A A d S RhR esearch Study to EiExamine Slum...

A A R h S d R h S d E iE iA A Research Study to Research Study to ExamineExamineSlum Upgradation and Slum Upgradation and

its Consequential its Consequential Effect Effect on on Economic ProductivityEconomic ProductivityEconomic ProductivityEconomic Productivity

April 2012April 2012April 2012April 2012

National Institute of Urban Affairs

Research Study Series No: 115 Research Study Series No: 115 Research Study Series No: 115 Research Study Series No: 115

A Research Study to A Research Study to

Examine Slum Examine Slum UpgradationUpgradation and its and its Consequential Effect on Economic ProductivityConsequential Effect on Economic Productivity

Sponsored by:

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MHUPA)

and

GHK/Department for International Development (DFID)GHK/Department for International Development (DFID)

Under :

Support to National Policy for Urban Poverty Reductionpp y y

Research Study Series No: 115

April 2012

National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi

i

FOREWORD

The study titled as “A Research Study to Examine Slum Upgradation and its Consequential Effect on Economic Productivity” owes itself to the deliberations in the Working Group on Urban Poverty that was set up by the Planning Commission in connection with the preparation of the 12th Five Year Plan, wherein questions were raised about the returns that improvement and upgrading of slums bring to the slum households and consequently to the city and regional economy. While the Working Group favoured slum improvement and upgrading as a strategy to urban poverty alleviation, it was unclear as to what the productivity pay-off were of investments that such a strategy would entail, the critical issue being whether such investments were just a subsidy or did these bring in social and economic gains. With a grant from the GHK/DFID, the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) undertook a pilot study of two slums in the city of Bhopal – one upgraded and improved and another without the benefit of any improvement, and designed the study to identify the key differences that existed in the economic and social composition of households in the two slums and, to measure, wherever possible, the differences in the incomes, occupational structure, and assets, size of households, literacy and health status, and shelter security of households in the two slums. The results of the pilot study are perceptible. They bring out both the nature and extent of differences in the attributes stated above. Note should be made that “upgradation” in as far as this pilot is concerned, refers to investments in three basic services of water, sanitation, and electricity and does not include subsidies for shelter and skill upgradation, the two ingredients commonly associated with slum improvements. The study establishes a methodology and approach to assessing the productivity differentials between slum settlements. The results justify undertaking a study with a proper scale and in slums of different sizes of cities.

Om Prakash Mathur

Distinguished Professor Of Urban Economics

27 April 2012

ii

PREFACE

Debates in the area of urban poverty alleviation for the urban poor have tried to reason that improvements in infrastructure and shelter in slums areas can improve the lives of people residing there. Many believe that such improvements can be sustainable if this is accompanied by more lucrative livelihood options. Others would like to deliberate that slum improvement or up-gradation enables people to get out of poverty. This in turn, would initiate them to advance their earnings and unwrap more opportunities. A possible outcome of this would be increased productivity, which would pave the way for them to move out of poverty. In the light of this context, NIUA has attempted a pilot study to examine the impact of slum up-gradation and its consequent improvement in economy productivity. We are thankful to Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MHUPA) for giving us an opportunity to work on this research study. NIUA is also grateful to DFID for supporting this short pilot study of four months. A number of successful slum upgradation efforts have been taken up by the Government of India with the assistance of multi and bi-lateral agencies across the country. Keeping the time frame, depth of poverty alleviation efforts already undertaken in the past and ease of collecting information briskly, it was decided to take up the pilot study for the case of two slums in Bhopal. The team has been working under the overall guidance of Prof. Om Prakash Mathur. His energy and enthusiasm has been a constant source of motivation for us. NIUA is also grateful to the officials of the Bhopal Municipal Corporation and the MPUSP project team at Bhopal for providing support to NIUA staff at Bhopal during the course of their visit. Contributions from Dr. Debolina Kundu in the initial days of the study is also acknowledged. I would like to thank Dr. Pushpa Pathak, Senior Urban Development Expert, for offering some valuable comments and suggestion on the draft report. I would also like to place on record my appreciation for the efforts made by all members of the study team led by Ms Paramita Datta Dey.

Chetan Vaidya

Director

27 April 2012

iii

PROJECT TEAM

Research and Coordination Paramita Datta Dey

Data Analysis Promila Jain

Field Work M. Ahmed

Ajay Nigam Naveen Mathur

SP Tyagi

Computer Assistance Sangeeta Vijh

Indu Senan

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page No. Foreword i Preface ii Project Team iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables

List of Figures v vi

Abbreviations vii Executive Summary viii

Introduction 1

Purpose of the Study 5

Objectives of the Study 5

Methodology 6

Limitation of the Study 7

Definition 7

Selection of Slums and Sample size 8

Analysis of Case Studies

Access to Water Supply 10

Access to Sanitation 12

Access to Electricity 12

Household Size 12

Education Status 13

Health Status 13

Employment Status 15

Economic Status 16

Average Monthly Income 16

Per-capita Income 19

Occupational Status 20

Assets ownership by Slum Dwellers 20

Investment in Dwelling Units 21

Outstanding Debt 22

Summary of Results and Conclusion 23

ANNEXURES

Annex 1 – Summary of Programmes under implementation in Bhopal Annex 2a & 2b - Questionnaire for Primary Survey

27 29

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

No 1 Number of Households Surveyed and Population 10

2 Access of DU to Water Supply 10

3 Access of DU to Sanitation 12

4 Access of DU to Electricity 12

5 Household Size 12

6 Educational Status 13

7 Health Status 13

8 Expenditure on Health 14

9 Employment Status 15

10 Economic Status 16

11 Average Income of Households with Single and Multiple Earning

Members 16

12 Average Income of Earners from Occupation 17

13 Monthly Income of Earners 18

14 Average per-capita Income 19

15 Occupational Classification 20

16 Asset Ownership 20

17 Investment in Dwelling Units 21

18 Outstanding Debt 22

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page

No

1 Households Surveyed & Population 10

2 Type of Water Supply 10

3 Average Expenditure on Health 14

4 Households with Single and Multiple Earning Members 16

5 APL/BPL Households in Annu Nagar 19

6 APL/BPL Households in Bihari Mohalla 19

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

APL-Above Poverty Line

BHEL-Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd

BMC-Bhopal Municipal Corporation

BPL- Below Poverty Line

CSO- Central Statistical Organisation

DUs – Dwelling Unit

EIUS- Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums

GDP- Gross Domestic Product

GDP- Gross Domestic Product

IHSDP -Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme

JNNURM-Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

LCS- Low Cost Sanitation for Liberation of Scavengers

MPUSP-Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for Poor

NRY-Nehru Rozgar Yojana

NSDP -National Slum Development Programme

PMIUPEP-Prime Ministers Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication Programme

RAY-Rajiv Awas Yojana

SEPUP -Self Employment Programme for the Urban Poor

SESI-Slum Environment and Sanitation Initiative

SJSRY-Swarn Jayanti Shahri Rozgar Yojana

UBS- Urban Basic Services

UBSP-Urban Basic Services for the Poor

UCD- Urban Community Development

UCD-Urban Community Development

VAMBAY- Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana

A Research Study to Examine Slum Upgradation and its Consequential Effect on Economic Productivity

NIUA, APRIL 2012

viii

Executive Summary

In India, slum improvement and upgrading is followed as a strategy for urban poverty

alleviation. It is unclear as to what the productivity pay-off of the investments were that such

a strategy should entail, the critical issue being whether such investments were just a subsidy

or did these bring about tangible social and economic gains. In this context, with a grant

from the GHK/DFID, the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) undertook a pilot study

of two slums in the city of Bhopal – one upgraded and improved and another without any

programmatic the improvements.

