Resettlement of Slum Dwellers and Its Impact on Their Livelihood: A Study of the Mandertola Housing in Gopalganj Municipality, Bangladesh

*Md. Sohel Sardar and Md. Moynul Ahsan* 

### **Abstract**

Various push and pull factors trigger poor community to live in slums and squatters in the city area. However, resettlement in these slum areas is sometimes forming without assuring basic livelihood facilities. In 2008, almost 1935 poor people of 349 households in Gopalganj Municipality of Bangladesh were evicted from South Moulovipara slum and relocated to Mandertola area with semi-constructed buildings and other service facilities. The main aim of the study is to explore the locational and livelihood suitability and its impact on its residents by using a number of livelihood indicators of Mandertola housing people. This study used questionnaire survey and observation survey. The study found that Mandertola housing is positively favorable (70.91%) for livelihood than the previous South Moulovipara slum although some service facilities and income-generating activities are found insufficient. It has been found that all families could not be allocated to Mandertola housing; therefore some families migrated to different cities and towns. Finally, this study recommends that resettlement of slum will be successful if it is well adorned with adequate service facilities and income-generating and earning activities.

**Keywords:** slum, eviction, relocation, sustainable livelihood, Gopalganj Municipality

#### **1. Introduction**

Bangladesh is a densely populated country of which 24.3% of the population live under poverty [1]. These low-income poor people have right to live in a safe, affordable, hygienic, and standard housing with all the amenities of living. But they are negligible in terms of affordable housing. However, low-income people are often forced to live illegally in different cities and towns, causing the growth and expansion of slums and squatter settlements [2–4]. The government is acquiring land for various development projects which are displacing a large number of people to foster economic growth and development [5]. Evictions are occurring one after another, destroying the easiest livelihood facility ground. Sometime resettlements after evictions are being formed without arranging the general livelihood facility arrangement [4]. In this study, 1935 people from 387 households who had lived on

 the South Moulovipara slum for more than 35 years are rehabilitated to Mandertola in Gopalganj Municipality jurisdiction [6]. In 2009, the government initiated a project to construct the Sheik Kamal Cricket Stadium where the South Moulovipara slum was located [7]. Because of the national development perspective as directed by the government, the slum dwellers of the South Moulovipara were evicted with a very short notice. Thus problem has arisen on where these people will go. After dozens of meeting, procession, and discussion with bureaucrats and policymakers, finally the government took the decision to resettle the present Mandertola location with housing and other service facilities through Urban Partnership for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) project of UNDP with the partial financial help of Comprehensive Disaster Management Program (CDMP) [7]. But 387 families were not accommodated in that housing project. Only 139 families received shelter facility [6]. For continuing the livelihood of a community, many facilities were found absent initially. The accommodated new place has no adequate transportation, health, job, schools, markets and other facilities. Therefore, this study tried to explore the facts about whether the slum dwellers were facilitated with essential facilities or not. Can their livelihoods be considered and assured as sustainable?

#### **2. Location of the study area**

Mandertola housing is a part of the long-term development solution for the shelter of the evicted communities of South Moulovipara slum located under Gopalganj Municipality which is around 124 km far from the capital city Dhaka, Bangladesh. In this study, South Moulovipara slum and the Mandertola housing are located in two separate areas within the Gopalganj Municipality. South Moulovipara belongs to the jurisdiction of ward no. 01 and the Mandertola under ward no. 8 of Gopalganj Municipality. The Mandertola Housing is named as Dream Address: Mandertola housing. The area of the Mandertola housing is 4.16 acres and 138 families are living in this housing settlement. The Comprehensive Disaster Management Program of UNDP agreed to donate 260 housing unit, and among them 138 families have been allotted and the remaining is in process. Each of the housing units is designed with two rooms and one veranda, one kitchen, and one bathroom including toilet. Each housing unit consists of an area of 370 sq. ft. The houses are semi-pucca building (roof is made of corrugated sheet but wall is made of materials like burnt bricks,

**Figure 1.**  *Satellite image of relocated slum in Gopalganj Municipality.* 

*Resettlement of Slum Dwellers and Its Impact on Their Livelihood: A Study of the Mandertola… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

cement, and concrete) and the environment of the settlement is nice with open space. It has a well-landscaped design with mosque and temple for religious activities. There are provisions for elementary school community center, etc. At present, there are tube facilities but no water supply line is available (**Figure 1**).

