W19 – The Sustainable City - enhr.net Netherlands/W19... · emissions (figure from 2003; Gugele /...

W19 – The Sustainable City

SUSTAINABILITY OF INDIA’S MEGA-CITIES: BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES OF THE HOUSING SECTOR

Dr. Nathalie Homlong

[email protected]

Dr. Elisabeth Springler

[email protected]

Sustainability of India’s Mega-Cities: Between environmental and social challenges of the housing sector

Workshop 19: The Sustainable City Homlong / Springler

1

- ENHR 2007 International Conference “Sustainable Urban Areas” -

Sustainability of India’s Mega-Cities: Between environmental and

social challenges of the housing sector

Dr. Nathalie Homlong

Associate Professor, Volda University College, Norway, [email protected]

Dr. Elisabeth Springler

Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Economics,

[email protected]

Keywords: India; housing quality; Slum development; livelihood approach

Abstract:

In recent years India’s GDP growth (around 8% in 2005) has been far above the growth rates

of European countries or the USA. The strong development of the economy is also visible in

the increase of foreign direct investment, which reached more than 5 billion US dollar in

2005/2006.

Despite these favourable developments in GDP growth and FDI, it has to be questioned how

these trends are transformed into a sustainable development of India’s mega cities. In this

paper sustainability of cities is defined as the transformation of growth developments into

environmental and social achievements (especially availability of water, toilets and

electricity) of the existing mega cities. Deficits in both environmental and social issues are

especially visible in the residential housing sector in India.

Therefore this paper evaluates the impact of regional environmental measures to improve the

situation of residential housing in the Mega Cities New Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai. In

methodological terms this paper focuses on comparative statistics.

1. Introduction

As numerous articles and studies show, economic developments in terms of GDP growth or

GDP per capita growth cannot be used as only indicators for sustainable economic

development. Less developed economies like China or India have been experiencing high

GDP growth rates in the last years and have therefore often been quoted as fast developing

economies, which have attracted lots of foreign direct investment and foreign capital and

helped therefore also to increase the profits of entrepreneurs of developed economies. Besides

that, lack in human development, persisting social exclusion and the growing environmental

burden arising from increased economic activity are not included in the evaluation of

economic development. The aim of this paper is to address this by applying a set of

alternative measurements to economic development for the case of India. The qualitative

development of housing stock as the core variable for economic and, as it is called in the

paper, human development emerges from the theoretical background applied.

To enlarge the concept of economic development by the other areas mentioned above, broad

concepts of sustainability were used. Institutions like the United Nations Development

Program focus on Human Development Issues*. Based on annual reports, human development

and reduction of poverty in specific countries or regions is evaluated. Alternatively Global

Footprint Analysis focuses on issues of energy and environmental sustainability. Conversely

to these concepts we try to enlarge the definition of economic development by adding specific

variables into the context, which are concentrating on the strict causal relation and impacts of

GDP growth onto other areas of research. The approach of this paper differs in that the

individual is put into the centre of the analysis by trying to measure consumption

sustainability within the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Although similarities to the

United Nationals Development Program’s approach can be found in the focus of the research

and the theoretical foundations, which in both cases can be traced back to Amartyra Sen†, the

main difference is in the causality between economic growth and sustainable development.

Unlike the United National Development Program the approach used in this paper allows for

multi-causality between so called sustainable livelihood and economic growth. Livelihood

assets like human, natural, financial, social and physical capital influence and are influence by

the transforming structures and processes of the society, which in turn manifest livelihood

* For projects under evaluation of the United Nations Development Program in India see http://www.undp.org.in/ † With the concept of „human capabilities“or „human development” Sen puts the individual in the centre of the analysis. According to Sen human capabilities can be defined as the “freedom to achieve various lifestyles” (Sen 1985, 1993, 1999 cit in Pressman and Summerfield 2002, p.430)



3

strategies in order to achieve a certain outcome of livelihood. These outcomes as well as the

structures and processes imposed by society have also an impact of the livelihood assets and

create a feedback loop. Therefore causality is given in both directions (for a graphical

explanation see Graph A1 in the Annex). To achieve the necessary specification of livelihood

outcomes and to set up a definition of sustainability, again the conceptional framework of Sen

is applied. As Sen and Anand describe, the analysis of sustainability is often in danger of over

or under specification (Anand and Sen 2000, 2036pp). For the specification of livelihood

outcomes we therefore focus on improvements in living conditions manifested in the quality

of housing stock. As variables for defining quality and living standards in the dwelling stock,

the availability of electricity, washing and toilet facilities and the material of the dwelling

stock are analyzed. The causality between housing standards, human development and

sustainability are assumed to be the following: redistribution to the poor and therefore the

alleviation of poverty is assumed to improve their health and enhance their capabilities to live

fulfilling lives (see also Anand and Sen, 2000, 2038pp). As housing standards have an impact

on health conditions, they help increase the human capabilities. Other aspects where over or

under specification might hamper the analysis of livelihood outcomes are multiple livelihood

assets that have an impact on the livelihood outcomes and their definition of sustainability. To

overcome this problem this paper focuses on two assets of livelihood, by combining

environmental and social assets on the housing sector. The transformational processes of the

society are the measures – housing policy schemes – applied by central and provincial

governments to achieve environmental and social goals to improve the quality of housing

standards.