The two slums selected for the case study in Bhopal are: Bihari Mohalla and Annu Nagar.

Bihari Mohalla is one of the slums selected for interventions on slum upgrading under

Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor (MPUSP). This slum has been selected to

understand the how physical upgradation of the slum has helped the people residing there. In

Annu Nagar there has been no intervention under any scheme or programme. This slum has

been selected to bring into light the impact of lack of any kind of intervention in physical

improvement in a slum and its consequent effect on the residents. Survey of about 150

households was carried out in the two slums.

The inputs that affect economic productivity in the two slums Bihari Mohalla and Annu

Nagar, are mainly the access to water, sanitation and electricity. The areas of change are the

change in demographic and social status (which includes the size of households, literacy

level, health profile and expenses on health and shelter security) and economic productivity

and income status (which includes the nature of occupation, incomes, assets and investments

in dwelling units). The analysis supports the assumption that intervention in terms of physical

upgradation of slums leads to enhanced productivity. The case in point of Bihari Mohalla

corresponds to this point of view.

The interventions in Bihari Mohalla through the Utthan Programme have been in terms of

tangible changes. The main inputs at the slum level are in terms of access to water, sanitation

and electricity. The outputs of this investment is manifested in terms of the following areas of

change: additional investment by individuals towards upgradation of the dwelling units,


NIUA, APRIL 2012

ix

smaller size of household, better literacy levels, more skilled workforce, better incomes and

asset ownership. In addition, the intangible input through program intervention in Bihari

Mohalla includes the community mobilization efforts under the programme through

community participation in micro planning and action planning and in the area of support in

income generation.

The results of the pilot study bring out both the nature and extent of differences in the

attributes stated above. The study establishes a methodology and approach to assessing the

productivity differentials between slum settlements. The results justify undertaking a study

with a proper scale and in slums of different sizes of cities.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

1

Introduction

India, as compared to the World, has been slow to urbanize. Yet, it has the second largest

urban population in the world. The country’s urban population grew from 290 million as

reported in 2001 to 377 million in 2011. While total population growth has been 17.63%, the

urban population grew by 30%. The evidence assembled by the High Powered Economic

Committee (HPEC) suggests that “India is at the cusp of rapid urbanization.1

Urbanization and economic growth have moved in parallel world over, and India has not

been any exception. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world today, the country

recorded a growth rate of 5.5 per cent per annum during 1981-2001. There was further

acceleration in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth to 7.7 per cent per annum during

2001-11. The Indian economy has weathered the impact of the global slowdown of 2008

much better than most economies and is well on its way to resuming its journey to 8-9 per

cent per annum GDP growth.

The urban share of the GDP for the Indian economy is not available on a regular and

consistent basis, and the underlying data base for estimating this share is very weak. The

data estimates by the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO), available for a few years,

indicate that this share increased from 37.7 per cent in 1970-71 to 52 per cent in 1999-2000.

The Mid-Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan puts the urban share of GDP at 62-

63 per cent in 2009-10 and projects this share to increase to 75 per cent in 2030.

It is a well established fact that cities are generators of resources for the national and state

exchequers. With growth of the service sector and surge of the knowledge economy, which

are essentially economic activities located in urban areas, urban population growth rates are

bound to escalate. As a consequence cities will have to increasingly face the negative

consequences of rapid urbanization. Millions of jobseekers, men and women, have been

ending up in the urban informal economy, earning just enough to survive, without any form

of social security for neither themselves nor their families. Most cities have so far not been

able to cope with this influx. Their infrastructures are underdeveloped and in a bad state of

maintenance, and services are not functioning well or do not reach the poorest

neighbourhoods. In addition to suffering low incomes, the urban poor are thus exposed to

health hazards due to bad drainage, waste accumulation, lack of sanitary facilities and so on.

1 Report on India Urban Infrastructure and Services, March 2011, p.3


NIUA, APRIL 2012

2

According to the HPEC report, “India’s economic growth momentum cannot be sustained if

urbanization is not actively facilitated. Nor can poverty be addressed if the needs of the

urban poor are isolated from the broader challenges of managing urbanization. Poverty

alleviation as a development goal and objective has occupied an important place in India’s

development agenda. Although enmeshed with several other development objectives, its

importance has grown over the successive five year plans. It was seen primarily in terms of

social and economic equalities inherited from the colonial era (first five year plan), and later

as a function of distortions in income distribution (fourth five year plan). Today, it is

perceived as a problem that requires, (a) reforms at the third tier of government - the

municipalities (b) empowerment of poor with tenure rights and (c) direct intervention in the

form of programme support including financial assistance.

The following Table highlights the various centrally sponsored poverty alleviation programs

implemented in the country since 1958.

Year Programme Thrust area 1958 Urban Community

Development (UCD) Eradication of endemic and epidemics such as cholera. Started in Kolkata and implemented in several cities later on.

1972 Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS)

Focus shifted from slum clearance to improvement. Amenities provided under the scheme community included taps, community latrines, storm water drains, paving of lanes, street lights, minimum for a slum not to be cleared for the next ten years.

1981 Low Cost Sanitation for Liberation of Scavengers (LCS)

Liberation of scavengers from handling human excreta. Conversion of dry latrines into pour flush latrines; construction of new latrines.

1986 Urban Basic Services (UBS)

Provision of environmental sanitation, primary health care, pre-school learning, vocational training and convergence of other social services at the level of slums.

1986 Self-Employment Programme for the Urban Poor (SEPUP)

Aimed to encourage families living below poverty line, in urban areas to undertake self-employment by providing subsidy and credit. The share of SC/ST beneficiaries was to be 30% in terms of number and amount. It was a one-dose credit intervention for low skilled micro enterprise initiatives.

1989 Nehru Rozgar Yojana (NRY)

Aimed at encouraging employed and under employed youth to take up self-employment ventures, with a loan cum subsidy assistance; provision for creating wage opportunities for the urban poor by utilizing their labour for construction of socially and economically useful assets.

1990 Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP)

Convergence of various social services with environmental improvement at slum level. Integrated with other urban poverty alleviation programmes like EIUS, NRY and LCS. Scheme aimed at coordination, and convergence of physical services, income generating support and social services for the urban poor, especially those living in slums, to enhance the reach and effectiveness of the programme.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

3

Year Programme Thrust area 1995 Prime Ministers

Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication Programme (PMIUPEP)

Sought to address urban poverty in small towns; gave priority to women, scheduled castes and schedules tribes.

1996 National Slum Development Programme (NSDP)

Tried to bring convergence between schemes implemented by line departments including physical infrastructure (water supply, storm water drains, community bath, paving of lanes, sewers, community latrines, street lights); construction of community centre for community activities; community primary healthcare centres; social amenities like pre-school education, non-formal education, adult education, maternity, child health and primary healthcare. Construction of new houses for EWS. State had the flexibility to design situation specific projects and funding has a loan component besides the subsidy component.

1997 Swarn Jayanti Shahri Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY)

Consists of two major components: the Urban Self-Employment Program and the Urban Wage Employment Programme. The self-employment component of the NRY and PMIUPEP were reorganized under this program.

