Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: what has … relocation projects in bangkoki.pdf · Slum...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Habitat International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

0197-3975/$ -

doi:10.1016/j.

�Correspon

E-mail add

www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: what has contributed totheir success or failure?

Vichai Viratkapan�, Ranjith Perera

Urban Environmental Management Field of Study, School of Environment, Resources and Development,

Asian Institute of Technology, Phaholyothin km. 42, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

Abstract

Many slum relocation projects have been implemented in Bangkok during the last three decades.Studies conducted on some of these projects have focused on the impacts of resettlement on slum dwellers,while a few have focused on the process of slum relocation. This paper presents the findings of an empiricalstudy on factors that influence the post-relocation performance of such projects. The study reveals thatthere are a number of pre-requisites for achieving success. These include factors external to the communitysuch as the location of the new settlement and award of compensation and factors internal to thecommunity such as unity, availability of strong leadership, active participation and positive attitude ofcommunity members. The study finds that slum relocation projects require specialized activities inthe consolidation stage, in order to sustain the momentum generated at the eviction and transition stage ofthe projects.r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Slum relocation; Bangkok; Success; Failure

Introduction

Displacement and eviction of communities is often associated with urban development in manydeveloping countries of Asia. When the demand of land for various development activities in

see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

habitatint.2004.09.002

ding author. Tel.: +66 2 524 5606; fax: +66 2 516 1418.

ress: [email protected] (V. Viratkapan).

www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Viratkapan, R. Perera / Habitat International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]2

prime areas is high and the supply is limited, developers (in both public and private sectors) targetsites that are underutilized in economic terms. Most often, these sites happen to be living andworking areas occupied by the weaker strata of the urban society. Supported by favourable urbandevelopment policies and powered by financial strength, developers are often able to pressurize onpeople occupying economically attractive land. Most often these lands happen to be occupiedby slum and squatter1 settlements. For households living in squatter settlements, security oftenure offers a respite from the pressures of forced removal, eviction, resettlement or relocation(UN-HABITAT, 2003, pp. 164–188).

Resettlement and relocation has been a subject widely discussed for the last three decades. Thediscussion has generally centred around various impacts on re-settlers, with a particular focus onsocio-economic hardships. Studies of relocation projects2 invariably highlight the sufferings ofpeople that occur due to changes in their places of living and the livelihoods. The critics ofresettlement projects usually argue that relocation creates tremendous negative impacts oncommunities as well as the micro-economy of the area. In contrast, the proponents argue thatthe prime land occupied by slum dwellers need to be utilized for economically more produc-tive purposes. Over the decades the attitude towards slum dwellers has changed from outrighteviction to resettlement and relocation. For more than a decade since 1990, the global policy ofUN-Habitat has even gone further to emphasize the need for security of tenure in low-incomehousing, especially security of land tenure in the city areas (UNCHS, 1991; UN-HABITAT,2003). Regarding The Habitat II conference held in 1996 emphasized that all people should haveequal opportunity and access to the housing and infrastructure services (UN-HABITAT, 2001).Although relocation approach creates extensive impacts on the re-settlers, it is an alternative forgiving land tenure to the poor.

A publication by the World Bank has reviewed causes and effects of resettlement programsimplemented in some developing countries since 1980s, in order to give policy guidelines on

1The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS/HABITAT) defines slum and squatter settlements, as

follows:

Slum settlements usually consist of run-down housing in older, established, legally built parts of the city proper.

Slum buildings are mostly old and poorly maintained. Most of the residents rent their accommodation, although

owners occupy some space or detached structures. In some cases, many of the buildings have more than one floor and

house several families.

Squatter settlements are mainly uncontrolled low-income residential areas with ambiguous legal status regarding

land occupation. They are to a large extent built by the inhabitants themselves using their own means and are usually

poorly equipped with public utilities and community services. The usual image of a squatter settlement is of a poor,

under serviced, overcrowded and dilapidated settlement consisting of make-shift, improvised housing areas. The land

occupied by squatter settlements is often, but not always, located further from the city centre than in the case with

slums. Often, but not always, the houses are built and occupied by their owners. The land is often occupied illegally

(UNCHS, 1982, pp. 14–15).

Usually in the Thai context, the term ‘slum’ refers to both slum and squatter settlements since both portray an

image of poor physical conditions of the occupied dwellings. In 1990, the National Housing Authority (NHA) and the

Bangkok Metropolitan Administration defined the term ‘slum’ as: ‘a group of buildings with a housing density of not

less than 15 houses per rai (0.16 ha), in an area characterized by overcrowding and flooding with deteriorated and

unsanitary conditions that offer stuffy, damp and unhygienic accommodation, and which might be harmful for health,

security or as the source of illegal or immoral activities.’ (NESDB & GHB, 1995).2The target group of relocation projects normally consists of slum communities, which are displaced by various urban

development activities in the inner city areas.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Viratkapan, R. Perera / Habitat International ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

project formulation, implementation, and operation (Cernea, 1988). Several international fundingagencies have subsequently used these guidelines. In 1998, the Asian Development Bank has alsorecommended implementation of guidelines for resettlement projects (ADB, 1998). Theseguidelines have been useful in minimizing the impacts of urban development projects on relocatedpeople.

