One of the many informal settlements the city of Surabaya, Indonesia has upgraded since the 1960s with participation from residents. Photo by Peter Edelman.
Many cities, particularly in developing countries, have large areas
of informal settlements — poor neighborhoods that grew organically, but
which often lack structurally sound buildings and services like running
water, sanitation and waste management. The traditional approach to
upgrading these informal settlements (often called slums), which consists of razing and reconstructing without residents’ consent or participation, doesn’t work.
For much of the 20th century, cities have managed slum upgrading with
little or no consultation with residents themselves. Many cities’ preferred solution
to fixing deteriorating slum conditions and affordable housing
shortages has been to simply knock slums down and rebuild in the most
cost-effective way possible, usually on the city’s outskirts. But this
practice doesn’t consider residents’ sense of home and place, their
employment and social networks, the availability of basic services, and
in general, does not actually improve affordable housing options. In
such cases, residents often need to spend more on transport and on
coping with gaps in services.
Some cities are adopting new approaches. Surabaya, Indonesia
introduced an innovative housing program in 1969 — the Kampung
Improvement Program — which transformed the way residents of poor,
traditional neighborhoods called kampung lived in the city.
Though not perfect, this program became one of the earliest examples of
successful slum upgrading in the world.
Surabaya’s Inclusive Approach to Indonesia’s Urban Housing Problem
Indonesia has grappled with rapid urbanization and the proliferation
of city slums for decades. Since independence from the Dutch in 1945,
Indonesian cities have grown quickly. Their populations are currently
growing by 4.1% per year
on average — the fastest urbanization rate in Asia. Yet spending on
basic infrastructure and services remains inadequate. While the economy
grew 5.8% per year in the mid-2000s, infrastructure investments only grew by 3% each year. In 2009, 23% of Indonesia’s urban population was still living in informal settlements.
In the traditional model of slum upgrading, new high- or mid-rise apartment buildings replace informal settlements — but they don’t stop new slums from forming
nor do they increase residential density and available housing by much.
Knocking down slums can also displace residents, in effect just
shifting slums from the city center to its periphery, which exacerbates
urban sprawl and limits people’s access to services. To combat these
challenges, Surabaya took a new approach.
<img src="https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/blog-surabaya-3_0.jpg" alt="<p>The Kampung Improvement Program, a participatory, on-site approach to upgrading poor, traditional neighborhoods in Surabaya, became an international model. Even neighborhoods not formally in the program have independently undertaken similar upgrades. Photo by Ashok Das.The Kampung Improvement Program, a participatory, on-site approach to upgrading poor, traditional neighborhoods in Surabaya, became an international model. Even neighborhoods not formally in the program have independently undertaken similar upgrades. Photo by Ashok Das.
Between 1969-1998, Surabaya championed the Kampung Improvement
Program, an international model of participatory, on-site slum
upgrading: a research-backed method
for ensuring adequate, secure and affordable housing in global South
cities. Part of the program’s success was due to close collaboration
between the local government and experts from the university, Sepuluh
Nopember Institute of Technology. Participatory upgrading puts residents
at the heart of decision-making and day-to-day upgrades, using
community-sourced data to identify and prioritize residents’ most
critical needs.
Surabaya was able to raise outside funding from development
organizations, including the World Bank, to provide basic infrastructure
such as gutters, paved footpaths, stormwater drainage, public toilets,
waste management and primary schools. On top of physical interventions,
the city empowered individuals to participate in planning processes and
upgrading their homes. Communities typically contributed between one-third and one-half
of upgrade costs. Residents also helped with the ongoing operation and
management of projects like piped water and roads, which created a
greater sense of neighborhood ownership and agency.
An Uncertain Future for Surabaya’s Informal Settlements
The Kampung Improvement Projects have been good for Surabaya.
Residents have benefited from improved access to basic services,
structurally sound houses and shops, a healthy local environment, and a
sense of pride and ownership over their neighborhoods. This isn’t to say
that the program has solved all of Surabaya’s housing problems, but the
policy of on-site upgrading has improved the lives of the poor while
respecting personal and cultural preferences for their homes and
neighborhoods.
<img src="https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/blog-surabaya-2_0.jpg" alt="<p>Through the Kampung Improvement Program, residents of Surabaya\'s poor neighborhoods have benefited from improved infrastructure and services, better buildings and a healthier environment. Photo by Axel Drainville/Flickr.Through the Kampung Improvement Program, residents of Surabaya’s poor neighborhoods have benefited from improved infrastructure and services, better buildings and a healthier environment. Photo by Axel Drainville/Flickr.
However, new challenges threaten Surabaya’s legacy, including rising demand for land and infrastructure and a shift away from Kampung Improvement Projects to public rental houses known as rusunawa.
Since the late 1980s, developers in Surabaya have favored large-scale
projects that push out and price out low-income residents — a problem
that many cities face. Surabaya’s outward expansion has outpaced improvements
to the struggling public transportation network, limiting many
residents’ access to jobs, healthcare and schools. Compounding the
problem are biases against the growing migrant population, city resource
constraints, and an emphasis on overly technocratic urban planning that
glosses over social issues. Surabaya will have to overcome these
challenges if it is to continue providing affordable housing to its
growing population.