2001 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY)

Provide shelter or upgrade the existing shelter for people living below poverty line. Scheme to be implemented on a 50% loan and 50% subsidy basis. Proposed to provide 4,00,000 houses for urban poor and slum dwellers.

2005 Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) in Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)

Largest reform linked central government funding initiative for 65 cities, created a sub-mission on Basic Services to Urban Poor. Govt. of India to give 50% funds to cities with a population of more than 4 million. BSUP focuses on integrated development of basic Services to the urban poor, security of tenure at affordable prices, improved housing, water supply and sanitation and convergence of services in the fields of education, health and social security. IHSDP aims at combining the existing schemes of VAMBAY and NSDP.

2010 Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY)

Two on-going schemes (i) Affordable housing through partnership and (ii) the scheme for Interest Subsidy for Urban Housing have been dovetailed into RAY. It envisages a ‘Slum-free India’ with inclusive and equitable cities in which every citizen has access to basic civic and social services and decent shelter. It aims to achieve this vision by encouraging States/Union Territories to tackle the problem of slums in a definitive manner, by a multi-pronged approach focusing on: • Bringing all existing slums, notified or non-notified within

the formal system and enabling them to avail of the same level of basic amenities as the rest of the town;

• Redressing the failures of the formal system that lie behind the creation of slums; and

• Tackling the shortages of urban land and housing that keep shelter out of reach of the urban poor and force them to resort to extra-legal solutions in a bid to retain their sources of livelihood and employment.

With the country’s progress from being a predominantly rural country to ‘urban’, there was a

major shift in paradigm in the program and policies for the urban poor. In the late 1950s, the

Urban Community Development (UCD) focused on reduced mortality and morbidity

through making available protected water supply. With the advent of the Environmental


NIUA, APRIL 2012

4

Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS) in 1972 it was further up-scaled with greater

involvement of the State Government. The Low Cost Sanitation for Liberation of Scavengers

(LCS) launched in 1981, along with sanitation, brought in additional social aspects like

freedom from manual scavenging, dignity of women and freedom from open defecation,

which benefited not only slum dwellers but all city dwellers. Further, the program on Urban

Basic Services (UBS), launched in 1986, combined sanitation with training, healthcare and

other social services. With the commencement of the Self Employment Programme for the

Urban Poor (SEPUP) in the same year, the attention shifted to reduction of income poverty

by providing skill training and encouraging self-employment. In 1989, the Nehru Rozgar

Yojana (NRY) had a significant component for up-gradation of dwelling units implemented

within a participatory framework. Initiated in 1990, the Urban Basic Services for the Poor

(UBSP) brought in convergence of improved urban services with other concurrent schemes

that lead towards a holistic approach. However, without a concomitant state policy it was

weak in realizing goals. In 1995, the Prime Ministers Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication

Programme (PMIUPEP) aimed to eradicate non-income poverty to target groups, improve

quality of life of urban poor and attempted direct participation of the target groups. Further,

the National Slum Development Programme (NSDP) relied on the creation of community

structures for slum improvement that gave greater autonomy to the states, ULBs and

community-based societies for designing and carrying out development work as per local

needs. The shelter upgradation components of all three schemes (NRY, UBSP and

PMIUPEP) were merged in this program. The Swarn Jayanti Shahri Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY)

was an attempt under the 9th Five Year Plan to rationalize and integrate the existing anti-

poverty programmes. With the initiation of the 2001, Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana

(VAMBAY) in the new millennium (2001) the spotlight shifted exclusively on shelter.

More recently, launched in 2005, the Jawaharlal Nehru national Urban Renewal Mission

(JNNURM) had two sub-missions, one on Urban Infrastructure and Governance and the

other on Basic Services for the Urban Poor Program (BSUP and IHSDP) under the broad

umbrella of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). This

mission mode program embarked on empowerment of ULBs through the reforms, integrated

approach of urban services and housing and implementation through mission mode, time-

barred manner; applicable to both mission and non-mission towns / cities.

In a nutshell, slum improvement and upgrading have been on the policy and programme

radar for several decades. The principal content of slum improvement and upgrading has

been either one or a combination of the following:


NIUA, APRIL 2012

5

a. Provision of infrastructure and basic services

b. Improvement in physical structures of dwelling units

c. Skill upgradation

d. Income earning opportunities

e. Tenure security

However, there is limited evidence on what the impact of these programmes has been on the

income level of households/or on productivity, the educational and employment status, the

quality of life, or even the size of households. It is the premise of this study that

improvement in the habitat does bring in some change in the economic and social status of

household. The purpose of this pilot study is to assess what is that change and how

significant is it? Can the slum improvement programmes stand scrutiny on these grounds?

The study attempts to examine the effect of upgrading at the slum level and its consequent

effect at the level of the dwelling unit and its residents.

Purpose of the study Many argue that improvements in infrastructures, including shelter, and services in slums

can directly and indirectly improve the lives of slum dwellers. According to one school of

thought such improvements can hardly be sustainable if not supported by the simultaneous

promotion of decent employment opportunities. Whereas the other school of thought would

like to promote the idea that slum improvement / up-gradation enables people to get out of

poverty and people are in a better position to improve their skills and advance their

qualifications. This in turn raises their productivity and creates an enabling environment for

them to move out of poverty.

The above argument needs to be examined on ground with suitable indicators to measure

tangible / intangible benefits of slum up-gradation and its consequent improvement in

economic productivity. This can be investigated through pilot case studies of select cities.

Objective of the study Assuming that slum improvement and upgrading are growth-enhancing, the main objective

of the study is:

• To develop indicators to estimate the difference in productivity of an improved and

upgraded slum and productivity of an unimproved slum through measuring contribution

to different components of GDP.

• To test the indicators in a pilot case study and arrive at tangible outcomes


NIUA, APRIL 2012

6

• To investigate whether “slum improvement and upgrading” can be one of the drivers of

economic growth

Methodology The assumption that investment in slum upgrading would lead to enhanced economic

growth needs to be tested on ground. In order to assess the extent of the impact, a purposive

sampling has been taken for selection of the city as well as selection of slums.

The case of two slums in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh has been taken up for this pilot study. The

reason for choosing Madhya Pradesh is that in terms of policy, Madhya Pradesh has

constantly acknowledged the plight of the urban poor and has been ready to take initiatives,

often quite progressive, to deal with the issues. It was the first state in the Indian Union to

understand the importance of “land” for urban poor in terms of security of shelter. The state

through its “Patta Act of 1984” grants leasehold titles or “Pattas” to squatters. With 41

Million Pound funding from DFID, Madhya Pradesh has started the “Utthan” project under

MPUSP (Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for Poor) to enhance capacity and strengthen

institutional systems of the state to deliver sustainable access to quality services for the

urban poor. The main rationale behind the programme was to support the overall goal of

sustainable poverty reduction and economic growth. The Basic services for Urban Poor

(BSUP) programme under the Central Government funded Jawaharlal Nehru Urban

Renewal Mission (JNNURM) is another programme through which the construction of EWS

housing is being undertaken in the major cities of Madhya Pradesh. In 2001, the Water Aid

in coordination with UNHABITAT & Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) also

incorporated Slum Environment and Sanitation Initiative (SESI) programme which was

strictly a programme for basic services provision in slums. Similar to MPUSP, it has also

been piloting ways and methods to demonstrate community-led approaches for pro-poor

urban governance to improve water and sanitation facilities in selected slums.