#### **3. Methods and techniques**

This study has followed both questionnaire survey and observation method. In terms of questionnaire survey, 50 households (out of 138 households) were surveyed by using "systematic random sampling." In this type of probability sampling method, households are selected according to a starting point, and every third (periodic interval 2) household has been surveyed. By this way more than one third of the total household has been surveyed. Situations of the slum dwellers at new location have been observed through observation survey. Various qualitative information that directly or indirectly influenced the livelihood of Mandertola housing people have been observed. **Table 1** shows the parameters of data collection of both observation and questionnaire surveys.


#### *ISBS 2019 - 4th International Sustainable Buildings Symposium*


### **Table 2.**

*Example of weight calculation of livelihood impact for better living.* 

#### **Figure 2.**

*Acceptance calculation of the location.* 

 Again, a technique was applied to justify whether the relocated slum dwellers are happy or not in the new location. A set of criteria under some socioeconomic parameter was selected, and data was collected under these criteria. It was in the way that when each of the answer of the criteria was counted, then it is marked as "1." The average positive response scored the number "1," and the negative response scored as "0." Finally, the highest average of the total score has been accepted as a suitable housing. From starting to end, the result of each criterion was identified in the input undergoing method/system and output or resulted form. **Table 2** represents an example of weight calculation of livelihood impact for better living.

Finally, the greater sum of the scores has been accepted as suitable location in this study. The formula is presented in **Figure 2**.

#### **4. Findings and analysis**

Fifty-six indicators under nine components are used to analyze locational suitability and livelihood in South Moulovipara slum and Mandertola housing. The nine components are (a) household expenditure, (b) housing condition, (c) water facilities, (d) latrine, (e) drainage and garbage disposal, (f) land information, (g) land use (within site), (h) social affairs, and (i) service availability (distance calculation). Each of these components consists of a number of indicators for calculating the weightage score.

#### **4.1 Household expenditure**

A total of eight indicators have been studied under household expenditure in this research. The average monthly expenditure for food purpose of a five-member family in South Moulovipara was a little higher than Mandertola housing as the local market was located very close to the South Moulovipara slum. But residents in Mandertola slum have little scope of shopping and marketing facilities. Vendors were frequently available in South Moulovipara slum, while vendors are not interested to go to Mandertola housing because it is far from the town center. Another

*Resettlement of Slum Dwellers and Its Impact on Their Livelihood: A Study of the Mandertola… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

**Figure 3.**  *Monthly household expenditure of South Moulovipara slum and Mandertola housing.* 

major cause is that the expenditure of daily necessaries is high in the South Moulovipara slum because they bought their necessaries regularly; therefore, product increase rate was clearly observed. But dwellers in Mandertola housing do weekly market; therefore prices seem quite cheap than South Moulovipara slum. From the questionnaire survey, it has been found that around 3500 taka (84 taka = 1 dollar) was spent for food per month in South Moulovipara slum, while 3338 taka was spent for food in Mandertola housing. Again, monthly expenditure for health purpose at South Moulovipara was higher than the Mandertola slum. It has also observed that Mandertola is much more hygienic and has good exterior environment than South Moulovipara slum. Even Mandertola dwellers are enjoying favorable livelihood activities because the average monthly expenditure for the education of relocated families is higher than that in South Moulovipara. The slum dwellers mentioned that the educational institution was near to their house while this facility was far from Mandertola housing. Another fact is that private tutors are not interested to go to Mandertola due to lack of transport and far location from the town center.

Another important indicator is transportation mode and cost. It represents that the monthly expenditure of transportation for Mandertola housing is higher than that of South Moulovipara. The major cause behind this high expenditure is due to long distance. South Moulovipara was close to the workplace and the educational institutions also. In this respect, South Moulovipara is positive for livelihood in terms of transportation. **Figure 3** represents the monthly household expenditure in South Moulovipara slum and Mandertola housing.

