Martin thomson understanding the informal settlement
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Martin thomson understanding the informal settlement

on

  • 3,540 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,540
Views on SlideShare
3,370
Embed Views
170

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 170

http://infoset2013.wordpress.com 170

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Martin thomson understanding the informal settlement Martin thomson understanding the informal settlement Document Transcript

  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011The underlying soil may provide difficulties as the area in focus is by nature made situated on fluvial soils, which may aynot provide a reliable foundation for the design.Defence against floating solid objects such as vehicles and trees in river flow must be considered. Mit Mitigation of thesehazards may be overcome through the planting of large trees to surround buildings.Strength of bamboo is greatly affected by contact with water. Appropriate protection methods should be considered,in accordance with cost effectiveness an availability. andBibliographyAssociated Press. 2007. In Pictures: Floods devastating parts of Asia. CBBC Newsround. [Online] BBC, 5 August 2007.[Cited: 15 December 2010.] http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6920000/newsid_6923500/6 http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6920000/newsid_6923500/6923552.stm.Byrne, Steven. Early Concept Design. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow : s.n.Gray, Louise and Reuters. 2009. UK to help Bangladesh tackle climate change . Telegraph. [Online] 13 July 2009.[Cited: 15 December 2010.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5819066/UK-to-help-Bangladesh Bangladesh-tackle-climate-change.html.Rijcken, Ties. Floating Communities. EcoBoat. [Online] Holland & Co. [Cited: 10 December 2010.]http://www.ecoboot.nl/artikelen/WeblogTiesFloatingCommunities.html.php.Seraj, Salek M and Ahmed, K Iftekhar. 2004. Building Safer Houses in Rural Bangladesh. Dhaka : Bangladesh ,University of Engineering and Technology, 2004. ISBN 984 984-32-1280-5.United Nations. 2009. World Population Prospects - The 2008 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs AfPopulation Division. [Online] 2009. [Cited: 10 December 2010.]http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/wpp2008_text_tables.pdf.Understanding the informal settlementMartin ThomsonUniversity of StrathclydePrefaceThis paper is an edited extract from my 4th year architectural dissertation written on informal settlementdevelopment and it accompanies the A3 poster produced for this conference. The dissertation was a theoreticalexploration of the challenges informal settlements face. It argued six principles as essential for sustainabledevelopment of failing informal settlements.Keywords: Informal settlement development, holistic approach, sustainability, urbanThe informal settlement is an incredibly complex phenomenon. They are responsive to cultural, social and economicvariations with differing political, religious and historical backgrounds. This paper takes a step back from these ical,complexities in an attempt to understand fundamental principles which can lead to successful development of a cessfulspontaneous settlement. Six elements have been identified: i) perceived land tenure; ii) informal economics; iii) building deregulation; iv) social cohesion; v) appropriate governance and; vi) external support.Each is detailed in the following pages. A strong argument is established, with examples and references reinforcing es. exampleseach.Posters 156
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011The Six Principlesi) Perceived land tenureImportance “The removal of tenure-insecurity related obsta insecurity obstacles that prevent or constrain households from using their housing effectively as a productive asset is possibly the single most critical poverty reduction intervention” oductive intervention (Moser, 1996, 5.)Protection from eviction is seen as one of the key el elements to alleviate those from poverty (UN Habitat, 2003, 168). 168)DefinitionPerceived security of tenure, as referred to here, is protection from eviction at a level where its affect encourages the ivedsquatter invest money, time and effort in their dwelling.ArgumentWhen protection from eviction is realised, squatter houses will naturally be built to a better condition, with more naturallypermanent materials, over a longer period of time. A sense of permanence must be felt by the squatter to incitebuilding upon their situation, otherwise sub standard conditions will remain. The influence of secure tenure goes sub-standard secubeyond physical improvements; permanent neighbourhoods naturally encourage stronger social connections betweenneighbours and communities begin to flourish (UN Habitat, 2003, 150). With strong community ties, social securityemerges empowering the squatters further. Also a community allows collective decisions to be made on improvements ngto the settlement as a whole, like pavements or sanitation.ii) Informal EconomicsImportance“...the