Bhopal as a city seems to be like a mosaic of pro-poor programmes of “Housing and

Infrastructure” provision. In Bhopal, the three most important interventions of Housing and

Infrastructure Provision for urban poor have remained, `Land tenure regularization

programmes”, “Basic Services provision programmes” and “Housing Construction

Programmes”. All the three programmes basically have one agenda in mind which is “to

provide urban poor in any city a legal, respectable and hygienic place to live, which will in

turn, improve their life in terms of health and make possible for them to work more

efficiently and as a result bring them out of the cycle of economic weakness. A brief on the

programmes under implementation in the city is given in Annex 1.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

7

The two slums selected for the case study are: Bihari Mohalla and Annu Nagar. Bihari

Mohalla is one of the slums selected for interventions on slum upgrading under MPUSP.

This slum has been selected to understand the how physical upgradation of the slum has

helped the people residing there. In Annu Nagar there has been no intervention under any

scheme or programme. This slum has been selected to bring into light the impact of lack of

any kind of intervention in physical improvement in a slum and its consequent effect on the

residents.

Limitations of the study

Detailed primary data on family structure (number of males and females with age), time

series data on occurrence of diseases, changes in educational qualification, skill sets and

income of the workforce, expenditure pattern were not collected for the study due to

resources constraints of a pilot study.

Definitions

The study limits itself to the following definitions:

Slum improvement and upgrading - slum improvement or upgrading as it is also called

- in low income urban communities is many things, but at its simplest it has come to mean a

package of basic services: clean water supply and adequate sewage disposal to improve the

well-being of the community. Upgrading customarily provides a package of improvements in

streets, footpaths and drainage as well. Solid waste collection is frequently included with its

positive impact on health, along with street lights for security and night activity. Electricity

to homes is often initiated later - and sometimes even before. Some upgrading programs also

include vocational training and income generating opportunities.

For the purpose of this study, slum upgrading is limited to the above package of physical

amenities. Improved health conditions and better educational status are assumed to be the

positive outcomes of physical upgradation.

Regularization of tenure– An important part of upgrading is also legalizing and

‘regularizing’ the properties in situations of insecure or unclear tenure. However, for the

purpose of the study, grant of de-facto tenure for a limited period has been considered as an

important ingredient of slum upgrading. Thus, upgrading may be considered as the start to

becoming a recognized citizen.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

8

Improvement in slum dwelling units – is limited to improvements in the physical

structure of individual dwelling units located in a slum. This includes upgradation of a

thatched or tarpaulin roof to a pucca or concrete one, conversion of walls from kutcha /

semi-pucca to pucca and addition of floors and rooms to the physical structure of the

dwelling unit.

Productivity – Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production. Productivity is a

ratio of what is produced to what is required to produce it. Usually this ratio is in the form of

an average, expressing the total output divided by the total input. Productivity is a measure

of output from a production process, per unit of input. At the national level, productivity

growth raises living standards because more real income improves people's ability to

purchase goods and services, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education and contribute to

social and environmental programs. This leads to better economic well-being. Economic

well-being also increases due to the growth of incomes that are gained from the more

efficient production. For the purpose of the study, improved productivity or inccome that

leads to enhanced economic well being may be considered as an indicator of economic

productivity.

Selection of Slums and Sample Size:

The main criteria for selection of the two slums were the following:

• Small slum with 300 – 600 approximate number of households

• Existing since the last 20 years or more

• Notified slums – one with some kind of de facto tenure and the other one, without any de

facto tenure - i.e. Authorised/ Unauthorised/ Authorised for a fixed period

• Varying levels of Access to municipal (including Parastatals) services with respect to the

following: water supply, sanitation, drainage, solid waste collection, presence of pucca

road, whether the slum settlement is covered by any government scheme and its name,

whether the Scheme sponsored by Central government/ State government/NGO/Civil

Society/ or any other

• Activities under the scheme: Physical upgradation and improvement with regard to

services mentioned above, income generation support, training and any other support

• Investments made in slum improvement since the last 5 to six years

• Reason for occurrence of the slum - event-led; political support; patronage etc.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

9

Bihari Mohalla

Annu Nagar

Bihari Mohalla, also known as Acharya Narendra

Dev Basti, is situated in ward 57 Zone 8 near Subhash

Nagar, Vishram Ghat area and has about 321 houses

and spreads over large open land. The slum is about 27

years old and falls in the area affected during the

Bhopal Gas tragedy in 19842. It is close to the

residential township of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd

(BHEL) and has easy access to schools, health centres

and markets. The slum is notified by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC). The slum

has access to all basic infrastructure services, namely water supply, drainage, electricity

connection at household level and has been covered under the MPUSP scheme, called

Project “Utthan”. Under the project, the Municipal Corporation has provided services

including water supply, drainage, sanitation and street light. In partnership with MPUSP,

the Corporation has been mobilising people for physical upgradation through community

participation in micro planning and action planning (e.g. in preparation of lane maps, for

construction of concrete roads, drains, individual toilets and water tap installations). The

total estimate of the works undertaken so far is about Rs.128.27 lakh. In the area of support

for income generation, computer training has been imparted to twenty persons.

Annu Nagar is a notified but unauthorised slum,

about 35 years old. It is located in Ward No. 69 of

BMC and houses about 1040 households (as

narrated by the slum dwellers). However, as per the

slum list provided by MPUSP there are about 614

households and the total population is 2665. The

slum is located on an environmentally vulnerable

land, along the railway line traversing the city on

land owned by the railways. Among the municipal

services, the slum has access to water supply and electricity, but not sanitation. The roads

inside the slum are kutcha and lacks proper drainage. There has been no programmatic

intervention or investment in this slum. A large number of its resident have settled here after

the Bhopal gas tragedy. Some have migrated from the neighbouring areas of Raigarh and

Sehore Districts . BMC has been providing water to the residents through water tankers

2 The Bhopal disaster (commonly referred to as Bhopal gas tragedy) was a gas leak incident in India, considered one of the world's worst industrial catastrophes. It occurred on the night of December 2–3, 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.. Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll related to the gas release was 3,787 deaths as per the government of Madhya Pradesh.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

10

stored in tanks of 10,000 liters capacity. Since the last six months, the slum has been

provided individual piped water supply by BMC and one public stand post for the

convenience of the slum dwellers. The hours of water supply is 45 minutes to one hour that

is very erratic.

Analysis of Case Studies

Figure 1 : Households surveyed & population

For the purpose of the study, similar sample size from both slums was taken up for primary

survey as depicted in Table 1 and Figure 1.

The following figure shows the location of the two slums taken up as case study.

Table1: Number of HHs Surveyed

and Population

Name of the slum

No. of households Population

Annu Nagar 76 435

In % 100 100

Bihari Mohalla 77 442

In % 100 100

Source: Primary survey at Bhopal 2011

Table 2: Access of DU to Water Supply

Name of the slum

Type of supply by source Hours of supply (Half hr. to one hr.)

Individual Community

Both

Annu Nagar

74 2 74 76

In % 97 3 97 100

Bihari Mohalla

74 3 74 77

In % 96 4 96 100



NIUA, APRIL 2012

11

Location of Slums


NIUA, APRIL 2012

12

Source of water supply in these slum settlements included individual taps, public stand posts

( as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2). In both slums water supply is erratic. In Annu Nagar

water is supplied on alternate days for half to one hour. Whereas, in Bihari Mohalla, people

get water daily for about 45 minutes. Almost all houses in both slums have taps in the

dwelling units. However, due to erratic pressure majority of them have to also rely on Public

Stand-posts.

