1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE BRİCK BY BRİCK Characterization of the Household Infrastructure Conditions of Campinas Metropolitan Area Municipalities over the two last census and its possible correlation with intra-metropolitan migration TIAGO AUGUSTO DA CUNHA Doutorando em Demografia [email protected] Núcleo de Estudos de População (NEPO) Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas (IFCH) Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) ABSTRACT This study takes, as a background, the construction and use of synthetic indicators of different dimensions of the built and infrastructure environment for comparative and analytic purposes, characterizing, as a case of study, these two dimensions of Campinas Metropolitan Area (CMA) municipalities members. Several studies about the migration issue, especially those about the intra-metropolitan flows, indicate two major reasons for the act of migrating, they are: a) the labor market and b) the land and housing market. It´s over this second reason that this study will look more carefully. One of the first assumptions is that improvements in access to land / housing, as well as the increase of the intrinsic quality of the infrastructure of the metropolitan land (proximity to the relevant public facilities and equipaments, water supply, garbage collection and sewage, electricity, etc.), can be correlated with the direction of population flows to certain locations. In fact, the assumption adopted here is that services and infrastructure opportunities "direct", even indirectly, population flows from certain municipalities to another ones, given that they [these opportunities] have repercussions on the land and housing prices. 1 Cities, nations and regions in planning history INTRODUCTION The real reasons/motives of intrametropolitan migration have been an important subject to several demographic and urban studies. The literature about the theme is more than consensual in pointing out at least two of them: a) the labor (and job opportunities) market, and b) the land and residential/housing market (CUNHA, 1994; RIGOTTI, RODRIGUES, 1994; JAKOB, 2003). The second main reason, here commented, will be the scope of the present article. However, the theoretical framework used in order to portray and discuss the processes and reasons behind migration intrametropolitan differs greatly. In this sense, the perspective here adopted - as suggested by Gottdiener (1990) - is the historical-structuralist one. Where public power is a central agent and catalyst of the inherent urban dynamics, either through a policy of strong performance or its opposite, namely, the pure and simple failure of them. The State heavy hand affects, even in an indirect way, the price of two elements: a) initially, the land and b) therefore the housing price. Perhaps two of the main reasons - or "The" primary reason (since they are inseparable) - of migration especially in a more circumscribed territorial clippings and whose road network is more strongly connected - a fact that would allow to have a residential unit in a particular locality and job opportunities in another one -as the metropolitan areas are. It is clear, that the adoption of indexes concerning about household infrastructure features is just one of many factors that somehow represent the land and housing price. And even he [price] is also one of the innumerable factors that can direct certain population groups to other locations inside the CMA (Campinas Metropolitan Area). Therefore, we do not want to take "the part for the whole". In fact, there is a vast path between the two extremities, availability and access to infrastructure and services on the one hand and migration flows on the other, however, both have their "contact surfaces". 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE "FORMAL" VERSUS INFORMAL LAND MARKET After all, the ownership matters A first attempt to characterize CMA housing conditions shall consider the key problematic, in this case, established between formal and informal land and housing market. It is a first effort to expound the subject also based on an overview of the marketization of urban land process, specifically the metropolitan one, since it is perhaps the one that most routinely "experience" this constant harassment. Such distinction is extremely relevant, once the legal right to possession of land and/or domicile opens endless opportunities (but also constraints) to their owners. We could think in some of them: various and diverses opportunities of funds, access to basic infrastructure - water supply, sewage, solid waste and garbage collection, etc.. It's more than agreed that the urban space is a territory of land disputes and so for locations as defined by Villaça (2000). In this sense, some areas or zones are more appropriate by population specific strata (mainly according to the income variable). Studies such as Caiado and Pires (2006) or Cunha et alli. (2006) try to explain this clumsy segregation logic. In other words, the land/housing market was one of the occupation engines of certain areas, especially the peripheral ones. However, could