economic activity and employment in the urban informal sector are extremely important in developing countries where population and demand for jobs, goods and services are typically growing more quickly than national averages and...for formal job creation to cope with.” (de Soto, 2000, 102)DefinitionThe informal economy provides variously paid labour w formal where individuals contribute to local communities by offeringaffordable goods and employment within a social framework of trust and reciprocity, devised and implemented out ofnecessity by the people (Yeung and Old, 2000) UN habitat defines the informal sector as “the generally small-scale d 2000).industries and commercial activities that are not registered enterprises but provide large amounts of products andservices that people use each day.” (2003, 100).ArgumentThe informal economy, when exercised freely, is a powerful tool for the poor of the world’s developing cities. It heprovides much needed work that fends off destitution, offers new economic opportunity, introduces social stability anda better quality of life (Mingione, 1996 cited in Daniels, 2004, 3). Through its tax free and localised operations,the informal sector can offer affordable goods to the urban poor in addition to providing them with employment,compensating for the often saturated and inaccessible formal sector (UN Habitat, 2003, 102). ompensatingFormal labour costs are kept lower by the cheaper goods and services available to their staff from this unregisteredmarket. The formal market can also exploit directly the lower cost of raw materials and input the extralegal sector inputsoffers (UN Habitat,2003,102).However, perhaps the most essential argument for the presence of the extralegal sector is the impenetrable nature ofthe legal sector for those who are poor. This was evident during the Asian monetary crisis in 1998 where the informal insector ballooned as the formal sector took a huge hit.It should be remembered that: “It is with such humble beginnings that many of today’s great corporations and industries have their origins.” (UN Habitat, 2003, 53).Posters 157
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK Confere ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011iii) Building DeregulationImportanceWhen a poor person has control of when and to what extent to build their home, they effectively have more controlover their poverty - they build when they can afford and when best suits their situation; they bui what they need and buildto what degree.DefinitionBuilding deregulation, as referred to here, is when a squatter has the freedom to build and modify their dwelling,free from restrictive and prescripted building regulations.ArgumentThe squatter comes to the city and often enters tenuous employment. Their situation is rarely static as they adjust to stheir new urban life and what disposable income theyhave is largely dependent on dwelling arrangements. Having thefreedom to build grants the new urban dweller social mobility, as they can erect a structure appropriate to their naspirations and circumstance.Self-built houses free from regulation also tackle poverty in another way. If migrants can exercise a level of freedom builtupon arrival to the city, they equip themselves with self-belief otherwise crushed if authorities intervene heavily. hey beliefArmed with determination to challenge their surrounding poverty, they inin-turn challenge the social boundaries whichwould otherwise cut them off from the rest of the city. Allowed to exercise personal and local resources of imagination,initiative, commitment, responsibility, skill and muscle power the urban poor realise the potential they hold (Turner,1976, 50).iv) Social CohesionImportance “Social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable.” (UN Habitat,2003,71)A community provides a crucial social support network which low income classes often need to fall back on and rely onto go forward. Social cohesion can lead to community driven development, which is essential for solving the problems onunique to any one settlement.DefinitionSocial cohesion, as discussed in this paper, refers to the creation of a community, that is, a group of people who residein the same geographical area and share a certain quality of relationship, providing a network of social support(Pacione, 2001, 355).ArgumentThe low income classes of the developing world have no formal channels of support and social security must be sought soelsewhere. The most crucial source is from their immediate community. A network of friends and family can mean thedifference between a roof to sleep under or homelessness. “No-one will ever go hungry because there will always be an open door and a gesture of solidarity” one Gabriela Torres Barbosa, squatter resident, Rio de Janeiro (New Internationalist, 2006, 4).Social cohesion is an essential prerequisite for a community. However, the influence of a community goes beyondsustenance and support to the individual. Collective agreement and funding within a community can be used toimplement services and facilities when the local authorities are unable to. When external bodies can implementservices, a community voice may be essential if the area is t receive the most appropriate service for its particular toneeds.Posters 158