None of the households in Annu Nagar

have toilets at home and people defecate in

the open. In Bihari Mohalla, all the houses

have individual toilets.

Both the slums have legal electric

connections. However, in Annu Nagar many

slum residents reported disconnections due to

non-payment. Such households have resorted

to illegal connection by hooking to electric

poles set up for street lights.

There is not much difference in

family sizes in the two slums.

Average household size of both

Annu Nagar and Bihari Mohalla is

about 6 members. Bihari Mohalla

has fewer large household with

more than eight members. In both

slums, more than 50% of the

families comprise four to eight

members.

Table 3 : Access of DU to Sanitation

Name of the slum Presence of toilet in the

DU

Yes No

Annu Nagar - 76

% - 100

Bihari Mohalla 77 -

% 100 -

Source: Primary survey at Bhopal 2011 Table 4: Access of DU to Electricity

Name of the slum

Electricity Total

Yes No Annu Nagar 76 - 76 % 100 - 100 Bihari Mohalla 76 1 77 % 99 1 100 Source: Primary survey at Bhopal 2011

Table 5: Household Size

Name of the slum Number of members

≤4 4 - 6 6 - 8 >8 Total

Annu Nagar 25 25 15 11 76

In % 33 33 20 14 100

Bihari Mohalla 24 26 21 6 77

In % 31 34 27 8 100



NIUA, APRIL 2012

13

Table 6: Education Status

Name of the slum

Number of persons

Post-Graduate /Graduate

Higher Secondary

Middle / Primary Illiterate Any

other* Total

Annu Nagar - 4 119 299 13 435 In % - 0.9 27 69 3 100 Bihari Mohalla 20 99 182 121 20 442 In % 5 22 41 27 5 100 Note:* minor


The educational status of the persons residing in Bihari Mohalla is better. About 63% of the

people have at least undergone primary education and about one-fifth of the population is

studying at the higher secondary level. About 20 persons have attained graduate / post

graduate degrees, though a small percentage (4.5%) of the population surveyed. On the

contrary, almost two-third of the population of Annu Nagar is illiterate and there are no

individuals who are educated more than higher secondary level.

Table 7 denotes the families where on an average one member is affected by any one of the

diseases mentioned. In both slums, people did not report about any specific disease that is

more prevalent. On the whole most people reported generally good health and suffer only

from minor ailments.

Table 7: Health Status of the Slum Population Surveyed

Name of the slum

No. of households affected with

Jaun

dice

T.B

Typh

oid

Hea

rt

Dis

ease

Den

gue

Can

cer

HIV

/

AID

S

Min

or

ailm

ents

Oth

ers

**

Mul

tipl

e ai

lmen

ts

Tota

l

Annu Nagar 1 3 1 6 0 0 0 63 0 2 76

In % 1 4 1 8 0 0 0 83 3 100

Bihari Mohalla 1 4 1 4 0 1 0 60 5 1 77

In % 1 5 1 5 0 1 0 78 6 1 100

Note: Others** includes Fracture, Asthma, Lung problem and stone problem



NIUA, APRIL 2012

14

Table 8 depicts the expenditure on

health in the two slums. In Bihari

Mohalla, the average expenditure on

health is about Rs.741 per household

per month, as shown in Figure 3 (i.e.

Rs.123 person, where the average

household size is 6). This is in contrast

to Annu Nagar, where a household

spends an average of Rs. 259 per month

(i.e. Rs.43 per person) on health. One of

the reasons for low expenditure on

health for majority of the people of

Annu Nagar could be that people only

go to a Doctor for treatment when the ailment gets serious. Whereas in Bihari Mohalla,

people are more educated and aware and seem to go to the Doctor before the disease reaches

a risky stage. Another reason cited for this difference in the amount of expenses on health is

that most people in Annu Nagar visit Government Hospitals where everything is available

free of cost.

Table 8: Average Expenditure on Health

Name of Slum

Expenditure on health per month - Amount (Rs.)

0-50

0

500-

1000

1001

-250

0

2501

-500

0

> 5

000

Tota

l

Ave

rage

ex

pend

itur

e (p

er h

h)

Annu Nagar 70 1 4 1 - 76 259

In % 92 1 5 1 100

Bihari Mohalla 39 14 14 3 7 77 741

In % 50 18 18 4 9 100



NIUA, APRIL 2012

15

Table 9:Employment Status of Principal Workers

Bihari Mohalla

Principal worker

Principal Earner

Number of

earner

Regular No. of days worked (Regular) casual No. of days worked

(Casual) G.Total(a+b)

(a) <=180 >180

<280 >280 (b) <=180 >180 <280 >280

Wage 44 12 - 2 10 32 - 9 23 44

% 57 - Self Employed 26 26 - 1 25 0 - - - 26

% 34 - - - - - - - Not employed 7 - - - - - - - 7

9 - - - - - - - Total 77 77 % 100 Annu Nagar

Principal Earner

Principal Earner

Number of

earners

Regular

No. of days worked (Regular)

casual No. of days worked (Casual)

G.Total (a+b)

(a ) ≤180 >180 ≤280

>280 (b) ≤180 >180 ≤280

>280

Wage 60 7 0 3 4 53 0 29 24 60

% 79 12 88 55 45 100

Self Employed

16 14 0 1 13 2 0 2 0 16

% 21

Total 76 21 55 77

% 100 27.6 72.4 100


In Bihari Mohalla, 57% of the principal earners are wage earners and about 1/3rd of the

principal earners are self employed. In Annu Nagar, among the principal earners, 79% are

wage earners and 21% are self employed. In the latter, out of the total number of wage

earners, 12% are regular and 88% are casual workers. However, all of them are able to get

work for more than 180 days or 6 months in a year and about 45% of these casual workers


NIUA, APRIL 2012

16

work for more than 280 days (or 9 months) in a year. Among the second earners (i.e. other

earner 1), the pattern is similar as that of the principal earner.

During the survey, the head of the family has been chosen as the principal earner of the

family. Many a times, the head is old or less skilled and therefore the person considered as

‘other earner 1’ (e.g. a young son) earns more than the principal earner.

Table 11: Average Monthly Income of Household with Single and Multiple Earning Members (Rs.)

Name of Slum

Tota

l no.

of

hous

ehol

ds

Tota

l Hou

seho

ld

inco

me

Ave

rage

H

ouse

hold

in

com

e

Total income of households with

Average income of households with

sing

le

earn

er

2 e

arne

rs

3 ea

rner

s

sing

le

earn

er

2 e

arne

rs

3 ea

rner

s

Annu Nagar 76 360475 4743 206400 78100 75700 3822 5579 9463

Bihari Mohalla 77 369870 4803 248600 70000 45500 4010 5833 15167


The average monthly income of households in Bihari Mohalla is Rs. 4803 and that of Annu

Nagar is Rs.4743. This includes income from occupations and other sources like rents and

Table 10: Economic Status of Households

Name of Slum

Total no. of households

No. of households with single earner

No. of households with

2 earners

3 earners

Annu Nagar 76 54 14 8

% 100 71 18 11 Bihari Mohalla 77 62 12 3

% 100 81 16 4



NIUA, APRIL 2012

17

pension. In Bihari Mohalla, more than 80% of the households have a single earner and

households with two or more earners have a better average income. The households with

three earners are quite well off and have an average monthly income of about Rs.15,167 in

comparison with Annu Nagar (Rs.9463).