This also implies that the definition of sustainability in this paper is not to preserve the present

day opportunities or stock but to increase human capabilities by the improvement of living

conditions. This applies only to the focus of social capital in our analysis. For factors of

environmental assets we assume that sustainability follows the mode of preservation to inherit

the existing stock to future generations‡. This approach of social improvements under the

condition of stable environmental assets seems to be the only possibility to enact

sustainability on the environmental side as we are not able to forecast the potential

improvements of the existing stock. Preservation of existing environmental assets on the other

hand can be achieved among other measures by the reduction of CO2 emissions, which in turn

serve as the core variable to define environmental sustainability in this paper.

‡ For a more detailed description of definitions of sustainability see Anand / Sen 2000, 2035pp.



4

The paper proceeds by discussing the asset stock and needs of environmental developments

and the status of the housing sector as the two assets of the livelihood framework. This

analysis is followed by the specific programs in three selected mega cities in India. As data is

not available as time series, the argumentation can only be derived as a case study

presentation, not in the form of a statistical analytical approach. The cities were chosen due to

size, economic potential and geographical location, which means that cities in three different

states were selected. According to the measurement of economic potential Indian cities can be

classified into three categories (tier I to III). Following this classification Delhi, Mumbai and

Bangalore are the cities with the highest economic and cultural development, followed by

Hyderabad, Pune and Chennai as tier II economies. Combining this classification with the

development in population leads to the conclusion that between 1991 and 2001 and between

2001 and 2005 Hyderabad faced a stronger increase in agglomeration than Bangalore and

Chennai (see Just / Väth / Chin 2006). Although Pune’s increase in population was even

stronger in the past than the increase in Hyderabad, its agglomeration size with 4.5 million

inhabitants is still much smaller than the one of Hyderabad with 6.7 million inhabitants. Out

of this classification into mega cities comprised as a combination of economic development,

population increase, total size of agglomeration and geographical location, the three highest

ranked mega cities were chosen as the samples of sustainable development in this paper:

Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad.

2. International discussion: Environmental impact of the housing sector

Residential housing can have a number of effects on the environment, including land use,

impacts of production, transport and disposal of building materials, water consumption, and

use of unsustainable energy sources for construction, heating and cooling (CMHC 2007).

Many industrialized countries have introduced projects focusing on water conservation in the

housing sector and sustainable community planning with the aim of reducing traffic

congestion and transport distances. Among those are Denmark, Portugal, Italy and France

with the Sustainable Housing in Europe Project, which is co-financed by the European Union

and which focuses on reducing buildings environmental impact, rational use of natural

resources, such as water and energy (SHE 2003).

However, in connection with sustainability and environmental impacts of residential housing

in industrialized countries, a major focus in recent years has been on the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to global warming. Energy consumption in residential



5

housing is an important source of greenhouse gas emissions. To take Austria as an example,

there this sector is responsible for approximately 15% of the country’s total greenhouse gas

emissions (figure from 2003; Gugele / Rigler / Ritter 2005: 12). Important measures to

achieve reduced greenhouse gas emissions in housing are the reduction of energy

consumption, among others through improved insulation, and use of sustainable energy

sources for heating and electricity. Consequently many countries and regions have got

programs to address these aims, among them Vienna’s program THEWOSAN (Stadt Wien

2004), which subsidizes energy effective renovation of existing housing, the Czech

Republic’s Panel program for the renovation of panel buildings (Streicher / Heindler /

Marousek / Vorisek: 19) and the Canadian program for the use of energy-efficient products in

the construction of housing that is built under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing

Program (IHS 2007), to mention a few. Furthermore, the European Commission’s Directorate

General for Energy and Transport is promoting dozens of good practice case studies on

energy consumption, many of them focusing on the housing sector (European Commission

2007).

The strong focus on energy conservation in the housing sector in industrialized countries can

be explained by the fact that this sector can make a significant contribution to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions and can therefore help reaching greenhouse gas emission levels as

targeted under the Kyoto protocol.