A review of the experience of a city like Bangkok, which has witnessed a number ofevictions and resettlement of slum communities during the last two decades, can offervaluable lessons for other cities which are going through similar processes. This articlepresents the findings of a research study on the factors that contribute to the develop-ment performance3 of slum relocation projects implemented in Bangkok during the periodof 1984–19954. It is expected that the lessons learned from this research can be utilized toincrease effectiveness of planning and operation of slum relocation projects in other emergingeconomies.

Eviction and relocation of slums in Bangkok

Metropolitan Bangkok has been facing problems associated with slums for many years.The city has a large number of slums that serve as the most important housing delivery systemfor the poorest strata of its population. In 1968, only 50 slum settlements have been identifiedin Bangkok. By 1985, 943 slum settlements have been found in the city alone, inhabited by956,400 people in 173,890 households. In addition to these numbers, the immediately adjacentprovinces of Nontaburi and Samut Prakarn, have had 77 identified slum settlements with 143,600inhabitants (Pornchockchai, 1985). The latest reports from the NHA reveals that in 2000,the number had grown to 1208 slum settlements with 243,204 households in the city alone(NHA, 2002). In recent years, it has been observed that slums are expanding into suburbanareas and adjacent provinces of Bangkok. In 1998, there had been 452 slum settlements in thefive adjacent provinces of Bangkok, comprising 77,452 households and 387,125 persons(CODI, 2000).

These figures show that the numbers of slum settlements are increasing both in the city as wellas in adjacent provinces since 1990s. Although some settlements have been removed from thecentral city areas, new settlements have appeared in the outer city areas as well as in the adjacentprovinces (Pacific Consultants, 1997). It is estimated that the number of slum settlements haveincreased by 84% in the outer-zone of Bangkok during the short period of 1990–1993. Thisindicates that low-income settlements are being pushed out of the core urban areas to thesuburban fringe. Some settlements have even been pushed to the adjacent provinces such asSamut Prakarn, Nontaburi and Phathumtani.

3‘Development Performance’ does not refer to a dualistic model of success or failure, but to the level of achievement

(see study methodology for a working definition of development performance).4The field investigations for this study were conducted in 2000. Projects with at least 5 years of history of existence in

the new location were selected for the study. Hence the study period was limited to the year of first relocation project

undertaken in Bangkok (1984) to 1995.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Slum eviction

The fundamental problem faced by slum dwellers is lack of secure land tenure.The NHA reported in 1994 that only 50% of total slum households in Bangkok had somesecurity of land tenure, while the remaining 50% had none (NHA, 1997). Usually, the slumswith unclear or no tenure status face eviction when land for new urban developmentare in demand. By comparing the aerial photos taken in 1974 and 1984, NHA had esti-mated that 150 slums with approximately 30,750 households had disappeared and the landchanged to other uses. Moreover, between 1984 and 1988 another 107 slums have dis-appeared (Khan, 1994). The Human Settlement Foundation (HSF) reported that 36,739slum households had been evicted in 1998 alone (HSF, 1998). The NHA has addressedthe housing problems of 39,819 families evicted from 82 settlements during 1978–2001 (NHA,2002).

Most of the slum communities that faced relocation experienced it when the economyof Thailand was booming from 1987–1997. Since the Asian economic crisis of 1997,Thailand’s economy has been in recession until 2003. As a result, land required for infra-structure and real estate developments during this period has been initiated. This situationhas created a favourable atmosphere for slum dwellers. While the pressure mounted onslum communities in the central area of Bangkok has been very little, new settlementshave emerged in the peripheral areas occupying government and private land. Although,evictions have become less of a threat from the public sector, there are still reports of evic-tions by private sector in central areas of Bangkok. There are still more than 200 slum settle-ments, with approximately 30,000 households, currently earmarked for relocation (FRSN,2000).

The policy on low-income housing in Thailand had been on giving security of tenuresince 1970s. This policy had been implemented through four alternative strategies: (1) landsharing, (2) re-blocking, (3) reconstruction, (4) relocation. Among these, the first three areon-site strategies while ‘slum relocation’ has been the main off-site strategy used to solvethe housing problem of people evicted from slums. The on-going housing developmentprograms for low-income people in Thailand are Baan Mankong program5 and BaanEur-Ah-torn program6. The first project attempts to give security of tenure for the poor byoffering long-term lease of presently occupied land or even opportunity to purchase if thelandowner agrees (Noppaladorom, 2004). The second program offers affordable housing withbasic infrastructure and service areas (NHA, 2004, http://www.nhanet.or.th/pplan/eng/arthorn.html).

5Baan Mankong targets the slum and squatter dwellers in Thailand. This program attempts to create security of

tenure for the slum and squatter people on the land they currently occupy. The government encourages the

communities to either negotiate for a long lease period or buy the land from the landowners. If the negotiation is a

success, the government, through CODI and NHA will provide the mortgage for the land at a special interest rate, and

subsidize the infrastructure cost (Noppaladorom, 2004, pp. 77–89).6Baan Eur-Ar-torn is a housing program targeting lower-middle income people who want to own a house. There are

two types of houses: (1) detached house on a 20–25 sq wah (80–100 sq m) plot located in the suburban areas of

Bangkok, and (2) apartment units located in the intermediate zone of Bangkok.