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK Confere ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011The community however must not become the only reliable source of support for inhabitants. Developing cities areethnically diverse, and successful actors participate as many different identities – one for his neighbourhood, one for ccessful ocross-city business, one for acquiring resources – engaging freely, gathering resources quickly and efficiently bymaximising the opportunities of the city (UN Habitat: 2003:47) 2003:47).v) Appropriate GovernanceImportanceCommunity driven development - development in which the community are in control of the main decisions - is the mostappropriate mechanism for informal settlement development (Abbott, 2002a, 6).DefinitionAppropriate governance, as discussed her refers to relevant stakeholders in decision making having proportionate here,influence at different stages of settlement development. The community must control decisions, to an appropriate degree,when decisions affect the local community. Equally, authorit authorities must control decisions, to an appropriate degree, when oldecisions begin to affect the wider city.ArgumentThe centralised system, when governing the poor, fails because its scale and limitation of management deny the varietyand flexibility required for the unique and delicate communities found within informal settlements (Turner, 1976, 7).When people govern themselves, a custom fit system of correct scale is applied. Human priorities cannot be adequatelyaccounted for by housing policy, but the sens sensitivity of self- governance can, therefore providing more appropriateresponses to squatter settlement development (UN Habitat, 2003, xxvii).Settlement integration and full community responsibility are incompatible (Abbott, 2002a, 11). For a settlement toevolve from a small isolated colony into an integrated district, self governance must relinquish power to local authorities self-governanceaccordingly. If local authorities are to act responsibly and react dynamically to informal settlements they must understand dynamicallywhen this is to occur and to what degree. hisvi) External supportImportance“...there are limits to what low-income groups can achieve for themselves, either individually or collectively, without some income form of technical support and other resources from external agents.” (Lee, 1998, 2)DefinitionExternal support, as referred to here, is support provided from out with the squatter settlement necessary tocompensate what the settlement cannot facilitate.ArgumentThe development of a settlement is limited to the capacity of those driving it; external support is needed to compensate theareas the community cannot fulfil. The intermediary body which provides external support is typically an NGO, facilitating,stimulating or supporting individual or community based org organisations (Lee, 1998, 2). Community organisation will notalways spontaneously arise, particularly in heterogeneous settlements where social cohesion is weak. Successfulcommunity based development is often facilitated externally, where access to land, infrastructure and services infrastructurenecessary for environmental improvement are made available. If internal limitations are overcome, a settlement candevelop to a far greater degree.Similarly, like the previous arguments, there is also a d degree of balance required. For development to be sustainable, acommunity cannot become dependent on outside agencies (Lee, 1998, 16).Case StudiesSultanbeyli, Istanbul (Neuwirth, 2005, 143 143-173)Sultanbeyli is a suburb in the east of Istanbul. It grew rapidly in the mid 1980s and between 1986 and 1989 an estimated20,000 houses were erected. Today its fifteen neighbourhoods host 300,000 residents of which 48,000 are universitystudents. Banks, post offices, department stores and travel agents line its high streets. It is descr described as a desirable placehowever it is a squatter community: the vast majority of its 30,000 structures are not legally registered.With good living conditions, substantial development and integration with the formal city, it is a ‘successful’ informalsettlement. Architecturally it is indistinguishable fromlegal neighbourhoods and even receives better services than some ettlement.Posters 159
