International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 1590–1597, Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_165
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=4
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
IMPACT ON LIVELIHOOD OF SLUM
DWELLERS IN LUCKNOW: FROM SLUM
SETTLEMENT TO RESETTLEMENT COLONY
Anjali Pathak
Independent Researcher, Kanpur, India
Dr B K Das
Department of Architecture
National Institute of Technology, Patna, India
ABSTRACT
Slums are universally perceived as an impediment and the worst place to live in;
though, its inhabitants consider these slums as a solution to their problems of housing,
basic amenities and livelihood in urban areas. Government initiatives to facilitate
better housing grants security of tenancy to slum dwellers transited to resettlement
colonies and apparently seen a rise in the status of their livings, both in relative and
absolute terms. But relatively better housing has failed to bring about substantial
change in the livelihood of urban poor who face displacement from their place of
employment. The author examines the impact of resettlement with a single case study
Ahibaranpurwa slum rehabilitated in the public housing colony of Lucknow with a
specificity of the local and global context. While the continuous pressure on the
government is to tackle the fastest growing slum population living in deteriorated
physical and environmental conditions to resettlement colonies, the casualization on
allocating location of such colonies had led to the marginalization of the poor
residing in the resettlement colony. The paper closes with an analysis of factors which
seems to pull down livelihood opportunity of urban poor in rehabilitated colonies of
urban areas.
Key words: Slum, livelihood, rehabilitated colony, tenancy, urban poor.
Cite this Article: Anjali Pathak and Dr B K Das, Impact on Livelihood of Slum
Dwellers in Lucknow: From Slum Settlement to Resettlement Colony, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 10(4), 2019, pp. 1590–1597.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=4
1. INTRODUCTION
Urbanization is a key driver of growth. Cities realize the full potential to provide meaningful
employment to the growth of the youth population [2]. Thus, millions of citizens from rural to
urban areas migrate in anticipation of promising opportunities to fulfil their needs. But the
increasing disparity in income has also led to the homelessness in our country [17]. According
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1590
editor@iaeme.com
Impact on Livelihood of Slum Dwellers in Lucknow: From Slum Settlement to Resettlement Colony
to an estimate, there are approximately fifteen crores homeless in India [17]. These people are
deprived of adequate shelter to fulfil their psychological, physical and personal needs. Most of
these homeless populations are in below poverty line (BPL) or economically weaker section
of the society. Hence, they take shelter in pavements, JJ clusters or an unauthorized slum,
though the condition of slums provokes unforeseen circumstances, insecure environment and
lack of dignity. Every year government initiates demolition of slum from their origin sites.
Under different policies and programs, both central and state government intervenes to
improve the lives of slum dwellers who cannot afford a roof on their head and lives in subhuman conditions. The three-prime solution to home slums living in overcrowded, unsanitary
and vulnerable condition are; in-situ up-gradation, in-situ rehabilitation and resettlement or
relocation based on the diverse degree of legality, formality and tenure status [20]. Every
slum is different from other settlement and has a variant nature. In-situ up-gradation allows
slum inhabitants to remain in the same place with an improved level of services. This process
is considered the least disruptive and most promising approach. In-situ rehabilitation
implemented through a public-private partnership where slums were razed to clear the land
and moved to transit camps. Later eligible residents move back to their allotted dwelling
units. In contrast to previous two approaches, the third one is slum resettlement also called as
slum relocation, in which slum settlements are razed and displaced from their origin to distant
resettlement sites or into homelessness.
It has been observed in previous studies that in-situ up-gradation and redevelopment does
not uproot slum dweller from their place of work whereas resettlement process put adverse
effect and disrupt the livelihood due to transition from slum settlement to resettlement
colonies. Though, housing is an asset to all. As regards housing, the locational attribute plays
a vital role in the distinction of inhabitant satisfaction and their overall development. Hence,
in this study, the principal parameters were assessed those refrain slum dwellers from moving
into public housing with secure tenure.