http://www.nhanet.or.th/pplan/eng/arthorn.html


ARTICLE IN PRESS


Slum relocation

The first slum relocation project in Bangkok has been implemented in 1984. During theperiod of 1984–1999, 59 such projects have been implemented in 50 locations of Bangkokmetropolitan region (Viratkapan, 1999). The other three policy directions had been appliedto approximately 10 projects, including land-sharing projects. These figures indicate thatoff-site relocation has been generally preferred over on-site reconstruction, re-blocking or landsharing. Off-site relocation has been the obvious preference for low-income housing projectsbecause that enables to release land occupied by slums for more productive purposes. However,it is questionable whether all relocation projects are successful in terms of consolidatingslum dwellers in new locations. In order to find answer to this question, 25 slum reloca-tion projects having at least 5 years history of existence in the new locations were selectedfor the purpose of this present study. Only the slums relocated in the outer zone of the citywere selected in order to assess the effect of distance on development performance of a project.The research aimed at assessing the degree of development performance of all 25 projects(see Table 1), and then identified the factors that have contributed to the developmentperformance.

The study methodology

‘Development performance’ is an indicator, which is used to assess the process as well as theoutcome of a development project. For the purpose of this study, it is defined as the develop-ment outcome of a slum relocation project that reflects the effectiveness of relocation.Development performance as a composite indicator is considered as manifested in severalattributes, which have physical and non-physical dimensions. On the basis of an opinion surveyinvolving slum dwellers, housing professionals, and community development experts thefollowing five attributes were chosen as indicators to assess the development performance ofselected relocation projects:

�

7

Original land ownership: This attribute relates to the percentage of original land recipients whoare still remaining in the new location of the community. It is assumed that an existence of ahigher percentage of original recipients indicates a strong development performance.

�
Plot occupation: This attribute considers the percentage of land recipients who actually occupythe plot of land. A higher percentage shows a strong development performance in thatparticular project.
�
Completion of house construction: This attribute considers the rate of completion of the housingunits, in that a higher percentage of completed houses in the project is indicative of a strongerdevelopment performance.
�
Condition of infrastructure7: This attribute considers the present condition of on-site projectinfrastructure. A better condition of infrastructure in the project is indicative of a strongerdevelopment performance.
Assessed using the visible condition of: (1) road condition, (2) drainage system, and (3) water supply system.

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

S

Table 1

Basic information of the slum relocation projects selected for the study and the results of conjoint analysis

Name of new settlements Basic information Attributes for conjoint analysis Result of conjoint analysis (as of 2000)

The year of

first

relocation

Age of the

projects

(as of

2000)

Total

project

area (Ha)

Total no.

of plots

Original land

owners (%)

Plot

occupation

(%)

Completion of

houses

construction (%)

Condition of

infrastructure

Participation

of community

members

Assessment

values of

development

performance

Rank of the

projects

1 Fuen Nakorn Romklow zone 9 1991 9 4.320 725 74.35 96.89 92.75 Good–excellent Strong 2.5434 1

2 Sub-Nukul Pattana 1992 8 0.702 85 77.65 64.71 61.18 Poor–fair Strong 1.0436 2

3 Onnuth Phase 1 (40 Rai) 1991 9 6.400 416 60.67 79.85 72.82 Poor–fair Strong 0.8976 3

4 Fuen Nakorn Romklow zone 12 1993 7 3.520 285 77.20 60.23 52.05 Good–excellent Weak 0.7918 4

5 Luang-por-kow 1993 7 1.120 108 84.26 71.30 65.74 Good–excellent Weak 0.7918 4

6 Klong Jed 1995 5 5.719 426 88.97 70.42 60.33 Good–excellent Weak 0.7918 4

7 Klong Song 1995 5 4.607 321 78.50 67.91 60.75 Good–excellent Weak 0.7918 4



10 Suwanprasith 2 1989 11 1.094 100 70.00 75.00 67.00 Good–excellent Weak 0.6458 5

11 Onnuth Phase 2 (19 Rai) 1993 7 3.064 269 65.80 75.84 69.14 Good–excellent Weak 0.6440 5

12 Fuen Nakorn Romklow zone 11/1 1994 6 8.640 342 71.83 57.82 50.54 Good–excellent Weak 0.0834 6

13 Fuen Nakorn Romklow zone 11/2 1994 6 3.200 726 71.43 62.37 55.05 Good–excellent Weak 0.0834 6

14 Bangbua 1984 16 1.340 168 75.44 90.06 73.68 Poor–fair Weak �0.2916 7

15 Ruamjai Samakkee (Sena) 1988 12 2.416 169 84.42 89.61 87.01 Poor–fair Weak �0.2916 7

16 Suwanprasith 3 1990 10 1.102 118 76.07 82.90 78.63 Good–excellent Weak �0.2916 7

17 Saithong Pattana 1991 9 0.376 43 87.50 64.71 81.40 Poor–fair Weak �0.2916 7

18 Petch Siam 1989 11 3.184 140 80.13 80.13 61.54 Poor–fair Weak �0.2934 8

19 Sahachumchon Ruamjai Pattana 1 1993 7 0.576 53 67.92 94.34 79.25 Poor–fair Weak �1.0000 9

20 Suwanprasith 1 1988 12 1.664 161 44.74 57.02 44.74 Good–excellent Weak �1.5625 10

21 Fuen Nakorn Romklow zone 7 1985 15 4.672 412 30.34 80.82 75.97 Poor–fair Weak �1.5833 11

22 Kaew Nimittr 1990 10 2.400 247 28.74 76.11 59.51 Poor–fair Weak �1.5833 11

23 Klong Hok (Soon Prasanngan) 1994 6 9.653 540 87.99 10.60 7.07 Poor–fair Weak �1.9166 12

24 Or-Nguen 1988 12 1.560 112 33.03 68.75 55.36 Poor–fair Weak �2.1457 13

25 Porn Praruang (Wat Ladprow) 1991 9 0.960 102 71.57 66.67 31.37 Poor–fair Weak �2.6250 14

Average value 9.12 3.384 272.20 68.99 72.28 63.55

Sources: Viratkapan (1999), Sananikom (2000) and field survey of Viratkapan (2001).