Among the eight indicators, the average monthly expenditure for education and expenditure for transportation is better than Mandertola housing, while other indicators such as expenditure for food, health, fuel, clothing, housing purpose, and loan payment services are better in Mandertola housing. Finally, it has been calculated that Mandertola housing scored 6 (out of 8), while South Moulovipara scored 2 (out of 8).

#### **4.2 Housing condition**

Eleven indicators such as type of house, number of room, area of house, use of kitchen, kitchen environment, distance to kitchen, existence of air circulation, availability of sunlight, surrounding environment, existence of storm water logging/stagnation, and existence of legal electricity facility have been studied under

 housing condition in this research. From the questionnaire survey, it has been found that around 58% of South Moulovipara slum dwellers were living in the kutcha tin-shaded houses (houses built of mud brick and tin shade), while in Mandertola housing all people are living in the semi-pucca houses especially on houses built with burnt bricks in the walls and tin in the roofs. In terms of living space, 58% of South Moulovipara slum dwellers had only a room in the house, while all houses in Mandertola have two rooms and two balconies including a bathroom and kitchen. In terms of area use (in sq. ft), the minimum space at the South Moulovipara was 80 sq ft. in average, whereas Mandertola houses are holding the minimum space of 370 sq ft. In South In Moulovipara slum, around 90% people were using shared kitchen; however, families in Mandertola housing are using individual kitchen. Again, it has been found from field survey that around 90% of the kitchen environment is bad at South Moulovipara, whereas all kitchen environments are found good in Mandertola housing.

 Considering the surrounding environment indicator, it has been found that 78% of the South Moulovipara inhabitants argued that the surrounding environment is bad. However, all houses seem to have good environment condition at Mandertola housing because the houses are designed in a planned way and keep scope to maintain sustainable environment. In terms of water stagnation situation of the two settlements, around 74% of the families at South Moulovipara mentioned that water stagnation was a part of their life, whereas families in Mandertola housing mentioned that there is no water stagnation happening after land development of the area. Even plinth level of the houses are high that makes a favorable livelihood for them. In terms of availability of legal electricity in field survey, it has been found that there is no legal electricity at the South Moulovipara slum. Though there is no electricity distributed to Mandertola housing till now, there will be access to electricity in the near future. Finally, it has been found from the weight calculation that South Moulovipara slum has not achieved any score (out of 11), while Mandertola housing has scored 11 (out of 11).

#### **4.3 Water facilities**

 Around 60% of people used pipe water as the main source of water in South Moulovipara slum. However in Mandertola housing, all people are dependent on the tube-well water though they will get the water supply from Gopalganj Municipality within the shortest possible time. Again, in terms of distance of water source at South Moulovipara and Mandertola, it has been found that 40% of the people collect pipe water from a distance of 101 to 200 ft, and 34% collect the water from a distance of more than 200 ft far from their houses. But at the Mandertola housing, 68% of the people collect their water from a distance of 101– 200 ft, and only 4% of the people collect from a distance of about 200 ft. Therefore, with respect to the distance of water collection point, Mandertola is better than South Moulovipara. Again, it has been observed that the most frequent waterborne disease is diarrhea, but 80% of the families at Mandertola housing responded that no waterborne diseases exist there. The major cause they replied is that South Moulovipara slum was frequently affected by water logging, but at Mandertola slum there is no water logging condition identified. Thus, Mandertola housing is found to be better than South Moulovipara. Again, the level of satisfaction on drinking water of the slum dwellers at South Moulovipara and the Mandertola housing has been observed in that 70% of the families were not satisfied at the South Moulovipara, but at the Mandertola housing, around 94% are satisfied. As per the five indicators (available source of drinking water, quality of drinking water, purification of water, distance of water source, frequent waterborne disease, and satisfaction on drinking water source), it has been found from weight calculation that South Moulovipara slum

*Resettlement of Slum Dwellers and Its Impact on Their Livelihood: A Study of the Mandertola… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

achieved a score from availability of the source of drinking water, while Mandertola housing scored from the other indicators, i.e., 5 out of 6.