The subsequent sections of the paper discuss in section two about the literature review to
understand different variable of livelihood assets. Third section brief about the locational
study, local context and methodology adopted to derive the results. The fourth section
discusses the results and findings derived from the study. A ranking chart formulated to
highlight the perspective of respondents. Section five explains future aspects of intervention
in housing programs.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The government often justifies eviction or demolition of slums by suggesting slum
settlements illegal on public land and a hindrance in the development plan. But this is a
sweeping statement. Globally, the resettlement process often concentrates on the security of
tenure and physical characteristic of the dwellings and excludes the livelihood assets context.
It has been observed that unauthorized settlement is the product derived from the needs of
migrants who look forward to cheaper housing and labour job market. The overcrowded
slums are the options for urban poor where they use existing ties to build relation and
livelihood opportunities. Interestingly, a slum resident possesses a specialized skill set and
perceived hub of cheap labour. Thus, slums also function as homes to place-based, economic
units [11]. The lack of livelihood consideration in policy framework continuously affects the
asset accumulation of the slum dwellers after the resettlement process [12].
Understanding the theoretical aspects of the resettlement impact on the livelihood of the
slum dwellers led to the impoverishment of the displaced people. The variant interlinked
parameters of impoverishment recognized through landlessness, homelessness, joblessness,
loss of access to common property resources, marginalization, food insecurity, morbidity and
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1591
editor@iaeme.com
Anjali Pathak and Dr B K Das
mortality, social disarticulation and uncertainty [3]. Despite the magnitude of the current
policy framework, the necessary evil on the livelihood of affected people will continue to
raise concerns [6] [5]. The vulnerable urban poor face the distressed socio-economic impact.
Hence, the post-resettlement livelihood and income change have been the central concern in
pieces of literature.
Every individual in slums is employed in some constructive activity and earn to meet their
family needs. Livelihood in slums is usually simplified in two categories; internal livelihood
and external livelihood [15]. Internal livelihood is generated when the services provided by
slum dwellers to residents lies within the slum area whereas external livelihood is the
outcome of services when slum residents commute in workplaces outside the slum environs
for work in nearby places. Often these workplaces are close by thus lessening the travel cost.
The home-based businesses in slum have interlinked internal and external induce in the mode
of livelihood.
The asset categorization is identified under three variable stocks; financial, human and
social. These resources can be acquired, developed improved and transferred [11]. Therefore,
this paper identified human stock or capital put a major impact on resettlers. Human capital
itself represents the combination of different parameters of skills set, workability and wellbeing. Human capital enables people to achieve their livelihood objectives, by undertaking
different livelihood strategies [11].
To determine human capital as an important point on post-resettlement impact assessment
in the case of Lucknow city resettlement project, the following discussion will be focused on
the reason why slum inhabitants moved back to their slum origin from the resettlement
colonies and issues faced by resettlers. The tenure status, working capacity and income
generation of both slum residents and resettled people analyzed. To broaden the scope of study
some other associated issues analyzed that contribute to human capital such as; (i) changes in
family composition, (ii) changes in number of labours, (iii) changes in working capacity, (iv)
changes in type of employment opportunity, and (v) access to education [11].
The responses on the aforementioned issues in human capital depict the qualitative results
which varied according to individual needs and preferences. Here, the rank chart to gauge the
level of concern of slum dwellers affirms the need for considering livelihood and income
generation an important issue for future shelter policymakers.
3. LOCATIONAL STUDY AND METHODOLOGY
The prime aim of the research was to assess the impact of the resettlement process on the
livelihood pattern of the slum dwellers. The understanding of theoretical aspects on the
relationship between livelihood and resettlement from the significant literature, this paper
primarily focuses on the status of human capital that contributes to analyzing common issues
of the resettlement process.
3.1. Locational Study – Lucknow, India
Lucknow, the capital city of Uttar Pradesh, the northern state of India. This bustling city is
popularly known as the city of nawabs since it was the seat of a line of nawabs who gave the
city a unique identity of ancient culture, art and cuisine. As per census statistics 2011 of
Lucknow city, the population was 28,15, 601 and the jurisdiction area covers 350 km2. There
are 609 slums in the city on 5.01 km2 of land. The total slum population 7,72,807 constitute
about 27 per cent of the total population of the city [13].