V.

Vira

tka

pa

n,

R.

Perera

/H

ab

itat

Intern

atio

na

l]

(]]]])

]]]–]]]

6

ARTICLE IN PRESS


�
Participation of community members8: This attribute considers the participation of the membersof community in regular meetings. A higher participation by members is considered as anindication of a stronger development performance.
The level of development performance of 25 resettlement projects selected for the study wereassessed by using the ‘conjoint analysis (CA)’ technique9 and the above five attributes. Thistechnique was useful to categorize the projects in the two groups according to the positive andnegative values. A negative value indicates a weaker performance while a positive value indicates astronger performance. Table 1 indicates that 13 resettlement projects have experienced strongerdevelopment performance, and the other 12 resettlement projects have experienced weakerdevelopment performance. All 25 projects were ranked according to the developmentperformance indicator as revealed by the CA. The projects showing the three highest positivevalues and three lowest negative values were identified in two groups viz., strong developmentperformance group (SDP group) and weak development performance group (WDP group). TheSDP group comprised of Romklow Zone 9, Sub Nukul Pattana and Luang Por Kow, the WDPgroup comprised of Kaew Nimitr, Pornpraruang and Suwanprasith 1 (see Table 1 and Fig. 1).

A total of 215 randomly selected respondents from these six settlements were interviewed usinga standardized survey questionnaire. The Chi-square test was used to compare the two groups interms of the factors that could have contributed to the development performance of settlements.

Factors contributing to development performance

A number of factors have been cited by various agencies and authors as contributing tothe effectiveness of overall development performance of resettlement projects. Cernea (1988,pp. 12–15), identifies five factors viz.: (1) resettlement policy, (2) legislation, (3) pre-planning,(4) public participation, and (5) adequate compensation as significant factors influencing thesuccess of formulation and implementation of resettlement projects. Moreover, the UNCHS(Habitat) has advocated that the process of relocation in terms of planning and implementation isof vital importance for the success of such projects. The main elements of the process contributingto successful relocation initiatives has been identified as (1) participation of members, (2) physicaldevelopment of the resettlement area, (3) award of compensation (4) social development, and(5) consolidation of livelihood (UNCHS, 1991, pp. 18–40). A subsequent study by the ADBhighlights community participation in every step of the process, compensation or funding ofresettlement activities and socio-economic restoration activities as the key factors which ensure aneffective relocation process (ADB, 1998). Similarly, Davidson, Zaaijer, Peltenburg, and Rodell

8Assessed using the indicators: (1) frequency of meeting and (2) percentage of members attending meeting.9The ‘CA’ technique has its theoretical roots in the literature on psychology concerning complex decision-making.

Now, it is also used in other fields of study such as geography, transportation, urban planning, sociology and many

other areas. Sometimes CA is called ‘trade-off analysis’ because it is based on the assumption that complex decisions,

such as purchase decisions, are based not on a single factor or criterion but on multiple factors. Thus, CA enables the

researcher to model the human decision-making process in a realistic manner. Respondents perform realistic

behaviours, and to these the researcher applies statistical modelling to infer the respondents’ underlying values (AMA,

2000).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Locations of the case studies.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


(1993) have identified five factors that influence relocation and resettlement viz; (1) policy, legaland institutional framework, (2) public participation in the relocation process, (3) good locationof the new site, (4) good physical development, and (5) effective socio-economic development inthe form of employment opportunities.

The above studies enable to identify contributing factors, which are external and internal to thecommunity experiencing the process of relocation. External factors consist of aspects such as newlocation and award of compensation, while internal factors constitute unity of the community,strength of leadership, and participation of members in the process. One of the important factorsthat none of the above studies explicitly indicate is positive attitude of the community towards thewhole experience of relocation. In other words, if people are optimistic about life in new locationthat will contribute to the success of the process. In contrast, if the people are pessimistic about thenew life at the new location, the chance of failure of the project is high. The analysis presented inthis article is centred on both external and internal factors, including the attitude factor identifiedoutside the context of available literature. The analysis also deals with the three stages of arelocation project, which are (1) eviction stage, (2) transition stage, and (3) consolidation stage.

External factors

The external factors examined are the concerns often raised by the affected communities such asconvenience of the new location and award of compensation. How these factors have contributedto the SDP and WDP groups are analysed below.

Convenience of new locationThe influence of location to development performance was investigated using distance as an

indicator. The distance from the new location to the nearest main road, sub-centre, local marketand the CBD of Bangkok was assessed assuming that in previous locations in CBD, such facilitieswere available at a very convenient distance. The analysis revealed that the relocation projects inthe SDP group are generally located closer to the CBD than the projects in WDP group.However, the analysis also revealed that the projects in WDP group are better situated than theprojects in SDP group, in terms of proximity to a main road, sub-centre and the local market.Moreover, the new locations of WDP projects were found to be closer to the location of theoriginal settlements. These findings contradict the general belief that the new location should be asclose as possible to the original location, in order to make minimum disruption to the livelihoodsand socio-economic linkages of people.