In contrast, in Annu Nagar, though there are more households with two earners and about

54% have a single earner, the average income of households with multiple earners is lower.

One of the reasons for this could be that in Annu Nagar, a number of second and third

earning members of a household are unskilled and work as apprentices to the principal

earner.

Table 12: Average Monthly (Income of Earners from Occupations (Rs)

Name of Slum

Tota

l no.

of e

arne

rs

No.

of s

ingl

e ea

rner

s

No.

of d

oubl

e ea

rner

s

No.

of t

ripl

e ea

rner

s Average income from occupations of

All

earn

ers

sing

le e

arne

rs

doub

le e

arne

rs

trip

le e

arne

rs

Annu Nagar 106 54 28 24 3400 3822 2789 3154

Bihari Mohalla 95 62 24 9 3832 4010 2916 5055


According to the figures in Table 12, the average monthly income of earners from only

occupations (excluding other income sources like rents and pensions) works out to be Rs.

3832 in Bihari Mohalla and Rs.3400 in Annu Nagar. Similarly where in one household two

or three people earn, the average income of those earners has also been worked out.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

18

Table 13: Average Monthly Income (Rs.)

Name of Slum

Number of households in different income ranges Principal Earner

0-1000 1000 - 2500 2501 - 5000 5000 - 10000 >10000 Total Annu Nagar 4 13 51 8 0 76

% 5 17 67 11 0 100

Bihari Mohalla 6 11 47 13 0 77

% 3 14 66 17 0 100

Other earner(1)

0-1000 1000-2500 2501-5000 5000-10000 >10000 Total

Annu Nagar 4 5 5 0 0 14

% 28 36 36 0 0 100


% 17 33 33 17 0 100

Other earner (2)

0-1000 1000-2500 2501-5000 5000-10000 >10000 Total

Annu Nagar 0 3 5 0 0 8

% 0 37 63 0 0 100


% 0 67 0 33 0 100


The distribution of income among earners depicts that in both slums about 67% of the

principal earners earn between Rs.2500 to Rs.5000 per month. The picture changes in case

of the distribution of income among second and third earners. In Bihari Mohalla, more than

half of the second earning member earns between Rs.1000 to Rs.5,000. Further about 33%

of the third earners earns between Rs.5000 to Rs.10,000. This also indicates that the

younger generation who are more educated and skilled are earning more. In Annu Nagar

however, all the second and third earners have a monthly income of less than Rs.5000.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

19

Table 14: Average Per Capita Income

Slum Name

Number of household with average per capita income

≤ 350 351-772 772* 773-1500 1501-2500 2501-3500 >3500 Total

Annu Nagar 5 43 23 4 1 0 76

Bihari Mohalla 3 43 28 2 0 1 77

* State Poverty Line for Madhya Pradesh 2009-10 as per Planning Commission, Press Information Bureau, GoI, March 2012 ;


The average per capita income for the two slums have been worked out based on the

household size of 6 members (as already mentioned earlier in Table 5). The average per

capita income for Bihari Mohalla is approximately Rs. 800 and for Annu Nagar is Rs. 790

(approx.). This is above Rs. 771.70 which is the State Poverty Line for Madhya Pradesh

(2009-10) for Urban Areas.

According to the primary survey, Annu Nagar has 4% more BPL households as compared to

Bihari Mohalla (64% and 60% respectively), as depicted in Figures 5 a and b. The caveat here

is that these percentages are based on income figures and not on expenditures.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

20

Table 15: Occupational Classification

Name of Slum

Tota

l no.

of

hous

ehol

ds

Tota

l po

pula

tion

Tota

l No.

of

earn

ers

Occupations Self Employed Wage

Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled Skilled Semi-

skilled Unskilled

Annu Nagar 76 435 106 0 5 14 1 2 84

% 100 0 5 13 1 2 79

Bihari Mohalla 77 442 95 7 10 13 7 16 42

% 100 7 11 14 7 17 44


Out of the total population, the percentage of people employed is about one-fifth in Bihari

Mohalla and about one-fourth in Annu Nagar. However, not only is the average income of a

household in Bihari Mohalla more, those employed are better equipped to earn more. As can

be seen from the table above, in Bihari Mohalla, 14% of the total workforce is skilled -

whether self employed (e.g. tailor, barber, auto-driver, Imam, carpenter) or as wage earners

(e.g. teacher, AC mechanic, driver, hardware operator, computer operator). In contrast, in

Annu Nagar, about 92% are unskilled workers (i.e. 80% are wage earners and 12% are self

employed). There is one auto driver in Annu Nagar, who may be considered as skilled.

Data on ownership of simple

assets like TV, refrigerator,

bicycle/scooter, cell phone is

presented in Table 16. In

Bihari Mohalla, about half of

the households have at least a

TV and there are only four

households who have none of

the assets. Out of these four,

three have a single earner

each and earn between

Rs.1200 – Rs.3000 per month and one household has a widow who stays with a minor child

and gets pension from the Govt. There is a significant difference with respect to ownership of

Table 16: Asset Ownership among Households

Name of the slum

No asset

2 assets

3 assets

4 assets

5 assets Total

Annu Nagar 45 23 3 3 2 76

% 58 30 4 4 3 100


% 5 30 38 18 9 100



NIUA, APRIL 2012

21

assets in Annu Nagar. Here people are very poor and 60% don’t own any of the assets

mentioned above.

Questions pertaining to availability of DU title was also asked. In Annu Nagar none has DU

title. Though Bihari Mohalla is one of the slums selected for intervention under the MPUSP

project, only three houses have DU title or ‘patta’.

Table 17: Investment in Dwelling Units (DU)

Investment in Dwelling Units (DUs) (Rs.) Number of HH invested in DU

Investment per DU (Rs.)

Average investment in all DUs surveyed

Name of Slum

Num

ber

of

DU

s

≤R

s.10

00

>10

00 ≤

5000

>50

00 ≤

0,

000

>0,

000 ≤

20

,000

>20

,000

Annu Nagar

76 34 4 4 2 0 44 2072 1200

% 77 9 9 5 0 100

Bihari Mohalla

77 2 5 15 13 5 40 13068 6788

% 5 13 38 33 13 100


The average investment of all 77 Dwelling units in Bihari Mohalla is Rs. 6788 and the

corresponding figure for 76 dwelling units in Annu Nagar is Rs.1200. It may be noted that in

Bihari Mohalla 40 out of 77 households have made some kind of investment on the dwelling

units in comparison to 44 households in Annu Nagar.

Among the total number households surveyed in both the slums, nearly half have invested in

their dwelling units. There is a sharp contrast in the investment per dwelling unit in the two

slums, which is approximately Rs.13,000 in Bihari Mohalla in comparison to Rs. 2000 at

Annu Nagar. In Bihari Mohalla, more than 70% households have invested Rs.5000 to

Rs.20,000 on improving their dwelling units. In contrast, in Annu Nagar, only 14% have

invested a similar amount and the investment in dwelling units in this slum is just about the

sustenance amount, where about 77% households have invested upto Rs. 1000. This is

mostly to cover their shacks with tarpaulin sheets as roofing material. Whereas, in Bihari


NIUA, APRIL 2012

22

Mohalla hoseholds have attempted to carry out some value addition to the house, such as

making the walls pucca. In Bihari Mohalla, around Rs.128.27 lakh has been invested over a

period of about a year, for 321 households in 2009 -10 at the slum level towards physical

upgradation (which includes road and drain construction, individual toilets and water tap

installation) of the slum. This works out to about Rs.40,000 per household. In addition, on

an average households have personally invested Rs.13,000 (approx.) at the level of the

dwelling unit.

