? 31 Table 2: Construction material of demolished households Households which experienced demolition No Demolition Experienced (Last 12 mths or 5 yrs) r r r r a a a a a a g j g j d g d g n a n a r r a e a e m m a a a h a h u u h t h t N a N a N t L N t L r r m r h r r m r h r r i e i e j j a a a k A a k A u a a a u a a a h h r P r P a y a y i i n T n T n g s g r r g n g s g r r g d d a a a a a a u u a P a a a a u u a P O O n n H N I M K N S S N R T H N I M K N S S N R T Earth/Sand 6% 9% 4% 39% 17% 1% 19% 2% 48% 7% Dung 38% 14% 2% 2% 15% 2% Wood Planks 6% 4% 3% 2% 0% r o Palm/bamboo 2% 7% 3% 11% 1% o l F Ceramic tiles 17% 1% 3% 5% 1% Cement 83% 100% 100% 89% 91% 88% 11% 61% 97% 100% 93% 95% 76% 96% 22% 87% Stone Pieces 6% 1% 2% 3% 1% Other 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% No Roof 20% 2% 7% 6% 7% 1% Thatch/Palm leaf/Gras 8% 5% 5% 4% 3% 4% 15% 3% Rustic Mat 6% 30% 13% 4% 0% Palm/Bamboo 4% 1% 5% 9% 9% 3% f Calamine/Cement Fibre 18% 6% 3% 10% 11% 7% 7% 14% 22% 10% o o Ceramic Tiles 9% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% R Cement 67% 80% 75% 22% 45% 24% 23% 83% 81% 80% 28% 10% 16% 7% 50% Roofing Shingles 22% 9% 3% 16% 14% 5% Corrugated Asbestos/T 33% 20% 25% 56% 9% 33% 4% 22% 5% 7% 5% 41% 30% 44% 4% 18% Tarpaulin 2% 54% 20% 2% 6% 50% 5% Other 9% 2% 1% 12% 4% 2% No Walls 18% 27% 16% 6% 52% 5% Cane/Palm/Trunk 39% 14% 24% 2% Bamboo with Mud 9% 1% 4% 16% 3% Refused wood 30% 11% 2% 9% 1% s l l a Cement 83% 100% 100% 9% 67% 4% 35% 72% 62% 78% 5% 9% 70% 13% 46% W Stone with Lime/Cemen 8% 16% 3% 5% Bricks 100% 82% 4% 19% 19% 21% 15% 89% 67% 4% 2% 34% Cement Blocks 10% 3% 1% 18% 2% Other 17% 1% 1% 4% 2% 9% 3% Flush to piped sewer 13% 22% 2% 4% 8% 11% 3% 4% 2% 5% Flush to septic tank 100% 100% 88% 61% 73% 37% 36% 92% 89% 96% 78% 53% 38% 9% 72% Flush to pit (latrine 6% 4% 2% 1% 4% 2% 1% t e l i Flush to somewhere el 6% 9% 2% 2% 10% 16% 4% o T Flush to unknown place 1% 0% Ventilated Improved P 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% Open defecation 18% 57% 95% 54% 29% 62% 85% 17% Other 6% 1% 2% 0% n t o Inside the dwelling 87% 88% 38% 32% 33% 20% 93% 69% 9% 8% 52% i e t l i a o c Outside the dwelling 13% 13% 63% 98% 67% 50% 20% 100% 7% 31% 88% 92% 46% T o L DK/CS 2% 1% 17% 60% 2% 2% e Piped into dwelling 33% 60% 13% 11% 45% 8% 41% 48% 3% 28% 17% 23% c r u Piped into yard or pl 33% 33% 9% 6% 18% 12% 20% 11% 1% 10% o S r Public tap/standpip 33% 40% 88% 44% 39% 91% 58% 42% 40% 77% 56% 2% 50% 96% 48% e t a Tubewell/borehole 6% 36% 59% 9% 25% 5% 79% 50% 4% 18% W Other 6% 9% 2% 2% 1% 0% g s Yes 38% 11% 9% 2% 9% 8% 13% 15% 21% 4% 1% 4% 9% s n i l o e l c e N c No 100% 100% 63% 89% 91% 98% 91% 92% 88% 84% 79% 96% 99% 100% 96% 90% w A D DK/CS 1% 0% n o None, never been to school 68% 75% 57% 40% 49% 17% 3% 6% 12% 12% 12% 14% 11% 21% 6% 2% i t a c Primary (class 1-5) u d e Lower Secondary (class 6-8) t n Up to SSC (class 9-10) 3% 17% 14% 14% 37% 70% 46% 12% 8% 16% 22% 33% 45% 61% 27% e d Up to HSC (class 10-11) 3% 12% 3% 10% 16% 15% 15% 14% 12% 18% 21% 17% 10% 16% 17% n o Some college but not graduate6% 6% 3% 17% 8% 14% 7% 13% 11% 20% 22% 19% 20% 10% 7% 19% p s Graduate/ postgraduate (gene1r5a%l) 6% 12% 19% 12% 7% 3% 12% 31% 28% 21% 16% 12% 10% 9% 22% e R Graduate/ postgraduate (profes9s%ional) 9% 7% 6% 8% 1% 7% 20% 20% 12% 8% 7% 5% 1% 13% 32 Table 3: Ranking of wellbeing lifegoals by respondents who have (a) Experienced demolition but have not relocated; (b) those who have been voluntarily relocated under a government scheme; and (c) have not been evicted or experienced demolition (a) (c) (b) Experienced No Demolition Goal Government Demolition experience and Resettlement not Moved not moved Wear suitable clothing 30 23 22 Children’s education 26 25 29 Quality housing 29 30 31 Easy access toilets 27 29 26 Access enclosed toilets 34 34 34 Easy access water 28 26 23 Access affordable water 18 20 24 Own house 33 31 33 Responsible landlord 3 14 11 Space for living 31 33 32 Always access to home 32 32 28 Always access toilets 25 28 21 Always access to site 21 21 27 Always access to work 7 19 8 Safety in area 15 12 25 Protection work hazards 10 16 9 Autonomy in work 19 27 4 Dignity from work 8 6 3 Time with family 13 15 19 Relations with government 17 24 6 Connections paid work 6 10 7 Trust 20 9 13 Relations old-young 4 4 12 Relations outsiders 2 1 2 Relations old-newcomers 1 2 1 Family relations 11 11 30 Reputation settlement 24 8 15 Treatment by others 9 13 14 Control decisions 23 22 17 33 Able to change community 5 5 5 Observe religion 14 3 20 Affordable healthcare 16 17 18 Easy access healthcare 22 18 10 Personal health 12 7 16 Comparison between the importance ranks of groups (a) and (b): Spearman's rho = 0.8341; Prob > |t| = 0.0000 Comparison between the importance ranks of groups (b) and (c): Spearman's rho = 0.6416; Prob > |t|= 0.0000 Comparison between the importance ranks of groups (c) and (a): Spearman's rho = 0.7558; Prob > |t|= 0.0000