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK Confere ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011formal areas. How it has reached striking equality with the formal city can be understood under the six preconditioningelements for squatter settlement development. uatterPerceived security of tenure: Present. In Turkey every citizen has the right to vote. This makes squatter clearancespolitically intangible, preventing the authorities from reining in. With 42.6 percent of Turkey’s urban population living in popsquatter settlements, their staying power will undoubtedly remain (Davis, 2006, 24).Informal economics: Present. Informal businesses operate freely in Sultanbeyli. Sultanbeyli is a squatter settlementbecause the vast majority of its buildings hold no official titles, including its businesses. They provide cheaper goods and ldingsservices to the residents allowing them to prosper on lower wages.Building deregulation: Present. The residents of Sultanbeyli have built and continue to build their own neighbourhoods.Self-built dwellings range from single-story poured concrete boxes to spacious apartment houses with large balconies and storycomplete modern services. Freedom to build their own dwellings on vacant land with little opposition from thegovernment has created a thriving settlement. rnmentSocial cohesion: Present. Zamanhan Ablak, as described by Neuwirth, and his neighbours pooled money, each housecontributing to the payment of sewers, schools and a local mosque. This shows clear signs of communit and social communitycohesion as well as self-governance.Appropriate governance: Present. Exercising self governance, the community was able to make the most appropriate self-governance,decisions to the upgrading of their settlement. Turkish law allows communities over 2,000 residents to form quasi- residents quasiindependent municipalities, granting continued decision making to the community and, crucially, introducing the city togovernment’s influence.External Support: Present. Zamanhan and his neighbours could not facilitate piped water into their homes. Instead thiswas provided externally by the municipal government. For the first two years, squatters fetched water by hand butafterwards the government supplied barrelled water and eventually installed piped water.The squatter settlement of Sultanbeyli is a well serviced suburb and displays numerous signs of integration. Povertyappears to be minimal and its people enjoy opportunities usually only attainable by formal city inhabitants. All sixelements are present and have created substantial settlement development, good living conditions and integration with substantialthe wider city.Kampung Penas Tanggul, Jakarta (Winayanti 2004, 8 8-24)Located in the east of Jakarta, the squatter settlement of Kampung Penas Tanggul is home to 388 people (August 2000 2000).Established in 1970 by rural migrants from various locations in Java, the settlement has slowly developed from acollection of bamboo and wood shacks into a community of brick houses with concrete interlinking pathways. Access towater and toilets may be shared facilities but show substantial upgrading. ePerceived security of tenure: Present. From 1997 onwards, there have been no evictions and confidence to stay hasemerged. Confidence to build, however, did not arise until 2000 when the squatters were issued a Rukun etangga(recognition as an official neighbourhood) from the authorities. This granted them a formal address, but not ownership ofland. The formalized address however saw residents gradually invest in their situation, building with more permanentmaterials and with greater foresight. It should also be mentioned that the security of tenure also brought anincreased level of external support from an NGO.Informal Economics: Present. The 21 residents interviewed relied purely on informal employ employment for income. Theseranged from street vendors to construction workers, scavengers to taxi drivers. Without access to this informalemployment it is highly unlikely the rural migrants would be skilled or educated enough to find formal work (the majorit majorityhad just elementary school education).Building deregulation: Present. The squatters of Penas Tanggul have freedom to build and improve their dwellings. 20of the 83 structures were upgraded after secure tenure was first perceived. A number of the bamb bamboo and wood structureshad an upper floor added or the lower structure was replaced with brick.Social cohesion: Present. Despite the diverse origins of Penas Tanggul’s residents, coming from numerous regions ofJava and Sulawesi (both islands of Indonesia signs of social cohesion were present from the beginning. The settlement Indonesia),land was first divided up under the coordination of a respected group leader. This led to the layout of commonfacilities and mutual cooperation to improve and maintain their env environment.Appropriate governance: Absent. Community driven development oversaw the addition of communal toilets, footpathpaving and a waste disposal program. Governance of Penas Tanggul is a completely internal affair. There is no dialoguebetween Penas Tanggul (or indeed any Jakarta informal settlement) and the government, despite their recognition as a anggulneighbourhood of Jakarta. In the long term this will leave the settlement isolated from the city of Jakarta.External support: Present. A high level of external support is present in the development of Penas Tanggul, and has externalbeen since 1986. Over this long period of time, the two NGOs have facilitated free medication, free school lessons forchildren and subsidized education and hospital treatment. Crucially, they educated squatters on their human rights and Crucially,mobilized a protest to save the settlement from eviction. The NGOs also taught the people on environmental issues toimprove the water quality of the river and the environment of their settlement.The residents of Penas Tanggul have experienced great improvements in the quality of their lives both environmentally esidentsand health-wise. The settlement itself has developed from temporary bamboo and wooden shacks to permanent brick wise. pdwellings. These improvements are reflected in the fact five of the six elements are present. The level of development,Posters 160