In Bihari Mohalla, 40%

of the people have

taken debt in contrast

to Annu Nagar where

only 16% of the

household have taken

debt. In most cases, the

reason for taking debt

is for treatment of

critical diseases, or

marriage in the family

or repair of dwelling

unit. Most of them

have borrowed from

relatives and friends.

Not only have fewer

people taken loan in

Annu Nagar, the amount of loan taken is also lesser varying from Rs.1000 to a maximum of

Rs.50,000. Whereas in Bihari Mohalla about 58% of the people have borrowed Rs.5000 to

Rs.20,000 and the highest amount borrowed is about Rs.60,000. This also shows that

people at Bihari Mohalla have a better capacity to pay-back.

Table 18: Outstanding Debt

Name of slum Number of households by ranges

Amount of Debt (Rs.)

≤ 5

000

> 5

,000

≤ 1

0,00

0

> 1

0,00

0 ≤

20,

000

> 2

0,00

0 ≤

35,

000

> 3

5,00

0 ≤

50,

000

> 5

0,00

0

HH

s ta

ken

debt

Tota

l Hou

seho

ld

Surv

eyed

Annu Nagar 4 3 3 1 1 0 12 76

% 33 25 25 8 8 0 100

Bihari Mohalla 8 10 8 3 1 1 31 77

% 26 32 26 10 3 3 100



NIUA, APRIL 2012

23

Summary of Results and Conclusion

In a nutshell, the inputs that affect economic productivity in the two slums Bihari Mohalla

and Annu Nagar, is mainly the access to water, sanitation and electricity. The areas of change

are the change in demographic and social status (which includes the size of households,

literacy level, health profile and expenses on health and shelter security) and economic

productivity and income status (which includes the nature of occupation, incomes, assets

and investments in dwelling units). The main difference between the two slums is

summarized in the Tables as below:

Access to Bihari Mohalla (BM) Annu Nagar (AN) Difference

Water

Most of the HHs have individual tap but depend on Public Stand Post because water supply is only 45 minutes a day. HHs using both sources- (96%); HHs using single source- (4%)

Most of the HHs have individual tap but depend on Public Stand Post because water is available on alternate days for half an hour. HHs using both sources- (97%); HHs using single source- (3%)

Because of non-availability of adequate water, household from both slums mostly depend upon public stand post.

Sanitation

All households have individual toilets.

Entire population resorts to open defecation.

No individual toilets in AN and everyone in BM use independent toilets.

Electricity Most (i.e 99%) have individual connections.

All households ( 100%) have individual connections.

In AN many households have been disconnected due to non-payment of bills and have resorted to illegal connections.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

24

Area of Change Bihari Mohalla (BM) Annu Nagar (AN) Difference

Size of Household

Fewer large families. Average Household size is 6. Out of the 77 surveyed Households only 6 families (8%) have more than 8 members.

More large families. Average Household size is 6. Out of the 76 surveyed Households 11 families (14%) have more than 8 members.

6% more larger families (more than 8 members) in AN.

Literacy level Most members are at least primary educated. Primary- 41% pop High school -22% Pop Illiterate.-27% pop

Most of the population is illiterate. Primary- 27% pop High school -1% Pop Illiterate -69% pop

-42% more population is Illiterate in AN. -14% more pop. is educated upto the Primary level in BM. - 22 % pop. is High school educated in BM as compared to AN where only 1% has reached the High school level.

Health Profile and Expenses on health

Lower incidence of any serious diseases. 78% HHs reported minor ailments 5% HHs reported heart problem 5% HHs reported T.B. problem Average health expenditure (Monthly) is Rs. 741 per HHs (Rs. 123 per person)

No one reported any serious diseases. 83%HHs reported minor ailments 8% HHs reported heart problem 4% HHs reported T.B. problem Average health expenditure (Monthly) is Rs. 259 per HHs (Rs. 43 per person)

-5% more patients with minor ailments, 3% more with heart problems & 1% less with TB in AN. -Health expenditure is more by Rs.492/- per HH in BM.

Shelter Security Only 3 out of 76 households have patta.

None have patta Very minor difference of 3 DUs having tenure security in BM.

Nature of Occupation

More skilled and semi-skilled workers. Skilled-14% Semi-skilled -28% Un-skilled- 58%

Mostly unskilled workers. Skilled-1% Semi-skilled -7 % Un-skilled- 92%

In AN unskilled workers are (34%) more and skilled worker are about 8% as compared to BM where skilled and semi-skilled workers are about 42%.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

25

Area of Change Bihari Mohalla (BM) Annu Nagar (AN) Difference

Incomes Average income (from all sources) of households is Rs. 4803 Average income of all earners from occupations (excluding other sources) is Rs. 3832

Average income (from all sources) of households is Rs. 4743 Average income of all earners from occupations (excluding other sources) is Rs. 3400

In BM, the average income (from all sources) is higher by 1.4% In BM, the average income of all earners from occupations (excluding other sources) is higher by 11.27%

Assets 5% don’t own any asset. 95% have one or more assets.

58% don’t own any asset. 42% have one or two assets.

In BM , 53% more households own assets as compared to AN .

Investment in DU

More investment. Average exp. on DU is Rs. 6,788 (by all 77 HHs) Average exp. on DU is Rs. 13,068. (by 40 HHs who have actually invested)

Less investment. Average exp. on DU is Rs 1200. (by all 76 HHs) Average exp. on DU is Rs. 2072. (by 44 HHs who had actually invested)

There is a sharp difference of Rs.10, 997/- in average investment on DU. B.M HHs have spent more as compared to A.N.

The analysis in the preceding sections supports the assumption that intervention in terms of

physical upgradation of slums leads to enhanced productivity. The case in point of Bihari

Mohalla corresponds to this point of view.

The interventions in Bihari Mohalla through the Utthan Programme have been in terms of

tangible changes. To illustrate, approximately Rs.127.28 lakh has been invested for 321

households (which works out to about Rs.40,000 per household annualized over a period of

one year). An additional Rs.6788 (on an average) has been invested by the individual are

towards upgradation of the dwelling units. The main inputs at the slum level are in terms of

access to water, sanitation and electricity. The outputs of this investment is manifested in

terms of the following areas of change: smaller size of household, better literacy levels, more

skilled workforce, better incomes and asset ownership (as highlighted in the preceding

summary table).One of the advantages of Bihari Mohalla’s better position with respect to the

skill-sets of its people could have been its location advantage (in terms of proximity to place

of work like the BHEL township). However, it may be pointed out here that this may or may

not be one of the reasons for its better status. It would be difficult to ascertain and quantify

the impact of such external variables in such studies.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

26

In addition, the intangible input through program intervention in Bihari Mohalla includes

the community mobilization efforts under the programme through community participation

in micro planning and action planning (e.g. in preparation of lane maps for construction of

concrete roads, drains, individual toilets and water tap installations) and in the area of

support in income generation (e.g. computer training has been imparted to some persons).

This programme has been going on for the last two years, which is a rather short time period

for significant changes to emerge. Keeping this point in view, it may be emphasized here that

slum upgradation has lead to many improvements in the form of quality of life of the

residents of Bihari Mohalla.People have better awareness towards sanitation, health and

education, are acquiring more skills for employment, and have better living through

investment not only on the house but also to buy assets.