The comparison of distances indicated that location is not really a significant factorcontributing to the level of development performance of relocation projects. This findingsupports the view expressed by UNCHS (1991, p. 37) and Misra and Gupta (1981) that location isnot the only factor which determines the success of a relocation project but it should also beconsidered together with other factors such as social organization and employment potential atthe new location.

Award of compensationA review of basic information on individual projects revealed that two of the three projects of

SDP group have been offered compensation for displacement. On the other hand only one of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


three projects of WDP group has been compensated. The compensation has been given in theform of cash and/or land and in most cases it has been given to the community but not toindividual households. The field survey also confirmed that almost 75% of the households in theSDP group received compensation while about 40% of the households in the WDP group havereceived the same. There is a significant difference between the two groups in terms of receivingcompensation for displacement. In other words, compensation has made more contribution to theSDP group’s development performance than the WDP. It was also found that the amount ofcompensation is another significant factor for enhancing the success of a relocation project.Although not numerically verified, the interviews with respondents revealed that communities inthe SDP group had received better deals from the landlords for moving away from originalsettlements resulting in contributing to higher development performance. These findings alsoconfirm the recommendation of the World Bank, UNCHS and ADB that award of compensationis essential for the success of a relocation project.

Internal factors

These factors are related to the characteristics of the community and its members. For thepurpose of analysis following characteristics were selected as indicators: (1) unity of thecommunity, (2) strength of leadership, (3) participation of community members, and (4) theattitude of community members to the new location. Since these characteristics are bound tochange in time, the analysis of each factor was conducted in relation to the three stages of a typicalrelocation project viz.: (1) the eviction stage, (2) transition stage, and (3) consolidation stage.

Unity of the community and strength of leadershipOnce a community gets to know that it will be displaced, the members usually have to engage

in two types of activities, (1) organizing opposition to eviction and (2) prepare for relocationif opposition to eviction eventually fails. During the eviction stage, community leadersemerge automatically if they do not already exist. Thus pressures of strong leadership andcommunity involvement are significant factors at this stage. Strong leaders can both unitecommunity members and mobilize them for protesting against eviction. If such protestsare unsuccessful, they can negotiate with the involved agencies to obtain suitable land andresources for a resettlement project. In other words, the unity of community and leadership arenecessary for leading a relocation project to successful implementation. When these factorsbecame crucial, the development performance of a project was analysed for the three stagesnoted above.

Opinions of respondents presented in Table 2 reveal that at the eviction stage the unity of thecommunity of both SDP and WDP groups had been somewhat strong. The SDP group hadshown slightly stronger unity than the WDP group but there had not been a significant differencebetween the groups as suggested by Chi-square and significance value. Similarly, the opinions ofrespondents reveal that the performance of the community leaders in leading the community atthe eviction stage had been equally stronger in both WDP and SDP groups. A clear majority ofthe respondents in both groups confirmed that the community leaders received very strongsupport from community members at the eviction stage. These findings indicate that the pressureof eviction, which is an external threat, has united people and as a result the two groups have

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Unity of the communities, performance of leaders and relationship between leaders and community members at the

eviction stage

Opinion of the respondents Weak development performance group Strong development performance group Total

Number % Number % Number %

(A) Unity of the communities

Weak level 27 31.8 32 24.6 59 27.4

Strong level 58 68.2 98 75.4 156 72.6

Total 85 100 130 100 215 100

Pearson’s Chi-square: value ¼ 1.319, df ¼ 1, significance ¼ 0.251

(B) Leaders’ performance

Weak level 12 14.5 16 13.1 28 13.7

Strong level 71 85.5 106 86.9 177 86.3

Total 83 100 122 100 205 100


(C) Relations between leaders and community members

Weak level 4 4.8 11 9.0 15 7.3

Strong level 80 95.2 111 91.0 191 92.7

Total 84 100 122 100 206 100



shown equally strong development performance at that stage. In other words, the overalldifference of development performance of the two groups has not occurred at the eviction stage ofthe projects.

In the transition stage (first 2 or 3 years), the communities continued to be strongly united (seeTable 3). This may be due to the initial insecurity associated within unfamiliar/new surroundings.During this period the strength of leadership, the relationship between the leaders and thecommunity members have also sustained. However, it was noted that the leaders’ performance inthe SDP group has slightly improved by this stage, while in the WDP group it has slightly declinedas reported by the respondents (see Tables 2 and 3). The Chi-square value and significance levelindicated in Table 3 reveals that there is a significant difference between the two groups, in term ofperformance of their leaders.

The reason for the continued strength in leadership have stemmed from two reasons: first, theleaders who had already established a good relationship with the community members were thesame persons who actively provided leadership during both the eviction and transition stages.Second, the severe difficulties faced during this stage propelled the re-settlers to cooperate closelywith the leaders in order to overcome their individual problems. The declined strength ofleadership in the WDP group and inclined strength of leadership in the SDP group indicate thatthe differences of development performance of the two groups have begun to appear as early astransition stage. This infers that a continuation of strong leadership is crucial at the verybeginning of a relocation project, in order to sustain the momentum of development initiatives.