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK Confere ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011however, is limited because the settlement has no dialogue with local authorities, leaving it isolated and still significantl significantlyvulnerable.Kibera, Nairobi (Kramer, 2006, 83 -95 & Neuwirth, 2005, 67 95 67-100)Kibera is home to an estimated 600,000 squatters and sits side by side with the formal city but with stark inequalities inliving conditions. Squeezed into just 1.2km squared, the only spaces within the settlement not occupied by mud huts arelarge piles of rubbish and sewage. Waterways are effectively open sewers, safe running water is absent and electricity isa privilege. Dirt lanes are only a few feet wide and life is very tough.Kibera is materially poor, under-developed and separated from the rest of the city. Opportunities are low and crime is developedhigh. The six prerequisite elements for informal settlement developed will be used to help understand why Kibera exists insuch dire conditions.Perceived security of tenure: Absent. The squatters of Kibera are tenants on unregistered land. Rich land lords acquirethe land illegitimately from authorities and politicians who in turn refuse to recognise Kibera as a permanent settlement.The mud huts are rented out on an understood temporary basis and thus tenure security is absent. rstoodInformal Economics: Present. Hawkers sell foodstuffs like maize and kale and many women sell spooled cloth and usedclothes. There are unregistered barbers, even a blacksmith and households with televisions open their doors to assume televisionsbusiness as small cinemas. The informal economy is therefore practised widely and freely in Kibera.Building deregulation: Absent. Local landlords acquire the title less mud huts of Kibera from local politicians who in title-lessturn deny any modification to them by their tenants. A government official explains that if a hut is modified by a resident,the hut will be demolished. He attempts to justify this by saying the huts are only temporary, even though they havebeen present for decades. Such tight control over squatter housing denies many opportunities and good living conditionsto the poor squatters.Social cohesion: Absent. The settlement is strongly divided into ten distinct neighbourhoods defined along ethnic lines.In December 2001 riots broke out which destroyed homes and saw twelve killed. The high crime rates reflect the lack of cembercross-community relationships within the settlement. communityAppropriate governance: Absent. Self-governance is built on community togetherness and control over decision -governance cmaking, both which are absent in Kibera. The top down unilateral decision making by the government on issues in Kibera top-downhas done nothing to improve conditions.External Support: Absent. The Nairobi authorities sadly refuse to provide a any services or include Kibera in any cityplans due to the settlement’s illegal status. There is no city wide policy on tackling the squatter problem in Nairobi, city-widediscouraging any long term action to be taken. NGO based support is present, but with the she size of Kibera and the sheermultitude of problems it hosts, the support is insignificant to the whole.Poverty in Kibera is severe and visible everywhere. By analysing the settlement using the six elements, it is clear as towhy it fails to develop. One element may be present, the informal economy, but on its own it cannot facilitate entdevelopment.ConclusionsThis paper does not seek to answer the complex problems squatter settlements pose but attempts to offer a frameworkwhere the main barriers to development are brought down. Initially the six point framework pulls the settlement free from ntthe most restrictive constraints. Perceived security of tenure brings permanence; informal economics brings greatereconomic equality; deregulated building processes enables dwellings to be appropriate to dweller salary and situation; enablessocial cohesion brings improved social security; appropriate governance allows the most correct decisions involving thesettlement and the city to be made; and external support provides essential help to otherwise unattainable goals. essentialIt was then stressed that, the guidelines must evolve and change with the development of the settlement to overlookintegration between the settlement and city. The informal sector must begin to feed into and off of the formal sector foreconomic and city integration to occur. The deregulated building principles must gradually succumb to building standards, principlesjust as the once informal cities of the most developed countries have. Social cohesion, ideally, will