The economic activities, job opportunity and living style pull the people from rural areas
to cities in search of jobs, better lifestyle, facilities and economic opportunities into a new
location. However, despite the high rate of employment, the existing housing and services
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1592
editor@iaeme.com
Impact on Livelihood of Slum Dwellers in Lucknow: From Slum Settlement to Resettlement Colony
lack to support the population boom. Slums provide affordable shelter to such migrants but
with no access to adequate housing and basic services. To tackle the problem of slums in a
definite manner, the government introduces different programs or schemes to improve the
existing conditions of slum dwellers and prevent future formation of slums. Unfortunately, the
urban development processes have an impact on the urban poor. The process of planning and
implementation has not sufficiently inclusive, resultant negative externalities are faced by
beneficiaries of such programs or schemes. One such externality is livelihood disruption due
to resettlement of slum dwellers from slum squatters to resettlement colonies.
Ahibaranpurwa slum settlement is located alongside railway track lining in
Ahibaranpurwa locality, Sitapur road. The 30-year-old slum settlement is inhabited by a
mixed community of Hindu and Muslims who had migrated to Lucknow from a neighbouring
district. There are about 250 families of daily wage workers, domestic workers, basket makers
toiling to make enough for the survival of their families. Being close to their employment
every family on average manages to earn 5000 to 6000 rupees per month. Men were engaged
in daily wage work and women prefer either to go out for domestic work or weave basket in
their homes. The common spaces outside their house act as a functional space for such
activities. The land where settlement resides reportedly reserved for greenbelt. The slum
dwellers-initiated community participation along with NGOs upgraded basic services in the
settlement.
The settlement faced eviction in 2010 [7]. Under the gaze and questioning of a vigilant
media and NGO around 75 per cent of the families were assured to provide dwelling units
under public housing programs. These slum dwellers were distributed to a different location
under state government-initiated scheme Kanshi Ram Shahri Garib Awas Yojna. The scheme
came into effect from 2008-2009. The main objective of the scheme was to provide free of
cost housing to urban poor. The allotted dwelling unit of size 26 square meter with kitchen
and toilet facility [21].
3.2. Methodology
The methodology adopted the mix of the quantitative and qualitative approach. The policy
documents and guidelines were studied to construct the argument. Simultaneously, interviews
of key informants provided general information which helped to draft the survey
questionnaire. The primary data collection process addressed only the impact assessment of
livelihood due to the resettlement process. The assessment of the magnitude of shock, data
collection process identified family through simple random sampling method. To derive the
need of household survey, focus group discussion in first site visit was conducted. The small
group of 8 to 10 people provided in-depth knowledge about the displacement and potential
impact faced by the dwellers. For attributes to assess impact study, is based on the context of
local slum scenario and policy implemented. Later a household survey with the semistructured interview was conducted to get individuals opinions and experiences. The collected
data covered the wide range of topics, such as; household size, the working member in the
family, income generated, employment, the location of resettlement colony, expenses, social
organization before and after resettlement [1]. The impact study summarized the status of
human capital in the slum dwellers in the movement from slum settlement to resettlement site.
The sample size was determined in an absolute number of 30 to analyze the inter-relation
between locational change and livelihood.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1593
editor@iaeme.com
Anjali Pathak and Dr B K Das
4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This section discourse and compares the livelihood impacts experienced by slum dwellers
during two phases; pre-resettlement and post-resettlement stage. The total of 55% of eligible
beneficiary families of the slum to whom public housing was allotted moved back to their
slum origin or not left their place. On the other side, only 20% of the families shifted to
resettled housing.
4.1. Livelihood impact in the slum origin
Insecurity of tenure
The ownership of the land on which the slum dweller resides was not on their name. This has
immediate adverse effects on all the slum dwellers and put them under the threat of eviction.
In 2010, informal households were evicted from the origin site. Most of the respondents knew
they would face displacement anytime and have a weak negotiation position.
Deteriorated living conditions and hygiene
The slum dwellers live in a temporary structure with inadequate sanitation and water supply.
The process of displacement and location of resettlement colonies enforced them for
community initiate with technical support from NGO to develop upgrade their living
standards.
Financial Stability
Slum induced several positive impacts on the financial stability of the inhabitants like renting
in slums gives them extra income and community-based saving groups and small business
with social cohesion.
Social cohesion
The slum residents were living in a mixed community of Hindu and Muslims but staying for
more than three decades build unity and concern among the residents. But there were cases
recorded that single mothers face insecurity and children were abused in the locality.