NIUA, APRIL 2012

27

Annex 1

Summary of Programmes under Implementation in Bhopal

S.N Programme Parameters

Patta Act of 1984

MPUSP SESI BSUP

1 Implementing agency

Department of Urban Welfare, under Department of Revenue

Project Utthan Cell under Bhopal Municipal Corporation

UN-HABITAT Water AID and Bhopal Municipal Corporation

JNNURM Project Cell under Bhopal Municipal Corporation

2 Year Commenced

Since 1984 and Undergoing

Started in 2006 till 2011

Started in 2004

Started in 2006 Still Continuing

3 Provisions

Land tenure security

The act specifies Municipal Corporation to extend basic services

Basic Services provision (water upply, anitation, SWM) on household basis.

Provision of roads and street lights

Basic Services Provision on household basis (Wherever possible)including provision of roads

Housing unit bundled with household level basic services provision

Provision of community level open spaces and other amenities like community halls and gymnasiums

4 Funding Agencies

State Government DFID UN-HABITAT and

BMC

Shared within Central Government, State Government and Municipal Corporation

5 Other Agencies Involved

BMC for extending basic services

Consultant appointed by BMC

None

State govt. for provision of land for housing construction

6 Beneficiary Selection

Selected on the basis of proof of residence before the cut-off date decided.

Proofs accepted were mainly Ration Cards

Selection through prioritization by a 3X3 Matrix

Slums housing most vulnerable poor are selected

Selection by BMC

No specific selection criterion.

Settlements on prime urban lands were selected


NIUA, APRIL 2012

28

S.N Programme Parameters

Patta Act of 1984

MPUSP SESI BSUP

8 Participatory Mechanisms

Provision of Mohalla Samiti added after the 1998 Amendment for preparing schemes for development and prevent unauthorized occupation

Basti Vikas Samiti (BVS) to do micro planning and monitoring.

The concept of micro planning by forming resident community.

No mechanism as such. (A resident society is formed after the project completes implementation)

9 Lands Preferred

State Government Lands


No such consideration


10 Expected and Achieved Outcomes

Tenure security with provision of basic services on household basis. Extended to 177 Settlements

Selected 44 Settlements by 3X 3 Matrix and upgraded 6 Slum Pockets till now

PPSA Survey Database

Selected 16 slums and completed up gradation

A total of 18452 Housing units approved for construction. 484 allotted


NIUA, APRIL 2012

29

Annex - 2 a

Assessing Productivity in Slum Settlements A Survey

Name of the researcher _________________________ Date _________________________

SLUM SETTLEMENT 1. Name of the slum: _______________ Size (Approximate number of households) _____

2. Existing since _____________________ year

3. Status _______________ Authorised/Unauthorised/Authorised for a fixed period/Any other

status, please specify __________________________

4. Access to municipal (including Parastatals) services

Water ___________ yes/no Sanitation __________________ yes/no Drainage _________ yes/no Solid waste collection __________ yes/no Pucca road _______ yes/no (If only a part of the slum settlement is covered by a municipal service, specify)

5. Slum settlement covered by any government scheme, yes/no ______________

6. Name the scheme: __________________________

7. Scheme sponsored by: Central government/State government/NGO/Civil Society/Other sponsors, specify

8. Activities under the scheme: Physical upgradation and improvement ⃞

Water ⃞

Sanitation ⃞

Drainage ⃞

Solid waste collection ⃞

Pucca road ⃞

Income generation support ⃞

Training ⃞

Any other, please specify ⃞

8. Investments made in slum improvement since 2005 (approximate ) Rs. ______________

9. Add a paragraph on the history of the slum e.g., event-led; political support; patronage etc.

Signature of the researcher


NIUA, APRIL 2012

30

Annex – 2b

Questionnaire for Survey

Assessing Productivity in Slum Settlements Name of the researcher _______________________ Date _________________________ Slum Name _________________________ Household name and numbers _________________________

DWELLING UNIT LEVEL SURVEY 1. Status _______________ Authorised/Unauthorised/Authorised for a fixed period/Any other

status, please specify __________________________ 2. Access to municipal (including Parastatals) services

Water Individual / community ⃞

Hrs of supply ⃞

Sanitation (toilets) ⃞

Electricity ⃞ 3. Has the dwelling unit been improved under any scheme since 2005? Yes/No; if yes 4. List out the improvements

________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________

PRODUCTIVITY 5. Size of the household (number of members) ________________________ 6. Education status _________ number of members with –

+ Post graduate

Graduate Higher secondary

Middle/Primary Illiterate Any other

7. Health status _____ any member suffering from or having suffered from any of the following ailments in recent years: Jaundince ⃞ T.B. ⃞ Typhoid ⃞ Heart ⃞ Dengue ⃞

Cancer ⃞ HIV/AIDS ⃞ 8. Average monthly expenditure on health (over the past one year) (Rs/m) ___________


NIUA, APRIL 2012

31

9. Employment status

Principal earner ------- Regular Wage ⃞ Self Employed ⃞ ------- Casual Number of days worked in last one year _______ ------- Other earners (1) ------- Regular Wage ⃞ Self Employed ⃞ ------- Casual Number of days worked in last one year _______ ------- Other earners (2) ------- Regular Wage ⃞ Self Employed ⃞ ------- Casual Number of days worked in last one year _______

10. Household-based work type – monthly income (Rs.)

11. Income status (Average monthly) Principal earner Rs __________________ Other earners (1) Rs. __________________ Other earners (2) Rs. __________________

12. Household Income (Average monthly) from Rents Rs. ___________________ Remittances Rs. ___________________ Others Rs. ___________________

13. Asset status

Dwelling unit title or security ⃞

Television ⃞

Car/Motorcycle/Scooter/Bicycle ⃞

Refrigerator ⃞

Cell Phone ⃞

Any other ⃞ 14. Investments made in improving the dwelling unit since 2005 Rs. ____________ 15. Any outstanding debt Rs. ____________ Researcher’s perception about the slum and Jhuggi (or house) and any other relevant observations that may be relevant for the purpose of the survey.

Signature of the researcher

National Institute of Urban AffairsNational Institute of Urban Affairs1 & 2 Floor, Core 4B, 1 & 2 Floor, Core 4B, India Habitat Centre,India Habitat Centre,LodhiLodhi Road, New Delhi Road, New Delhi –– 110 003110 003

Phone: 011Phone: 011 24617517 2464328424617517 24643284

National Institute of Urban AffairsNational Institute of Urban Affairs1 & 2 Floor, Core 4B, 1 & 2 Floor, Core 4B, India Habitat Centre,India Habitat Centre,LodhiLodhi Road, New Delhi Road, New Delhi –– 110 003110 003

Phone: 011Phone: 011 24617517 2464328424617517 24643284Phone: 011Phone: 011--24617517, 2464328424617517, 24643284Fax: 011Fax: 011--2461751324617513Websites: Websites: www.niua.orgwww.niua.org and and www.indiaurbanportal.inwww.indiaurbanportal.in

Phone: 011Phone: 011--24617517, 2464328424617517, 24643284Fax: 011Fax: 011--2461751324617513Websites: Websites: www.niua.orgwww.niua.org and and www.indiaurbanportal.inwww.indiaurbanportal.in

A A d S RhR esearch Study to EiExamine Slum...

Documents

Transcript of A A d S RhR esearch Study to EiExamine Slum...