#### **4.4 Latrine**

From field survey, it has been found that 90% of the families at South Moulovipara used common latrine, while at the Mandertola housing, residents are using individual latrine in every family. Seventy-eight percent of the people at South Moulovipara had the semi-pucca latrine, and in Mandertola slum all families are using pucca latrine. The South Moulovipara slum people respond that their latrine was 21–30 ft far from their house, but at the Mandertola every family uses attached latrine. Again, in Mandertola, the distance of water source from the latrine is closer, but it was a little far at the South Moulovipara slum. Mandertola housing dwellers are collecting tap water in their house; thus distance is not a factor. But safe drinking water source is a little far in South Moulovipara slum where dwellers could collect within their proximity. Thus South Moulovipara is positive in this respect. From weight calculation it has been found that South Moulovipara slum scored 1 (out of 4), while Mandertola housing has scored 3 (out of 4).

#### **4.5 Drainage and garbage disposal**

There was no drainage system close to the South Moulovipara slum; however a small and narrow drain exists around 31 m far from the households. However, a well-planned drain exists in Mandertola housing which is only 10 m far from the housing complex. Slum people at South Moulovipara managed their garbage individually, but at the Mandertola housing, it is managed by the community. It indicates that families at Mandertola housing are practicing community-based garbage management which represents environmental healthy living condition in Mandertola housing. As per the five indicators (existence of drain, distance of drain, capacity of rainwater discharge, location of garbage disposal site, and type of management of garbage), it has been found from the weight calculation that South Moulovipara slum did not get any score, while Mandertola housing has scored 5 (out of 5).

#### **4.6 Land information**

At South Moulovipara, 80% of the people responded that they lived in government khas land on a rental basis, and the remaining were living on a lease basis provided by the local leaders and landlord. But families at the Mandertola housing have received these houses through a formal leasing system from the government for 100 years. All household are paid by loan to live in Mandertola housing which represents that families of Mandertola will be the landowner in a certain period of time. Around 36% of the families at South Moulovipara paid 1000 Taka for house rent and 26% paid 1500 Taka. But at Mandertola housing 100% families pay 400 Taka as installment. It indicates that Mandertola housing is economically feasible. From weight calculation, it has been found that South Moulovipara slum did not get any score, while Mandertola housing scored 3 (out of 4).

#### **4.7 Land use (within site)**

In this study, the indicator of availability of courtyard at the South Moulovipara and the Mandertola housing has been observed. It is observed that there was no courtyard at South Moulovipara slum, but at Mandertola housing

there is courtyard for children playing, gossiping, and so on. As per the indicator of availability of land for homestead vegetation at South Moulovipara and the Mandertola housing, it has been observed that there were no lands for homestead vegetation at South Moulovipara, but it is available at Mandertola housing where families can prepare vegetable garden. Thus Mandertola housing conveys the positive livelihood at Mandertola housing. As per the five indicators (availability of land for courtyard, availability of land for vegetation, availability of land for elementary school, availability of land for religious place/institution, availability of land for other facilities), it has been found from weight calculation that South Moulovipara slum did not get any score, while Mandertola housing has scored 5 (out of 5).

#### **4.8 Social affairs**

 Though South Moulovipara slum was an old slum in Gopalganj Municipality, around 50% of the respondents replied that there were strong relationships among the dwellers. On the other hand, 86% of the families replied that there are good relationships prevailing at Mandertola housing. From the questionnaire survey, it has been found that there were social insecurity at the South Moulovipara, but at the Mandertola housing, there is no insecurity due to strong community bondage, and even there is no possibility of eviction. At Mandertola, there are options for elementary school, but at the South Moulovipara, there was no elementary school. As per the four indicators such as relationship with neighbor, insecurity problem, member with social organizations, and no possibility of eviction, it has been found from weight calculation that South Moulovipara slum scored a point as slum people have developed membership with various social organizations, whereas Mandertola housing has gained other scores, i.e. 4 (out of 4).