Family Welfare and Income Generation
In every household adult member of the family take an active part in income generation. Most
of the men work as daily wage workers or in small businesses while women were domestic
helpers. Sometimes children help in business to add-on the income. Thus, expenses on food,
education and miscellaneous were well managed for family welfare.
4.2. Livelihood impact in the resettlement site
The physical characteristic of the dwelling unit
The new housing with secured tenure has a positive impact on the residents. The improved
housing condition, privacy, basic amenities and utilities had upgraded their living standards.
On the other side, families with large household size were not satisfied by the size of the
dwelling units. Land and housing are key assets.
Loss of space
The informal spaces developed by the slum dwellers for their recreational and home-based
small businesses were lost in the new housing site. New houses were too small to continue
their businesses which were perceived as a loss of self-employment.
Loss of employment
The resettlement colonies are in far from their existing workplace. The location of Para and
Laulai colonies was approximately 15 Km from their job place. Resultants, many families lost
their jobs and income. Another attribute was an unfamiliar place and occupation which was
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1594
editor@iaeme.com
Impact on Livelihood of Slum Dwellers in Lucknow: From Slum Settlement to Resettlement Colony
different from their skill sets. Women were most vulnerable since the locations of resettled
sites were in the outskirt
Loss of Income
The increased distance from the place of employment resulted in the loss of income and
increased expenses in daily commuting. Whereas, rental space in slums add income to the
resident which was not a case in public housing, so residents were not satisfied by the
displacement from their origin site.
Fragmented family structure
The household size of the slum dweller was on average 7. The existence of a joint family was
observed where brothers, a father with women of the house lives and work united for the
family. However, after the resettlement the size of the family reduced. The common reason
recorded was uncertain migration of family members to other places in search of job
opportunity like the unmarried members. While some families forced members to leave
because of the loss in income in resettlement housing.
In the below table overall ranking was studied based on responses captured in the survey.
This assessment gives a clear picture of the slum dwellers perception on the resettlement
colonies over their livelihood and to stay in the slum origin irrespective of benefits derived
from public housing.
Table 1 Rank chart of parameters
S.No.
Parameters
1
Insecurity of tenure
2
Deteriorated living condition
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Financial stability in a slum
Social cohesion
Family welfare and income
generation
The physical characteristic of the
dwelling unit
Loss of space
Loss of employment
Loss in income
Fragmented family structure
Ranking
9
10
6
7
4
8
5
1
2
3
The families, with ownership of dwelling units in public housing, managed to occupy new
house either by renting or one member of the family used to visit and stay in allotted housing
especially during the night to avoid cancellation of the dwelling by the concerned authority.
The utmost reasons to do so were interconnected and depict desire to own the asset. The
respondents were happy to possess the right to ownership of their dwelling units but threaten
to lose their livelihood and lack of income to sustain their basic needs. The physical
characteristic of the dwelling units reduced the family size, additional spaces and income. The
20 per cent of families shifted to new housing struggles to sustain their living due to less
income and employment. Every eligible beneficiary of the program was holding the
ownership of the dwelling unit in the public housing as an asset. The families were satisfied
by the safe, secure and hygienic environment in the resettlement colonies as compared to their
previous settlement where they face challenges on a daily basis. Still, the disruptive livelihood
was a failure for many in the initial year of resettlement. The insecure tenure and deteriorated
living conditions were tolerable to the urban poor until they can earn their livelihood and
contribute to family welfare. This way they perceive themselves empowered.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1595
editor@iaeme.com
Anjali Pathak and Dr B K Das
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The intent of the study was to assess the impact of movement from slums to resettlement
colonies on the livelihood of slum residents. The most measurable factor affecting the
livelihood of the urban poor was the status of human capital after the resettlement which
includes; change in family composition, number of labours, working capacity, type of
employment opportunity and access to a job opportunity. The approach of the resettlement
process was top-down. Though the identification of an alternative site for relocation involves
community consent but skyrocketed land prices in the context of land market account
negative externalities in the resettlement process. The paramount concern of the resettlement
was non-fulfilment of the symbiotic relationship between livelihoods and newly allocated
dwelling units of public housing. However, the security of tenancy and legalized tenure of
dwelling units had benefitted the residents in many ways. As a result, the resettlement
framework fails to achieve the all-important benefits of participatory resettlement projects and
community bearing the consequences of negligence by the government in assessing the
existing occupational pattern and involvement of their livelihood in the resettlement process.