3. Stylized facts on India

India’s strong economic development which started with its economic reforms since 1991, is

reflected in average GDP growth rates around 7% in the last years (WKO 2006a: 5) and

reached 8.5% in 2006 (est., Central Intelligence Agency 2007). In an international ranking

India has the tenth largest GDP (nominal, data from 2005; World Bank 2007). Given the large

population, though, per capita GDP comes only to a comparatively low 3,136 US$ per capita

(in PPP; UNDP 2006). In stark contrast to its high GDP growth rates stands India’s

performance in the United Nations’ Human Development reports, which includes the

indicators life expectancy, adult literacy rate, and combined gross enrolment rates for primary,

secondary and tertiary schools, in addition to GDP per capita. In 2006 India was placed in the

group of medium human development and ranked only 126 out of a total of 177 countries

(UNDP 2006). Unemployment is relatively low with 7.8% (2006 est., Central Intelligence



6

Agency 2007), and India is among the countries with low to medium differences in income

distribution between population groups, as a Gini coefficient of 32.5 indicates (UNDP 2006).

Both population growth and economic development put pressure on India’s environment.

Major environmental problems are a lack of organized garbage collection and disposal, large

production of waste – approximately 60,000 tons of waste per day in India’s mega cities, and

the fact that about 90% of residential waste waters remain untreated (WKO 2006a: 64). In

2004 14% of the population did not have sustainable access to an improved water source – i.e.

clean water. In this respect, however, a positive trend can be observed, as that share was

significantly higher with 30% in 1990 (UNDP 2006). Given increased energy demand, energy

supply is insufficient and results in frequent power cuts. Greenhouse gas emitting energy

production methods – coal with 57%, gas with 10% and diesel with 1% of total energy

production (figures 2004-2005) – dominate India’s energy production (WKO 2006b: 6).

4. Characteristics of the sector housing and housing policies in India

Due to the strong population increase, which led to an estimated population of 1.029 billion

for the year 2001, the Tenth Plan (2002 to 2007) for the Structure of the Indian Economy

estimated an cumulative demand for an additional 22.44 million dwelling units in this period

(National Housing Bank, 2006).

Besides the need of new dwellings, the qualitative standards of the existing dwelling stock or

“shelters” has to be improved substantially. Table 1 shows the predominant material of the

roofs, walls and floors of the dwelling stock in India and the states of the selected cities –

Delhi; Andrah Pradesh includes the city of Hyderabad; and Maharashtra, which includes the

data for Mumbai. In all three categories – roof, wall and floor – major differences in the

materials used can be found according to the regions and when comparing rural to urban

areas. The highest dispersion is observable in the case of roof material. For total India the

highest fraction are tiles with 32.6% of the dwelling stock, followed by the category of grass,

wood and mud with 21.9%, concrete with 19.8% and metal asbestos sheets with 11.6%.

Urban areas account in all three regions for more widespread use of concrete as material for

roofs. Conversely to that grass, wood and mud as well as tiles are less important in urban

areas compared to the total numbers in all regions.

When comparing the data for the most important materials for roofs in the three regions it

becomes obvious that conversely to comparable ratios of grass, wood and mud with 13.1%,

tiles with 13.8% and metal asbestos sheets with 16.3% in Andrah Pradesh, the ratios for these



7

three kinds of materials differ substantially from the other regions. In the urban areas of

Maharashtra the focus is on metal asbestos sheets with 37.3% and concrete with 41.2%. In

Delhi, stone is the most used material besides concrete, while all other materials are of minor

importance.

Table 1: Predominent materials of roof, wall and floor (2001) Total India Andrah Pradesh Maharashtra Delhi Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

Roof Grass, Wood.

Mud 21.9 27.5 6.4 32.0 38.2 13.1 10.0 15.8 2.2 3.3 4.3 3.2Plastic 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.2 2.6 1.7 2.7

Tiles 32.6 35.4 17.6 25.5 29.4 13.8 31.0 42.0 16.0 0.6 0.8 0.6Metal Asbestos

sheets 11.6 10.5 16.5 7.6 4.7 16.3 34.8 33.0 37.3 7.2 8.6 7.1Brick 5.6 5.6 5.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.9 4.7 1.6Stone 6.5 6.7 7.3 4.0 4.7 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 27.9 50.0 26.3

Concrete 19.8 11.9 44.4 28.5 20.9 51.8 21.1 6.4 41.2 54.7 27.3 56.7Wall

Grass, Wood. Mud 43.3 50.9 16.4 36.4 42.7 17.4 38.1 54.1 16.3 5.6 5.0 5.6

Plastic 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.3Metal Asbestos

sheets 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.6 0.4 1.1 2.0 0.6 4.0 0.4 0.4 0.4Brick 43.7 35.3 68.7 47.2 40.4 67.9 41.3 25.3 63.0 91.5 92.5 91.5Stone 9.4 11.5 7.2 12.2 13.9 6.8 9.8 15.7 1.7 0.7 0.6 0.7

Concrete 2.4 1.3 6.0 3.0 2.0 6.1 8.1 3.7 14.0 1.5 1.3 1.5Floor

Grass, Wood. Mud 57.8 71.3 17.3 42.4 52.9 10.4 50.8 77.8 14.1 7.1 14.4 6.5Tiles 7.3 2.3 20.3 2.7 0.6 9.4 29.3 10.3 55.2 13.8 8.4 14.2Brick 2.3 2.3 3.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 4.0 8.2 3.7Stone 5.8 4.6 8.9 31.2 25.8 47.8 4.1 3.4 5.0 2.9 2.3 3.0