#### **4.9 Service availability (proximity)**

 Analysis shows that job location was close from the South Moulovipara slum, whereas the job location is far from the Mandertola housing. Around 68% of the people responded that the job location is within 1–2 km from South Moulovipara slum, whereas it is more than 2 km far from the Mandertola housing. It has been observed that 98% of the families from the South Moulovipara slum found easy access to hospital services because hospitals are located around 1–2 km far from the slum; however, all families from Mandertola housing responded that they need to travel more than 2 km from their housing area. Again it represented that South Moulovipara dwellers were getting much privilege from Mandertola dwellers. Survey shows that 96% of the families replied that the general dispensary locates at a distance of 1–2 km from the South Moulovipara and 60% of the families replied that the nearest dispensary locates at a distance of 1–2 km from Mandertola housing. Thus South Moulovipara is a better place in this respect. It has been observed that the new market (shopping mall) is located at a walking distance from the South Moulovipara slum, but it is far from the Mandertola housing. Thus South Moulovipara is economically better to live in, in terms of locational aspects. The available nearest mode of transport is rickshaw and van. Seventy-four percent families replied that rickshaw and van were available always, whereas Mandertola had no available mode of transport. Yet 34% families replied that the nearest available mode of transport is rickshaw and van, and 66% replied that there are also other modes of transport specially the auto rickshaw in which the station is about 1 km far. Thus it can be pointed here that South Moulovipara is better for living than Mandertola in this respect. At the South Moulovipara, 78%

*Resettlement of Slum Dwellers and Its Impact on Their Livelihood: A Study of the Mandertola… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 


Total criteria (55) 16 39

#### **Table 3.**

*Livelihood weight index in South Moulovipara slum and Mandertola housing.* 

 of families replied that transportation mode is available throughout the day, while in Mandertola housing 54% replied that transport facilities are available from the nearest Mandertola market. However, 46% replied that it is available within a certain time. Thus South Moulovipara housing is better for living in this respect. From livelihood weight index of South Moulovipara slum and Mandertola housing, it has been found that in terms of distance calculation, South Moulovipara slum scored 10 (out of 10), while Mandertola housing has not scored any point.

 From the above discussion of indicators, and after compilation of values with respect to indicators, the weight index result has been found as presented in **Table 3**.

The livelihood weightage result has been presented in the **Figure 4** below.

From the above formula and calculation, it is found that South Moulovipara consists of 29.09% positive livelihood and Mandertola consists of 70.91% positive livelihood. In this case, it can be stated here that Mandertola housing is more sustainable for livelihood although some criteria are absent.



**Figure 4.**  *Calculation of livelihood weightage in South Moulovipara and Mandertola.* 

### **5. Concluding remarks**

 The flow of urban migration is increasing day by day, and displacement or relocation creates impact on livelihood in accordance with previous settlements. Under the Gopalganj Municipality of Bangladesh, 387 poor families lived in the South Moulovipara who migrated from different parts of the rural areas to survive. But they were evicted due to hindrance of the pace of national development initiatives, which creates informal settlement and becomes an obstacle to the main goals and targets of sustainable development. Resettlement through government housing project is a solution, but effective management and adequate service delivery with good governance mechanism are highly necessary. In this study, resettlement of slum dwellers to a planned housing complex is found positive, and it is identified that this governmental resettlement will be successful if it is well adorned with service facilities and incomegenerating facilities [8]. The different social, economic, and environmental indicators are moderately available in the Mandertola housing. In this respect, both GOs and NGOs should take necessary steps to create income and social welfare opportunities to relocated families and those who are beyond. Again, construction of multistoried building with elevated plinth and flourishing income-generating activities through providing skill training program, providing family healthcare center within close proximity, setting pure drinking water supply system and banking facilities, and formation of a welfare organization can ensure Mandertola housing a sustainable resettlement program in Gopalganj Municipality. From physical design perspective, three- or four-storied building could be constructed instead of the existing semi-pucca building, as it is cost effective and has service delivery facilities, because it would require less land and the remaining land would be used for farming and cultivation small workshops for product making, bakeries, product depot, animal husbandry, etc., and in this way the dwellers could earn on a cooperative basis. This strategy could make them self-employed and entrepreneurs also. Again, elevated plinth could provide protection from flood, water log, etc. Setting water and sanitation point in the waterlogged free area and providing green technology such as piping systems for biogas and solar electricity system could be used in combination. Finally, maintaining social cohesion as well as initiating priority-based projects can make Mandertola a sustainable settlement for relocated people in a southern district like Gopalganj in Bangladesh.