The first thing is to reorganize and implement the bottom-up approach in the facilitation of
public housing to urban poor. The consent and phase-wise discussion with eligible dwellers
are essential to avoid the after-effect of relocation. Accordingly, alternative sites for
resettlement in relation to existing employment and services, enhancing community
participation, strategic public-private participation, political willingness, the involvement of
NGOs and analysis of site potential and limitation considering community priorities.
REFERENCES
[1]
Alice Nikuze, R. S. (2019). Livelihood impacts of displacement and resettlement on
informal. Science Direct, 38-47.
[2]
Amitabh Kant, V. M. (2016). Cities as engines of growth. Retrieved from
Bloombergquint:
https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/cities-as-engines-ofgrowth#gs.2tzamt
[3]
Cernea, M. (1997). The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced
populations. Elsevier, 1569-1587.
[4]
DFID. (1999). Sustainable Livelihood and Poverty elimination. London: Department for
International Development.
[5]
Dwivedi, R. (2002). Model and Methods in Development-Induced Displacement.
Development and Change.
[6]
Femke van Noorloos, M. K. (2017). Africa’s new cities: The contested future of
urbanisation. Sage Journal.
[7]
Foundation, V. (n.d.). Cracking down on urban poor.
[8]
Kataria, D. (n.d.). Why Demolishing Slums in Indian Cities is Harmful to the lives and
Livelihood of Impoverished Residents. Retrieved from Scholar Strategy network:
https://scholars.org/brief/why-demolishing-slums-indian-cities-harmful-lives-andlivelihoods-impoverished-residents
[9]
Kundu, A. (2012). The challenges of making Indian Cities Slum free (part 1). Retrieved
from South Asia @ LSE: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2012/10/24/the-challenges-ofmaking-indian-cities-slum-free-part-1/
[10]
Kundu, A. (2012). The Challenges of making Indian Cities slum-free (part 2). Retrieved
from South Asia @ LSE: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2012/10/26/the-challenges-ofmaking-indian-cities-slum-free-part-2/
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1596
editor@iaeme.com
Impact on Livelihood of Slum Dwellers in Lucknow: From Slum Settlement to Resettlement Colony
[11]
Md Ashiq Ur Rahman, M. Z. (n.d.). Impact of Resettlement on the livelihood of slum
dwellers: a case study on Mandartola Housing, Gopalganj, Bangladesh. Retrieved from
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328730881
[12]
Mitlin, D. (2003). Addressing urban poverty through strengthening assets. Habitat
international, 393-406.
[13]
MOHUA. (n.d.). Slum Free City Plan of Action. Lucknow: RCUES, Hyderabad.
[14]
Moser, C. O. (2006). Asset-based approach to poverty reduction in a globalized context.
Washington: the Brooking Institution.
[15]
Prof B K Chakravarthy, R. K. (n.d.). Data collection on livelihood in the slums. IDC IIT
Bombay. Retrieved from http://www.idc.iitb.ac.in/~chakku/livelihoods.htm
[16]
Rakodi, C. (2002). A livelihood Approach- conceptual issues and definitions.
[17]
Sabha, R. (2017). The right to adequate housing bill 2016. India: Rajya Sabha.
[18]
Saurabh R Parmar, A. B. (2016). A study to understand the livelihood issues affecting
people resettled from slums to economically weaker section AWAS in Surat City.
international Journal of Medical Science and Public Health.
[19]
Singh, G. (n.d.). Slums and Slum-dwellers: the untapped potential of Collective capacity.
Retrieved from blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/slums-and-slum-dwellers-untappedpotential-collective-capacity
[20]
SUDA. (2011). Guidelines for preparation of a slum-free city plan of action under Rajiv
Awas Yojna. sudaup.org.
[21]
UPAVP. (2009). Manyawar Kanshiram Awas Yojna. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India: UP
State Government.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1597
editor@iaeme.com