Table 3 does not indicate the opinion of respondents on the unity of the community as it wasreported as somewhat unchanged during the eviction period as well as during the initial 1 to 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Performance of leaders and relationship between leaders and community members in the transition Stage (the first 2 or

3 years)



(A) Leaders’ performance

Weak level 23 27.4 12 9.7 35 16.8

Strong level 61 72.6 112 90.3 173 83.2

Total 84 100 124 100 208 100


(B) Relations between leaders and members

Weak level 10 11.9 10 8.0 20 9.6

Strong level 74 88.1 115 92.0 189 90.4

Total 84 100 125 100 209 100



years of the transition stage. However, by the time of field survey, that is about 10 years (average)after initial relocation, the unity of the communities in both SDP and WDP groups have becomesignificantly weaker. A clear majority of respondents in both groups opined that the unity of thecommunity at present is much weaker than that during the stage of eviction and stage oftransition (see Tables 2 and 4). Even with weaker unity, there is a significant difference betweenthe two groups as shown by Chi-square and significance values (see Table 4). These statisticalindicators and percentage values imply that in overall term the unity of community in both groupswere weaker at the time of field survey.

Parallel to the decline in community unity, the relationship between the leaders and thecommunity members have also declined sharply in both groups over the 10 year (average)period since initial relocation. There are two reasons for this declining trend: first, when theindividual households gradually consolidate and solve their problems, the need for collectiveaction ceases to prevail. Secondly, the new generation of community members or the new comerswho replace the original settlers may not involve equally in community activities. Data revealsthat about 70% of original settlers have moved out in the WDP group. In the SDP group also thepercentage is as high as 30%. While these astonishing figures clearly indicate why there is asignificant difference in terms of development performance between the two groups, they alsoexplain why community unity and the relationship between leaders and members was so weakat the time of field survey. It is clear that the respondents of the survey, who are only the originalre-settlers, view that the unity and cooperation which existed at the eviction and transitionstages are no longer there. They also view that the performance of the community leaders atpresent is also below average. This is because the leadership has now gone to the next genera-tion, or even to the new settlers. They do not have to perform as intense as their predecessorsdue to lack of external pressures such as eviction and hostility of landlords. This finding reiteratesthat a strong leadership at all stages is necessary to sustain the development performance of arelocation project.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Unity of community, performance of leaders, relationship between leaders and members, in the consolidating stage

(approximately 3rd to 10th year)



(A) Unity of community

Weaker than or similar to 84 98.8 108 83.1 192 28.4

Stronger than 1 1.2 22 16.9 23 10.7

Total 85 100 130 100 215 100


(B) Leaders’ performance

Weak level 44 53.0 68 57.6 112 55.7

Strong level 39 47.0 50 42.4 89 44.3

Total 83 100 118 100 201 100


(C) Relations between leaders and members

Weak level 23 28.0 29 24.8 52 26.1

Strong level 59 72.0 88 75.2 147 73.9

Total 82 100 117 100 199 100



Participation of the membersAmong the internal factors that attribute to the success of a relocation project, participation of

the community members in every stage of the process is considered very crucial. Participation is acomplex phenomenon, which varies with the stage of the project. For the purpose of detailanalysis, following types of participation were considered: (1) participation in activities againsteviction, (2) participation in pre-relocation activities, (3) participation in post-relocation activities,and (4) participation in community development activities at the consolidation stage.

The analysis of opinion of respondents revealed that participation of community members atthe eviction stage has been very strong. At the eviction stage, members of both SDP and WDPgroups more or less equally participated in conducting protests against eviction, determiningcondition for negotiations with authorities and landlords, and in collective decision making (seeTable 5). Participation in these activities has helped fostering unity among community members atthe eviction stage and it has positively contributed to development performance as seen above. Inaddition, the savings and credit group activities at the eviction stage have been effective tools fororganizing, training and strengthening the leaders in management and administration skills. Theseactivities had also been good tools to foster cooperation, coordination and solidarity among themembers in the communities.

Once the decision on eviction of community is finalized, the community members usually turntheir attention from protesting to relocating in a new place. Activities at this stage normally include:

�
selection of the new location, � actual relocation and construction activities, and � basic infrastructure development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Participation of community members in eviction activities



(A) In protest

Weak participation 21 27.7 33 25.4 54 25.1

Strong 64 75.3 97 74.6 161 74.9

Total 85 100 130 100 215 100


(B) In determining conditions for negotiation

Not participated 28 32.9 41 31.5 69 32.1

Participated 57 67.1 89 68.5 146 67.9

Total 85 100 130 100 215 100


(C) In final decision making

Not participated 25 29.8 46 35.7 71 33.3

Participated 59 70.2 83 64.3 142 66.7

Total 84 100 129 100 213 100



In addition, special activities such as savings and credit group activities and vocational trainingfor generating livelihoods may happen depending on the need of the community. Communitymeetings are very common activities which happen in most communities irrespective of their sizeand status.

The survey findings revealed that the majority of community members had participated inselecting a suitable location from several alternatives presented to them by the authorities orlandlords. There is no difference in the extent of participation between the WDP and SDP groups.However, only a half of the members in both groups had participated in activities pertaining torelocation, subdivision of plots and construction of houses. Planning of actual relocation andsubdivision of plots had been organized by community leaders, and the members had usuallyaccepted their decisions. Construction of houses had been a responsibility of each household andtherefore it had not gone through a participation process except mutual helping between two ormore households. However, participation in constructing infrastructure networks has beenequally high between both groups particularly because the activities involved supplying basicnecessities such as water and access to the communities. The sudden change in situation had beena reason that had compelled the community members to extend their cooperation andparticipation to leaders and other community members during the eviction and relocationprocess especially in activities related to selecting of the new location and infrastructuredevelopment.