### **Author details**

Md. Sohel Sardar1 and Md. Moynul Ahsan<sup>2</sup> \*

1 Gopalganj Municipality, Gopalganj, Bangladesh

2 Department of Real Estate Development and Management, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

\*Address all correspondence to: moynulurp01@gmail.com

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Resettlement of Slum Dwellers and Its Impact on Their Livelihood: A Study of the Mandertola… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87836* 

#### **References**

[1] BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BBS; 2016

[2] Ahsan MM, Rahman MH. In: Jahan S, Abul Kalam AKM, editors. Environmental Impact of Rapid Urban Growth in Dhaka Megacity: A Case Study of Bhatara Union in Dhaka Metropolitan Development Area and Its Planning Problems, Issues and Policies. Bangladesh Institute of Planners; 2013. pp. 99-109

[3] Viratkapan V, Perera R, Watanabe S. Factors contributing to the development performance of slum relocation projects in Bangkok, Thailand. International Development Planning Review. 2004;**26**(3):231-260

[4] Wood G, Salway S. Policy arena, introduction: Securing livelihoods in Dhaka slums. Journal of International Development. 2000;**12**:669-688

[5] Atahar AS. Development project, land acquisition and resettlement in Bangladesh; well formulated National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2013;**3**(7):306-307

[6] UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Urban Poverty Reduction in Bangladesh: The UPPR Experience, Documentation of UPPR Learning and Good Practices. Dhaka, Bangladesh: UNDP; 2013

[7] Juhasz A, Rahman A. The Gopalganj Housing Model—A Way Forward for Community Driven Affordable Urban Housing. Dhaka, Bangladesh; 2013

[8] Hasan M. Creating new economic opportunities for displaced people: Approaches to income restoration. Social Change. 2006;**36**(1):87-108

**429**

**Chapter 35**

**Abstract**

Investigation of the Bayrampaşa

Transformation Project in Terms

*Mert Tolon, Andaç Erdem Çakır and Hasan Hüseyin Okur*

In its narrowest sense, a city is defined as a settlement area where most of the population is engaged in trade, industry, or management, without agricultural activities. As a result of population movements, changes in city vision, economic collapse zones, and squatter house and sometimes due to natural or urban risks and disasters, cities are developing, growing, or especially starting to deteriorate. To increase the quality of life of the city and to be prepared for all kinds of urban risks immediately after the significant Marmara earthquakes in 1999, many studies were realized in İstanbul by İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality in order to obtain data from districts of Zeytinburnu, Fatih, Kucukcekmece, Bahçelievler, Bayrampasa, and Gungoren for urban transformation planning. In this study, the urban transformation project carried out in the Bayrampaşa district of İstanbul is discussed, and the process and objectives of the regional urban transformation project have been examined based on the principle of utilizing the environmental values and natural resources rationally. In the preparation phase of the sustainability focus of the Old Penitentiary Area-Urban Transformation Project in Bayrampaşa district, a sustainable environmental concept approach was used to shed light on different

transformation models, methods, principles, and other projects.

transformation project, İstanbul

**1. Introduction**

minimal damage.

**Keywords:** sustainability, sustainable project management, urban transformation,

Cities are in a life cycle due to changing living conditions, a rapid growth of population and migration, uncontrolled and unplanned growth in cities' industrialization movement, economic distribution among regions/cities, social development, community awareness, disaster risk, artificial risks, public security, and administrative political and bureaucratic problems. For this reason, cities also wear out and die like living organisms [1]. So, urban transformation studies are carried out by the public to be prepared for these urban risks and hazards and to have

Old Penitentiary Area-Urban

of Sustainability

#### **Chapter 35**