Cement 26.5 19.3 49.6 22.5 19.8 30.8 13.7 6.9 22.9 71.9 66.3 72.3 Source: Census of India 2001 various tables; own calculations;

For walls and floor the dispersion in the materials used is smaller, but similar conclusions

according to the differences between rural and urban areas and the differences between

regions can be drawn. For total India grass, wood and mud, as well as brick for walls and

cement for floors serve as most important materials. For the floors the urban areas in all

regions concentrate on cement and tiles. Grass, wood and mud are of minor importance in all

urban areas. For walls brick is the most important material followed by grass, wood and mud.

The classification in table 1 into different construction materials for dwellings gives an

overview over the standards and quality of dwellings in India. Especially the use of grass,

wood, mud, plastic and metal asbestos sheets leads to the conclusion that a substantial part of



8

the existing dwelling stock does not follow quality standards of housing according to

developed economies, but can be regarded as official or unofficial slums. In the region of

Andrah Pradesh 29.9% of roofs, 18.8% of walls and 10.4% of floors are constructed with one

of the materials mentioned above. With 40.7% for roofs, 21.1% for walls and 14.1% for floors

these numbers are even higher in the region of Maharashtra and substantially lower in Delhi.

When assuming that the cities discussed in this paper reflect the average distribution of

materials for urban areas in the different regions, it can be concluded that especially

Maharashtra and the agglomeration of Mumbai suffer from bad housing conditions in terms of

high amounts of official and unofficial slums. Despite the high economic growth of the

regions housing standards are just around the urban average of total India.

When taking location and source of drinking water as well as the availability of bathrooms,

latrines and electricity into account, the necessity to increase livelihood assets in this respect

increases further. As table 2 shows, the source of drinking water within premises differs

between 57.2% and 75.8% of all dwellings in the urban areas of the respective regions. Again

a substantial difference between rural and urban areas is observable, with higher rates of water

availability within premises to be found in urban areas.

Table 2: Location and source of drinking water (2001) Total India Andrah Pradesh Maharashtra Delhi Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural UrbanLocation:

Within premises 38.96 28.71 65.38 31.3 22.7 57.2 53.4 38.9 73.2 74.9 62.3 75.8Near Premises 44.33 51.75 25.23 48.9 55.3 29.3 34.3 43.9 21.1 18.1 20.3 18

Away 16.69 19.53 9.37 19.8 21.9 13.5 12.3 17.2 5.7 7 17.1 6.3Source:

Tap 36.7 24.3 68.7 48.1 40.3 71.9 64 45.5 89.2 75.3 51.6 77Handpump 35.7 43.2 16.2 26.1 30.9 11.7 12.9 19.1 4.5 18.7 33.5 17.6

Tubewell 5.6 5.7 5.1 5.9 5.7 6.5 2.9 3.8 1.7 3.2 5 3.1Well 18.2 22.2 7.7 16.5 19.6 7.2 17.8 28.5 3.2 0 0.4 0

Tank. Pond. Lake 1 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.6River. Canal 1 1.3 0.2 0.8 1 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.1 0 0 0

Spring 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.5 0 0.5 0.8 0.1 0 0 0 Source: Census of India 2001 various table; own calculations

Comparing these results with the average of drinking water sources in developed European

economies according to the Eurostat Data base, an average of 80% for drinking water within

premises was reached already in 1971. This data increase up to around 96% till 1991. As this

data is taken as the total average without distinction into rural and urban areas it can be seen

that India with a ratio of around 39% for total India is lagging behind substantially.



9

Table 3 focuses on the availability of bathrooms and toilets within the dwelling unit. It can be

seen that compared to the source of drinking water, the ratio for the availability of bathrooms

within the dwelling is higher with 70.4% for total India and above that average in the selected

regions with ratios between 71.7% and 81.6%. This shows the need to increase the availability

of drinking water as livelihood assets in the housing sector. Apart from the ratio of bathrooms

within the house, table 3 shows the ratio of toilet availability within the dwelling unit. In total

Indian urban areas around one fourth of dwelling units is without any kind of latrine. In the

region of Andrah Pradesh and Delhi the situation is a little better with only around 21% of

dwelling units without toilet availability within the house. In the urban areas of Maharashtra,

which include the agglomeration of Mumbai, the situation is worse with a ratio of over 40%

of dwelling units without latrines. Comparing these results again with the data for developed

European economies according to Eurostat, it can be seen that also here India is lagging

behind substantially even in the economically highly developed agglomerations of the mega

cities. In developed European economies the ratio of toilet availability reached 92% of

dwelling units in 1991. Even data from 1971 states a ratio of toilet facilities within dwelling

units of 76.6% on average.