Participation at meetings between leaders and members in both groups had been very high atthe time of relocation. However, a similar level of participation has not been observed in thesavings and credit societies. Particularly, in the WDP group such activities had been very limitedwhereas in the SDP group only an average level of participation had been observed by the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


respondents. There had been a clear difference between the two groups in terms of involvement insavings and credit societies at the time of relocation. Even in the vocational training activitiesorganized to support livelihoods of the community members, participation had been observed asvery low in both groups. These findings reveal that participation in activities at relocation stagehad been more or less similar in both SDP and WDP groups. The only differences had been seenin secondary activities such as savings and credit group, and vocational training. Therefore, thepresent differences between the two groups in terms of development performance have happenedafter the initial period of relocation.

At the present stage, which is about 10 years after the time of relocation, the participation ofcommunity members are seen in several continuing activities and new activities. The continuingactivities include:

�
community meetings, � infrastructure development and improvement, � savings and credit society, and � vocational training.
The new activities include:

�
women’s group, � youth group, � anti-drug group, and � public health voluntary service.
The opinion of the respondents reveals that participation of members in community meeting islower in the SDP group compared to the WDP group. This was in contrary to the generalexpectation. Similarly, participation in infrastructure development work also is lower in SDPgroup. More detail discussions with some original settlers revealed that most households are wellestablished now and as a result they do not have compelling reasons to participate in generalmeetings of the community. Moreover, the WDP group has fewer original inhabitants remainingthan in the SDP group. This indicates that the number of potential participants in the WDP isexpectedly lower than the SDP. Although the respondents do not participate in continuingactivities, most of them participate in new activities. The findings reveal that there is a cleardifference of participation between SDP and WDP groups in new activities, such as women’sgroup, youth group and public health voluntary group. While there is negligible participation bythe members of WDP in these new activities, there is a sizable portion of respondents in SDPgroup who regularly participate in such activities. Similarly, participation of members in the SDPgroup was seen as significantly higher in savings and credit group and in vocational training whichare in fact continuing activities. These participations have undoubtedly contributed to the higherlevel of development performance in the SDP group.

These findings lead to confirm that the difference in development performance in the twogroups have occurred much after the initial time of relocation. It can also be inferred fromfindings that strengthening of specific groups for savings and credit, vocational training, youthaffairs, women affairs, etc. will contribute to the state of development once people are reasonablysettled in the new location.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


On the other hand, a new generation is gradually replacing elders as household leaders. Thisnew and younger generation of residents, most of whom are more educated than the oldergenerations, are gradually entering the formal sector for employment. This may potentially affectthe amount of time that they can commit to community development activities. At the same time,they may not realize the needs of the community as their previous generation did.

In the near future, as the younger generation continues to relate less to community unity astheir parents did, it generates a decrease in inhabitants’ participation level in associateddevelopment activities and can also be reflected in the transferring or selling of their original plotto the outsiders. Considerably more attention needs to be paid on this issue in order to maintainand/or improve the development performance of the slum relocation projects. This expectedchange to a more process oriented approach may pose a hard question for the involved agenciesand organizations.

Attitude of community members to the new locationIt must be noted that the lower level of development performance in the WDP group may also

be attributed migration of a large number of original settlers to other places. While those whodecided to stay on have already consolidated in their given places and the new comers whoreplaced the original settlers are still trying to adjust. In fact, the percentage of original re-settlerswho have consolidated in the new location is an indicator of the development performance. If alarge percentage of original beneficiaries has been replaced by new settlers, it is not a successfulrelocation project. Therefore, it is very vital that adequate support is given until peopleconsolidate in new communities. The motivation to continue in the new place is also acontributing factor for the development performance. The survey findings reveal that only 10% ofthe SDP group intend to leave for new place while 20% in the WDP group intend to leave duringthe next 2 years.

In any community, there may be households who plan to move elsewhere for a variety ofreasons. However, if a significant proportion of the re-settlers plan to move out that will affect themotivation of those who will continue in the community. Therefore, positive attitudes need to bebuilt in the community towards the new location until all households are firmly consolidated andshow signs of upward mobility to the next stage a phenomena that Turner (1967, pp. 354–363)termed as the ‘status sealing’ stage.

Conclusions and policy implication

The foregoing analysis confirmed the findings of UNCHS, that location of the new settlement isnot a major influencing factor for development performance if compensation and security oftenure are awarded to beneficiaries. Since all relocation projects have dealt with the issue of securetenure to the satisfaction of the beneficiaries, it is in fact only one external factor, which is theaward of compensation, that is seen as affecting the development performance of slum relocationproject. This finding also confirms the view of World Bank and ADB on the significance ofawarding compensation in cash and kind. In contrast, all the internal factors viz, unity ofcommunity, strength of leadership, participation of members and attitude of members to newlocation were found to be affecting the development performance. However, it was revealed that

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the development performance of slum relocation projects start to differ at the time of consoli-dation, while on the time of eviction and transition most projects perform in a similar manner.