be at such a level asnot to segregate and fragment neighbourhoods from the city but to provide the security which comes with it.Appropriate government is a fluid understanding: governance of human habitation should never be static and local andcentral governing bodies must always remain in dialogue, powers adjusting for the most appropriate decisions to be ning dmade. External support must understand that for development to be sustainable, its role must be temporary andsupportive, not permanent and controlling.The three case studies explored these guidelines. Sultanbeyli, the settlement described as largely developed, displayedall six elements. Kampung Penas Tanggul, a settlement which has developed impressively under improved conditions butwith limited integration with the wider city, displayed five of the six elements. Appropriate governance was absent, central rationgovernment having no input and integration difficult to foresee. The failing settlement Kibera confirmed the importance ofthe elements, as all but one were absent. neDefining and arguing each element showed that none is constrained to itself. Each has influence on another, if not every,element. This reflects the need for a multi disciplinary approach to development to address the complex nature of human multi-disciplinary humPosters 161
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK Confere ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011settlement. It is a warning against narrow focused approaches, whether heavily top down intervention or purely grass- top-down grassroots. The current climate of neo-liberal self help, having conquered over many interventional approaches, is in fear of liberal self-help,pulling the balance too far towards the community and fragmenting cities.The sheer scale and global occurrence of squatter settlements demands that there be real understanding of why and howthese areas develop or stagnate. Without this understanding the developing countries will stay developing. countriesAcknowledgementsI am very grateful for the assistance throughout the original dissertation from Dr Ombretta Romice of StrathclydeUniversity Architecture Department. The essay was able to build on a strong structure and clear direction and I thank clearerOmbretta for this.BibliographyAbbott (1996) John Abbott. Sharing the city: co community participation in urban management. London: Earthscan .Abbott (2002a) John Abbott. An analysis of infinformal settlement upgrading and critique of existing methodological xistingapproaches. Habitat International Vol 26, Issue 3, . September 2002, pp 303-315Amis and Kumar (2000) Amis, P and S Kumar Urban economic growth, infrastructure and poverty in India: Lessonsfrom Visakhapatnam. Environment and Urbaniz . Urbanization 12:(1):185-196Amnesty International (2006) Amnesty International: Zimbabwe: quantifying destruction: satellite images of forcedevictions 8 September 2006Appadurai (2001) Appadurai, A Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics Environment and politiUrbanization 2001 13 (2):23-43BPPD and BPS DKI Jakarta (1997) Evalus Evalusasi Rukun Warga (RW) Kumuh DKI Jakarta. Penerbit BPS Kantor Statistik .Propinsi DKI Jakrata.Bromley (2009) Daniel W. Bromley. Formalising proper relations in the developing world: The wrong prescription for propertythe wrong malady . Land Use Policy Journal.Buyamin, A., & Kartini (1998). Forced evictions in Jakarta. In K. Fernandes (Ed.), Forced evictions and housing rightabuses in Asia, 2nd Report 1996-97. Karachi: 97. Eviction Watch Asia, City Press.Charmes (2000) J. Charmes Informal sector, p poverty and gender: A review of empirical evidence. Backgroundpaper for World Development Report 2001 Centre of Economics and Ethics for Environmental and Development, 2001.University of Versailles-St Quentin en Yveliness StDaniels (2004) P.W. Daniels Urban Challenges: the fo formal and informal economies of mega-cities Cities, Vol 21, No. 6, citiesp501-511, 2004Davis(2006) Mike Davis, Planet of Slums 2006 Verso Publishers, London. Slums.de Soto (2000) Hernando de Soto. The Mystery of Capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhereelse. 2000. Basic books: New YorkErman (1997) Erman T.Squatter (gecekondu) Housing versus Apartment Housing: Turkish Rural-to-Urban Migrant RuralResidents’ Perspectives. Habitat Intl. Vol. 28, No 1, pp.91-106, 1997.Grimond (2007) Audio interview – a discussion with J Johnny Grimond, writer-at-large for The Economist. The Economist,May 2007Habitat, (2005) UN Habitat. State of the World’s Cities 2004/2005. Earthscan Publishers UK & USA .Huchzerymer (1999). Huchzermeyer, M. The exploration of appropriate informal settlement interventions in SouthAfrica: Contributions from a comparison with Brazil. Ph.D. Thesis, South Africa: University of Cape Town, unpublished.Jeffres, & Dobos (1995) L.W. Jeffres and J. Dobos, Separating people’s satisfaction with life and public perceptionsof the quality of life in the environment. Social Indicators Research 34 (1995), pp. 181–211Kingdon and Knight (2004) Geeta Gandhi Kingdo and John Knight Unemployment Kingdon in South Africa: The Nature ofthe Beast World Development Vol. 32, No. 3, pp391 ent pp391-408, 2004.Kramer (2006) Kramer, Mark. Dispossessed: Life in ourWorld’s Urban Slums. 2006. Orbis Books, New York.Lloyd (1979) Lloyd, Peter. Slums of Hope. ums Hope.1979. Manchester University PressLizarralde,(2008) Gonzalo Lizzaralde. Unexpected negative outcomes of community participation Habitat International32 , 2008Main and Williams (1994) Hamish Main and Stephen Wyn Williams Environment and housing in third world cities John ingWiley and sons, ChichesterMashhour (1999) Mostafa Ali Salem Mashhour Resident’s sense of comtrol, self-esteem and sense of community in esteemaided self-help housing in Egypt Strathclyde University Thesis, unpublished.Posters 162