Table 3: Distribution of households by availability of bathroom and latrine (2001) Total India Andrah Pradesh Maharashtra Delhi Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urbanbathroom within the house 36.1 22.8 70.4 39.8 27.1 78.5 61.1 46.1 81.6 71 61 71.7type within the house:

pit latrine 11.5 10.3 14.6 8.5 6.4 15.1 8.9 10.2 7.1 16.4 32.9 15.2water closet 18 7.1 46.1 18.1 8.6 47 21.9 5.3 44.4 45.5 19 47.4other latrine 6.9 4.5 13 6.3 3.1 16 4.3 2.7 6.6 16.1 11 16.5

no latrine 63.6 78.1 26.3 67 81.9 21.9 64.9 81.8 41.9 22 37.1 21type of waste water outlet:

closed drainage 12.5 3.9 34.5 13.7 6.3 36 22 5.1 45.1 49.2 13.6 51.7open drainage 33.9 30.3 43.4 37.9 35.1 46.3 38.8 36 42.5 40.8 60.9 39.4

no drainage 53.6 65.8 22.1 48.4 58.6 17.7 39.2 58.9 12.4 10.1 25.5 9 Source: Census of India 2001 various tables. own calculations

In terms of waste water treatment around 22% of dwelling units of total urban areas of India

do not have any waste water drainage. Additionally a substantial ratio of 43% only has an

open drainage. The dispersion between the selected regions for no drainages is between 9% in

Delhi to 17.7% in the urban areas of Andrah Pradesh.

Apart from amenities like toilet, bathroom and drinking water facilities in the dwelling unit,

also the availability of electricity is a standard variable for the measurement of living quality



10

in housing units. Compared to the data of 1991, an increase in the overall ratio of electricity

availability in dwelling units from 42.4% (Census of India 1991) for total India – without

distinction between rural and urban areas – to 55.8% in 2001 can be observed, as table 4

indicates. Although the share of dwelling units with no source of lighting at all are under 1%

according to table 4, the figures for electricity as a means of lighting between 6.6% and 10%

of urban dwellings in the selected highly developed regions indicates again a necessity to

improve livelihood assets in India’s highly populated urban areas.

Table 4: Distribution of households by source of lighting (2001) Total India Andrah Pradesh Maharashtra Delhi Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

Electricity 55.8 43.5 87.6 67.2 59.7 90 77.5 65.2 94.3 92.9 85.5 93.4 Kerosene 43.3 55.6 11.6 32.1 39.7 9.2 21.5 33.6 5.1 6.2 13 5.7 Solar energy 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other oil 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 any other 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 Source: Census of India 2001 various tables. own calculations

The quality of housing in urban areas does not always reflect the income distribution for

Indian states. Although Andrah Pradesh and Maharashtra have overall better results in the

quality standards and living standards in housing than the overall data for urban areas in India,

the income levels, as Dhongde (2004) analyzes, are below the mean income level. An increase

in the income level, without changes in the income distribution would improve the situation of

individual households enormously compared to the overall data for India’s urban areas, as

income distribution is more even in these states compared to regions above the mean income

distribution. This fact shows the importance of state intervention to boost quality standards

and livelihood assets in the housing market. Even poorer parts of the population can increase

their livelihood assets and therefore improve their human capabilities and human development

situation.

According to the National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2005 of the Ministry of Urban

Employment and Poverty Alleviation, the central government as well as state and local

governments have to work jointly together to improve the situation of quality and quantity

standards of Indian housing. The central government should among other duties enhance

institutional and legal reforms and enable macroeconomic policies to increase the flow of

resources to the housing and infrastructure sector (Ministry of Urban Employment and

Poverty Alleviation, 2005: 10). The aim of this paper is therefore to analyze central and local



11

governmental housing policies and discuss their impact according to the regional needs to

improve the housing situation.

Table 5: Housing programs for urban population Name of the

Programme

Approach Funding Administrative Level

Quantity Night Shelter for Urban Shelterless

Provision and construction of shelters

Central Government: 50% subsidy; HUDCO: loan; local Governments: land

MUEPA: nodal authority; releases funds

Two Million Housing Programme

Construction of 2 million housing units per year (700,000 in urban areas and 1.3 million in rural areas) for economically weaker groups

State governments and HUDCO in form of loans => targets for HUDCO, cooperatives and HFI and public sector to meet construction targets

Cooperation between agencies of state governments.

Quantity / Quality FDI in urban Infrastructure projects

Up to 100% for housing and township development – allowed to take up land

-- --

Quality National Slum Development Programme (NSDP)& VAMABAY => (IHSDP)

Improvement of living conditions of urban slums

States’ responsibility MUEPA: nodal authority; state government for funding.