Therefore, careful attention should be paid to the progress of the projects during theconsolidation stage. Usually, housing professionals dealing with relocation projects pay moreattention to the major objectives such as giving security of tenure, generating of livelihoods andensuring social welfare. Most housing policies also address the issues at eviction and transitionstages but not necessarily on the issues that emerge at the consolidation stage. People are usuallyleft to themselves after tenure. The attention usually disappears especially after the completion ofthe project. The analysis revealed that the people’s enthusiasm also dies down and as a result unityof communities, strength of leadership, and people’s participation also decline affecting thedevelopment performance of the project. Therefore, in order to sustain the developmentperformance, specialized community activities need to be introduced and supported through apartnership mechanism involving community based organizations, housing professionals and alsothe local authority in the project area. The findings on active participation in specialized activitiessuch as women’s group, youth group and vocational training revealed that housing professionalsand the local authority should shift their attention from relocation to community developmentwhen a project progresses from transition stage to consolidation stage. For long-termsustainability of the project, community empowerment, sense of togetherness and belongingnessneed to be fostered through community activities. The policy implications of these findings arethat relocation projects should not be formulated only on the objective of giving security of tenureand social welfare. In other words, a project should not end when beneficiary families are firmlyrelocated in a new place with secured tenure. It should continue with a new set of objectivestargeting social welfare and community development until the beneficiaries are firmly integratedwith the surrounding context and the next generation takes over the community leadership.Especially continued support and assistance from housing professionals and local authority asneeded in order to facilitate the consolidation of beneficiaries. If most of the original beneficiariesleave the project and new households move in to occupy the vacuum that could not be anindication of a higher development performance.

References

ADB (1998). Handbook on resettlement: a guideline to good practice. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

AMA (2000). Preference structure measurement: conjoint analysis and related techniques—a guide for designing and

interpreting conjoint studies (2nd ed.). IntelliQuest, USA: American Marketing Association.

Cernea, M. M. (1988). Involuntary resettlement in development projects: policy guidelines in world bank-financed projects.

Washington, DC: World Bank.

CODI (2000). Urban low-income in Thailand—a profile (mimeo in Thai). Bangkok: Community Organization

Development Institute.

Davidson, F., Zaaijer, M., Peltenburg, M., & Rodell, M. (1993). Relocation and resettlement manual: a guide to

managing and planning relocation. Rotterdam: Institute of Housing and Urban Development Studies.

FRSN (2000). Slum settlements on the property of state railway of Thailand—summary (mimeo in Thai). Bangkok: Four

Regions Slum Networks.

HSF (Human Settlements Foundation) (1998). Swept under the carpet of affluence: evictions in Bangkok. In

Fernandes, K. (Ed.), Forced evictions and housing right abuses in Asia—second report (1996–1997) (pp. 145–148).

Karachi: City Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Khan, S. A. (1994). Attributes of informal settlements affecting their vulnerability to eviction: a study of Bangkok.

Environment and Urbanization, 6, 25–39.

Misra, K. G., & Gupta, R. (1981). Resettlement policies in Delhi. New Delhi: Times Press.

NESDB & GHB (1995). An analysis of slum and squatter settlements in Bangkok, housing situation report, 1994–1995 (in

Thai). Bangkok: National Economic and Social Development Board and Government Housing Bank (pp. 108–115).

NHA (1997). Slum settlement Bangkok—a survey report (in Thai). Bangkok: National Housing Authority.

NHA (2002). Housing development program for slum and urban poor for national economic and social development plan

IX (2002–2006) (mimeo in Thai). Bangkok: National Housing Authority.

NHA (2004). Baan Eur Ah-thon Project, http://www.nhanet.or.th/pplan/eng/arthorn.html.

Noppaladorom, T. (2004). Baan mankong: a national program of community-driven upgrading of housing with local

participation, endogenous development for sustainable multi-habitations in Asian cities. Bangkok: Center for

Sustainable Development Studies, Toyo University and Asian Institute of Technology (pp. 77–89).

Pacific Consultants International (1997). The study on urban environmental improvement program in Bangkok

metropolitan area: sector plans and technical studies, Vol. 3. Bangkok: Japan International Cooperation Agency.

Pornchockchai, S. (1985). 1020 Bangkok Slums—Evidence, Analysis, Critics, Bangkok. School of Urban Community

Research and Action.

Sananikom, D. (2000). A study on classification of slum relocation projects in the greater Bangkok from 1984–1995.

Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology (Unpublished M.Sc. thesis).

Turner, J. F. C. (1967). Barriers and channels for housing development in modernizing countries. Journal of American

Institute of Planners, 33, 354–363.

UNCHS (1982). Survey of slum and squatter settlements. Dublin: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

(HABITAT).

UNCHS (1991). Evaluation of relocation experience. Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

(HABITAT).

UN-HABITAT (2001). Cities in a globalizing world—global report on human settlements 2001. London and Sterling:

Earthscan Publication, United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

UN-HABITAT (2003). The challenge of slums—global report on human settlements 2003. London and Sterling:

Earthscan Publication, United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

Viratkapan, V. (1999). Relocation of ‘‘slum’’ and squatter housing settlements under eviction in the greater Bangkok area:

case studies of three relocation settlements (unpublished special study submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirement

for the degree of doctoral of philosophy). Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.


Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: what has … relocation projects in bangkoki.pdf · Slum...

Documents

Transcript of Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: what has … relocation projects in bangkoki.pdf · Slum...