  • EWB-UK National Research & Education Conference 2011 UK Confere ‘Our Global Future’ 4th March 2011Mingione (1996) E. Mingione Urban poverty and the underclass: A reader Blackwell Oxford and Cambridge, MA Blackwell,Moser (1996) C. Moser Confronting Crisis: A summ summary of households responses to poverty and vulnerability in four poorurban communities Environmentally Sustain Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs Series, No. 7. 1996. World Bank,Washington DC.New Internationalist (2006) NI 386 Squatter Town: The South’s Urban Explosion January/February 2006Neuwirth (2005) Neuwirth, Robert. Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, a New Urban World. 2005. London: RoutledgeNijman (2008) Jan Nijman Against the odds: Slum rehabilitation in neoliberal Mumbai Cities 25 (2008) 73 – 85 Mumbai.Pacione (2001) Michael Pacione Urban Geography: a global perspective Routledge Publishers, New York YorSengupta & Sharma (2009) Urmi Sengupta & Sujeet Sharma. No longer SukumasissL Challeneges in grassroots-led grassrootssquatter resettlement program Kathmandu with Sepcial reference to Kirtipur Housing Project. Habitat International 33 ent . Habit(2009) 33- 44Shapiro (1985) Shapiro, A L Housing the Poor in Paris, 1850 – 1902. 1985. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Sivam (2002) Constraints affecting the efficiency of the urban residential land market in developing countries: a casestudy of India. Habitat International 26, 523 523-537.Turner (1976) Turner, John. Housing by People Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. 1976. Great Britain: People: EnvironmentsMarion Boyars Publishers LtdUN Habitat (2003) UN Habitat The Challenge of Slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. Earthscan Publishers 2003London.Varela -Michel (1997) M. Varela Michel Cultural Adaption and Rural Migrant Hosuing (Mexico). McGill University,MontrealWestaway (2006) Margaret S.Westaway. A Longitudinal Investigation of Satisfaction with Personal and Environmental Environmentaquality of life in an informal South African housing settlement, Doornkop, Soweto. Habitat International. Vol 30, Issue 1, . 3March 2006, pp175-198Winayanit & Lang (2004) Lana Winayanti & Heracles C. Lang Provision of urban services in an informal settlement: a settlemcase study of Kampung Penas Tanggul, Jakarta. Habitat International 28 (2004) 41 – 65Wirth (1938) L. Wirth Urbanism as a way of life American , Journal of Sociology 44, 1 – 24Yeung and Old (2000) H. W. Yeung and K. Old Globalization of Chinese Business Firms MacMillan, London. 2000.Zebardast (2006) Esfandiar Zebardast Marginalization of the urban poor and the expansion of the spontaneoussettlements on the Tehran metropolitan fringe. Cities, Vol. 23, No. 6, p439-454, 2006.Design of a wooden framed bicycleJoshua LewisCardiff UniversityProject BriefHere in the UK, there are many options available to us when it comes to transport, but in many of the sub sub-Saharancountries of Africa, personal mobility is a problematic issue that is faced daily. The public transport services available in daily.these regions are often overcrowded, dangerous and unaffordable. The bicycle is the cheapest form of personaltransportation available, and while bicycles are available in these regions, they are still prohibitively expensive and most prohibitivelylocals cannot afford them. Therefore, these nations are heavily reliant on bicycles donated from the developed world.However, when these bicycles brake down there is a dearth of adequate spare parts available, as manufacturers often nolonger support the older models.What is required is a bicycle that can be made cheaply out of local materials, does not require special tools or skills, andthat can make use of a wide range of spare parts. Due to these requirements it is not possible for the bicycle frame to be possiblemade from traditional materials such as steel or aluminium, and so wood must be considered instead. Such a bicyclemust be an improvement on the bikes currently available in the area, and the needs of the locals must be a accounted forduring its design. If such a bicycle could be designed and tested, plans produced, and assembly instructions developed;then there is the potential to greatly improve the lives of millions of people, whilst also benefiting the economies of theregions affected. Such improvements would free people from poverty and bring greater opportunities to the people ofAfrica.Posters 163