Bilateral Assistance for Slum Improvement Projects

Project based International co- operations

Monitoring: MUEPA and international co-operation

Social aim Social housing scheme

Direct subsidies to keep net interest rates lower and loans

HUDCO and other financial institutions

National Network of Building Centres

Through HUDCO – training centre

Grant by Ministry of Urban Development for HUDCO

MUEPA

Tax allowances Different allowances for income taxes

Mostly income from housing and infrastructure up to 100% in some cases

MUEPA; MF MUEPA; MF

Abbreviations: MUEPA: Ministry for Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation (also called: Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation); MF: Ministry of Finance; HUDCO: Housing and Urban Development Cooperation; FDI: foreign direct investment Sources: Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation, various issues; own presentation

Table 5 gives an overview over the most important housing schemes for urban housing. Apart

from that housing policies for rural population are also in force and allocated mostly under the

supervision and authority of the Ministry of Rural Development. As this paper concentrates

on agglomeration areas of mega cities, housing policies for rural developments are not taken

into account. Combining the described housing policy schemes of table 5 with the needs of

improvement in dwelling units to increase livelihood assets, the analysis will further on

concentrate on measures to improve quality standards, such as measurements to facilitate FDI

projects concentrating in housing improvement and national and international slum



12

improvement measures in the respective states. All of these measures are state responsibilities

or are joint responsibilities of states and international partners. As indicated in table 5, the

National Slum Development Programs were restructured recently. The Valmiki Ambedkar

Awas Yojana (short: VAMBAY) Program was launched 2001 to facilitate and upgrade

dwelling units for the slum dwellers. From 2001 to the end of 2005 the program allocated

109393.01 Lakh of Rupees and targeted 411,478 dwelling units for construction and / or

improvement (Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation, Annual Report 2005-

2006, 26pp). With the introduction of the Integrated Housing and Slum Development

Programme (short: IHSPD) in 2005, the VAMBAY program will only continue until this new

IHSPD program is fully in force. The second program which was merged in the IHSPD

program is the National Slum Development Programme (short: NSDP), which was in force

from 1996 and amounted in the total funding for 3089.62 Crores of Rupees till 2005.

5. Programs in India’s Mega Cities to promote human capabilities by

environmental and social sustainability

5.1. Delhi

Almost half of Delhi’s 14 million inhabitants live in unauthorized colonies and more than a

third of those in illegal slums. A major challenge for Delhi are the rapid population growth

rates – from about 1 million in 1940 to its present day population (Vedeld / Siddham 2002).

Illegal settlements and high population density – almost 9,300 persons per square kilometre in

2001 compared to approximately 6,400 in 1991 (Census of India 2001) – are major challenges

for India’s capital.

Table 6: Delhi: Implementations of Housing Programs for the Urban Population Program Implementing

authority Targets and Amounts Time framework

Twenty Point Program

Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation

• Goals are slum improvement by securing tenure of poor urban inhabitants, providing affordable housing, water supply, sanitation, education, health services and social security.

• Target for 2006-2007: environmental improvements in slums for 93,750 units, by August 2006 20% were realized

Since 1986

Source: Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2006)



13

5.2. Hyderabad

In the past 25 years Hyderabad had numerous Slum Improvement Projects, with the aim to

tackle the multidimensional problem of the urban poor (Adusumilli, 2001; Rossiter, 2000).

This means not only the missing of housing or the bad housing situation shall be improved,

but also the lack of literacy and employment. Hyderabad is following this approach also in the

current city development plan. Although bilateral Slum Projects are not currently undertaken

(see Table 7 for an overview) the goal and programs for improvement are numerous. In the

current city development plan the total needs and costs for infrastructural developments lead

to a grand total of 395373 Crores of Rupees. The financing of these projects is not clearly

pointed out in the City Development Plan but 40% of the property tax revenues by the City

are contributed to development of housing for the urban poor (Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation, p108). Despite of the overall positive evaluation of the past Slum Improvement

Programs was the amount of slums as well as the population living in slums continuously

increasing as Adusumilli (2001) shows. From 1962 to 1994 the population living in slums

increased from 120,000 to 1,259,000. This can be partly explained by the sharp increase in

population in this agglomeration, but shows as well, that this India mega city is lagging

behind in social infrastructure.

Table 7: Hyderabad: Implementations of Housing Programs for the Urban Population National Program City

implementations Targets and Amounts

Time framework

Quantity / Quality FDI in urban Infrastructure projects

2 projects of integrated townships (Ministry of Urban Development)

No information provided

No information provided

Quality National Slum Development Programme (NSDP)& VAMABAY => (IHSDP)

Slum Improvement Project under City Development Plan 2006-2012

150 colonies need rehabilitation, with a total number of 178000 within the Metropolitan Area

2006-2012 City Development plan

Bilateral Assistance for Slum Improvement Projects

Andhra Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor (APUSP) => is not including Hyderabad; 1983-1988 Bilateral Assistance for Hyderabad

No current bilateral projects

--

Source: MUEPA, various issues; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (no year)



14

5.3. Mumbai

With a share of 54% of the population of Greater Mumbai living in slum settlements, recent

housing programs focus strongly on the most pressing problem, namely on slum

improvement. Sanitation standards in Mumbai’s slums tend to be poor – dwellers of 28% of

the slums have no access to toilets, while 73% of slums depend on community toilets

provided by the government. Even though over 98% of slum housing has drainage systems,

these are often not functioning due to blocking through garbage or flooding (Risbud 2003: 7).