it also be one of the main drivers that led to population "uprooting"/displacement from certain areas to anothers? Therefore, the assumption here adopted is that the land and house value according to their condition/situation - regular/irregular, formal/informal - would be a great incentive or [financial] constraint to intrametropolitan migration, i.e., this same residential and land valuing process was one of various population expulsion factors from certain places, but also in a pari passu way, it was responsible to direct this same population to others metropolitan zones. It is intrinsic to this point of view a kind of migratory selectivity, where the value of land is a cornerstone for understanding migration. Table 1 attempts to capture the CMA urban land regularization situation. 1 Cities, nations and regions in planning history Table 1 – Regularization Situation – Urban Population, Campinas Metropolitan Area, 2007 Which is the regularization situation of your neighborhood? Situation N* Exp.. % Do not know 107 28126 1.8 Formal 3482 1375115 87.9 Informal 402 59138 3.8 Regulation in process 413 89310 5.7 Did not answer 35 12781 0.8 Total 4.439 1.564.471 100.0 Missing 1.463 570.055 24.8 Source: “Pesquisa Domiciliar do Projeto Vulnerabilidade” (FAPESP/CNPq). NEPO/UNICAMP, 2007. (*) Non expanded values. (.) Expanded values. In general, most of the settlements of the region are properly legalized (approximately 88% of them). However, it is no insignificant the percentage of non legalized settlements, since 10% of them are in this situation, a cipher that worthy attention. When the absolute values are analyzed, we have the real dimension of the issue [and the liability generated during the last decades]. In this way, actually, approximately 150,000 individuals (148,228, to be exact) reside in an allotment under the "irregularity" branded. Probably there is significant internal differences among its members, since their realities, including habitation ones, greatly differ between each other. That is, even composing an administrative unity, their economic, social, historical, etc., characteristics are quite different (TABLE 2). 1 5 th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE Table 2 – Regularization Situation according Municipalities – Urban Population, Campinas Metropolitan Area, 2007 Which is the regularization situation of your neighborhood? Municipalities Do not Regulation Did not Formal Informal Total know in process answer Americana 1.6% 98.4% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Artur Nogueira .0% 86.1% .0% 13.9% .0% 100.0% Campinas 2.5% 81.3% 5.8% 9.0% 1.3% 100.0% Cosmópolis .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Hortolândia .2% 76.2% 13.8% 7.1% 2.7% 100.0% Indaiatuba .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Itatiba 5.2% 94.8% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Monte Mor 14.3% 85.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Nova Odessa .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Paulínia .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Pedreira .0% 93.1% .0% 6.9% .0% 100.0% Santa Bárbara 1.0% 83.3% 2.6% 13.1% .0% 100.0% d'Oeste Sumaré .9% 96.3% .6% 1.8% .5% 100.0% Valinhos .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Exp. 28127 1375115 59137 89311 12782 1564472 Total N. 107 3482 402 413 35 4439 % 1.8% 87.9% 3.8% 5.7% .8% 100.0% Source: “Pesquisa Domiciliar do Projeto Vulnerabilidade” (FAPESP/CNPq). NEPO/UNICAMP, 2007. (*) Non expanded values. (.) Expanded values. - the emphasis is mine. Based on the data displayed, it is interesting to note the situation of at least two municipalities, namely: a) Campinas and b) Hortolândia, given that both are those with the lowest percentage of legalized settlements of CMA. While both have characteristics and experience vastly different processes, at the same time they are articulated through numerous others relations (including population ones - migration and commuting, for example). On the one side, Campinas, the region core, seen by the environment (and beyond its suburbs/peripheries) as the "land of opportunities," since it holds a vast industrial park, as well as a strong trade and services sector. On the other, Hortolândia; city that was the target/destiny of intense and several migratory flows, mostly of them from its big brother, Campinas. There is, at least in this case and initially, a concentration process of informal settlements in Campinas doing front an extremely speculative land market, i.e., the occupation becomes a possible solution particularly in locations near work areas. That is, the occupation as an instrument of coping. But there is also another side, where the government interference is, at least, conniving, or worse, openly allows the construction of “uncertainty” neighborhoods. It seems that this is the case of large sectors of Hortolândia. 3 Cities, nations and regions in planning history The data give evidence, helping to corroborate views more than discussed and agreed about spurious processes of segregation and formation of metropolitan suburbs and informal settlements (BONDUKI; ROLNIK, 1982, MARICATO, 2000).