Table 8: Mumbai: Implementations of (selected) Housing Programs for the Urban Population Program Implementing

authority Targets and Amounts Time framework

FDI in urban Infrastructure projects

---- Not currently Not currently

Mumbai Repairs and Recontruction Programme

Based on legislation of Government of Maharashtra, carried out by Mumbai Building Repairs Board

Repairs and reconstruction of chawls (rental buildings for low-income workers, contructed 1920-1956) • Extension of use of buildings • Improved safety of buildings

1970-1990

Prime Minister’s Grant Project

Funding by Prime Minister

• Grant of USD 20 million to improve living conditions of slum dwellers in slum Dharavi in Mumbai

• By 1993: 60% of planned upgrading and 74% of reconstruction were achieved

• Problems: limited participation, cost of life in transit housing during (re-) construction and other caused problems for dwellers

1985-early 1990s

Slum Upgrading Programme (SUP)

Funded by World Bank, implemented by Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) and Kalyan Municipal Corporation (KMC)

• Aimed at providing long-term legal tenure, as well as providing basic service

• Upgrading of 35,000 slum households in Greater Mumbai million (instead of targeted number of 100,000 households) with an expenditure of Rs. 75 million

• Total expenditure (including technical assistance, land infrastructure): Rs. 2294 million

• Program was terminated due to difficulties

1985-1994

Slum Improvement Project

Implemented through municipal bodies, with the Mumbai Housing & Area Development Authority as coordinating agency

For Mumbai (excluding other cities in Maharashtra): • 56,987 common toilets • 13162 water taps and bore-wells • 2.568,469 meters of drainage and

sewerage • 6.445,405 sqm roads and passages • 900 street lights

Since March 2001

Source: MUEPA, various issues; Risbud (2003); Mumbai Housing & Area Development Authority; Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.



15

Since the availability of toilets, functioning drainage and access to water are crucial for the

health standards of slum dwellers; these were among the main measures implemented in

connection with the Slum Improvement Project (SIP) in Maharashtra carried out by the

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), as table 8 shows.

According to Risbud (2003: 13) slum improvement projects have not automatically led to

environmental improvements, since improved slums attract an increased number of dwellers,

which tends to offset positive environmental as well as social effects. Table 8 also shows

further selected important housing policy programs besides SIP, which have been applied in

Mumbai. Several of the projects did not reach the intended environmental improvements or

ran into other problems.

6. Evaluation and Proposals for the future

As the overviews over urban development projects in tables 6, 7 and 8 show several urban

development programs were carried out in the three selected cities. The programs focused

mainly on slum improvement, but many of the programs ran into problems and there are few

lasting improvements to be found. Table 9 shows that almost a quarter of the Indian urban

population lives in slums. In spite of overall above average economic performances, the ratios

of urban slum dwellers in the states of Maharahstra and Andhra Pradesh are even higher than

the national average, showing that economic growth achievements could not be sufficiently

translated into improved livelihood assets in these regions.

Table 9: Slum Data India Census 2001 Percentage of slum population to total

State/ Union territory*

Number of cities/

towns reporting

slums

Total urban population of

State/Ut

Population of population in cities/ towns

reporting slums

Total slum population

Urban population

of States/Uts

Population of cities/towns reporting

slums

INDIA 640 283.741.818 184.352.421 42.578.150 15,0 23,1Delhi * 16 12.905.780 11.277.586 2.029.755 15,7 18,0Maharashtra 61 41.100.980 33.635.219 11.202.762 27,3 33,3Andhra Pradesh 77 20.808.940 16.090.585 5.187.493 24,9 32,2 Delhi 9.879.172 1.851.231 -- 18,7 Mumbai 11.978.450 6.475.440 -- 54,1 Hyderabad 3.637.483 626.849 -- 17,2

Source: Census of India (2001); own calculations



16

A major reason is the inability to provide sufficient adequate housing for steadily increasing

urban populations as well us insufficient available funding for necessary measures. While

Slum Development Programs exists on the national level, effective programs seem to be

mainly based on regional initiatives. Considering the pressing problems associated with slums

– social problems and health hazards – it is not surprising that unlike in industrialized

countries, urban development and housing policies place little to no emphasis on the reduction

of greenhouse gas emissions. Providing better housing conditions, water, toilets and

electricity for the urban poor have higher priority.

References Adusumilli, U. (2001): Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading: Hyderabad Experience, India; Working Paper presented at the International Workshop of the current Regulations for Urban Upgrading Projects, 17/18th May, 2001; www.praticalaction.org (accessed 05/15/2007) Anand S. / Sen, A. (2000): Human Development and Economic Sustainability, in: World Development Vol. 28, No. 12, 2029-2049. Central Intelligence Agency (2007): The World Factbook – India https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html#Econ (accessed 05/05/2007) CMHC (2007): Low impact housing projects http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/bude/himu/loimho/index.cfm (accessed 05/10/2007) Department of International Development (No year): Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html#1 (accessed 05/10/2007) Dhongde, Sh. (2004): Decomposing Spatial Differences in Poverty in India, in: WIDER Working Paper No. 2004/53. European Commission (2007): ManagEnergy http://www.managenergy.net/indexes/I217.htm (accessed 05/15/2007) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (no year): Hyderabad – City Development Plan http://www.ourmch.com/cdp/default.asp (accessed 02/14/2007) Gugele, B. / Rigler, E. / Ritter, M. (2005): “Kyoto-Fortschrittsbericht Österreich 1990-2003“; Umweltbundesamt; Vienna IHS (2007): Canada focuses on energy conservation in affordable housing construction http://canada.ihs.com/news/canada-energy-housing.htm (accessed 05/10/2007) Just, T. / Väth, M. / Chin, H. (2006): Building up India: Outlook for India’s real estate markets, in: India Special Current Issues, Deutsche Bank Research, May, 8, 2006.



17

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2006): Annual Report 2006 http://mhupa.gov.in/match_column_frame.htm (accessed 05/19/2007) Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation (2005): National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy – 2005 http://mhupa.gov.in/policies/duepa/DraftNHHP2005-9.pdf (accessed: 10/01/2007) Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation (various issues): Annual Reports http://mhupa.gov.in/match_column_frame.htm (accessed: 01/10/2007) Mumbai Housing & Area Development Authority (no year): Slum Improvement Programme in 61 Towns in Maharashtra (NSDP) http://mhaba.bom.nic.in/ (accessed 05/05/2007) Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (no year): Mumbai Urban Development Project (MUDP) www.mmrdamumbai.org/projects_mudp.htm (accessed 05/05/2007) National Housing Bank (2006): “Report on Trend and Progress of Housing in India, 2005”. Pressman S. / Summerfield, G. (2002): Sen and Capabilities, in: Review of Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 4, 429-434. Risbud, N. (2003): The case of Mumbai, India www.archidev.org/IMG/pdf/Mumbai_DPU.pdf (accessed 05/05/2007) Rossiter, J. (2000): “Integrated Urban Housing Development, Comparison of Single Sector, Multisector and integrated Urban Development Projects and Their impact on the Livelihoods of the Urban Poor”, Working Paper NO. 1, DFID. SHE (2003): Project Summary http://www.she.coop/english/pres_proj.asp?id=37 (accessed 05/05/2007) Stadt Wien (2004): Technische Voraussetzungen der THEWOSAN-Förderung http://www.wien.gv.at/ma25/pdf/tvthewosan.pdf (accessed 05/05/2007) Streicher, W. / Heindler, M. / Marousek J. / Vorisek, T. (no year): Experience with building programs. State of the art energy efficiency of new and refurbished buildings. A comparative survey of the present situation in the Czech Republic and Austria; Research Paper; Institut für Wärmetechnik; Graz; The Energy Efficiency Center; Prague. UNDP (2006): Human Development Report 2006 http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR_2006_Tables.pdf (accessed 05/03/2007) Unversity of Texas at Austin (2001): India (political) http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/india_pol01.jpg (accessed 05/03/2007) Vedeld, T. / Siddham, A. (2002): Livelyhoods and Collective Action among Slum Dwellers in a Mega-City (New Delhi) http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000938/00/vedldt120402.pdf (accessed 05/17/2007)



18

WKO (2006a): Going to India; AWO-Fachreport; Delhi WKO (2006b): Going to India Energie & Alternativenergie; AWO-Fachreport; Delhi World Bank (2007): Total GDP 2005 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf (accessed 05/03/2007) Datasources: Census of India (2001): online availability http://www.censusindia.net/results/2001census_data_index.html Census of India (1991): online availability http://www.censusindia.net/glance.html Eurostat Database (no year): online availability http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1090,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL



19

Annex

Graph A1: Sustainable Livelihood framework

Source: Department for International Development, (no year), Overview 1.1.



20

Graph A 2: Map of India and selected cities Source: Unversity of Texas at Austin (2001); own presentation

W19 – The Sustainable City - enhr.net Netherlands/W19... · emissions (figure from 2003; Gugele /...

Documents

Transcript of W19 – The Sustainable City - enhr.net Netherlands/W19... · emissions (figure from 2003; Gugele /...