How Can Cities Preserve Affordable Housing While Providing Services and Opportunities?
Improving the urban poor’s quality of life and access to services
can improve a city’s economy, environment, public health, education
levels, and more. In fact, upgrading slums in place to be safer, more
livable and more resilient against climate change is written into the New Urban Agenda, a global standard for sustainable urban development.
Other countries have adopted similar programs. In Thailand, the Baan
Mankong program provided loans to informal communities to invest in
sustainable redevelopment projects. This led to a nearly 20% rise in the number of people living in durable homes in the country. Mumbai, India has moved away from razing slums
to embrace participatory and on-site upgrading, championed by an
alliance between an NGO and two civil society organizations representing
slum dwellers.
Solutions common to these programs include:
Prioritizing on-site, incremental upgrades. To
avoid the worst effects of gentrification and urban expansion, cities
should invest in incremental improvement projects (whether those include
basic infrastructure like paved roads or piped water, or resources for families to upgrade their homes themselves) instead of steamrollering informal settlements and reconstructing them wholesale.
Ensuring vulnerable groups have a voice. Informal
residents, squatters, migrants, people with disabilities, and women,
among others, should be front and center in policymaking processes so
that new policies for housing and urban services meet the needs of the
most vulnerable.
Partnering with NGOs and academic institutions.
Surabaya’s successful partnership with its Institute of Technology
exemplifies how symbiotic relationships between different urban actors
can fill knowledge gaps, facilitate innovation, and build up capacity
for positive change.
Improving transport networks. Cities should improve
their transportation networks to ensure access for low-income
communities. Building complete streets that work for all users (not just
cars), focusing resources on integrated, user-oriented public
transport, and managing demand for private vehicles can help ensure
vulnerable residents’ equitable access to opportunities.
Avoiding displacement of residents and improving access to services.
Cities should limit high-end development that displaces low-income
residents to the periphery of the city, far from essential services.
Ensuring reliable and affordable access to energy, water and sanitation
infrastructure, and connecting these communities to the broader citywide
network of jobs and services can help transform cities so that they work for all residents. This also helps those who work at home operate safely and productively, supporting the larger urban economy.
<img src="https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/blog-surabaya-4_0.jpg" alt="<p>Paved roads and footpaths were important upgrades the Kampung Improvement Program brought to Surabaya\'s informal settlements, with full participation from residents. Photo by Ashok Das.Paved roads and footpaths were important upgrades the Kampung Improvement Program brought to Surabaya’s informal settlements, with full participation from residents. Photo by Ashok Das.
For rapidly growing cities in developing and emerging economies, addressing affordable housing and curbing unmanaged urban expansion are urgent problems. Upgrading slums, which already provide affordable if inadequate housing — with input from the people who actually live in these neighborhoods — is an essential part of the solution.
Many cities, particularly in developing countries, have large areas of informal settlements — poor neighborhoods that grew organically, but which often lack structurally sound buildings and services like running water, sanitation and waste management. The traditional approach to upgrading these informal settlements (often called slums), which consists of razing and reconstructing without residents’ consent or participation, doesn’t work.
For much of the 20th century, cities have managed slum upgrading with little or no consultation with residents themselves. Many cities’ preferred solution to fixing deteriorating slum conditions and affordable housing shortages has been to simply knock slums down and rebuild in the most cost-effective way possible, usually on the city’s outskirts. But this practice doesn’t consider residents’ sense of home and place, their employment and social networks, the availability of basic services, and in general, does not actually improve affordable housing options. In such cases, residents often need to spend more on transport and on coping with gaps in services.
Some cities are adopting new approaches. Surabaya, Indonesia introduced an innovative housing program in 1969 — the Kampung Improvement Program — which transformed the way residents of poor, traditional neighborhoods called kampung lived in the city. Though not perfect, this program became one of the earliest examples of successful slum upgrading in the world.
Surabaya’s Inclusive Approach to Indonesia’s Urban Housing Problem
Indonesia has grappled with rapid urbanization and the proliferation of city slums for decades. Since independence from the Dutch in 1945, Indonesian cities have grown quickly. Their populations are currently growing by 4.1% per year on average — the fastest urbanization rate in Asia. Yet spending on basic infrastructure and services remains inadequate. While the economy grew 5.8% per year in the mid-2000s, infrastructure investments only grew by 3% each year. In 2009, 23% of Indonesia’s urban population was still living in informal settlements.
In the traditional model of slum upgrading, new high- or mid-rise apartment buildings replace informal settlements — but they don’t stop new slums from forming nor do they increase residential density and available housing by much. Knocking down slums can also displace residents, in effect just shifting slums from the city center to its periphery, which exacerbates urban sprawl and limits people’s access to services. To combat these challenges, Surabaya took a new approach.
Between 1969-1998, Surabaya championed the Kampung Improvement Program, an international model of participatory, on-site slum upgrading: a research-backed method for ensuring adequate, secure and affordable housing in global South cities. Part of the program’s success was due to close collaboration between the local government and experts from the university, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology. Participatory upgrading puts residents at the heart of decision-making and day-to-day upgrades, using community-sourced data to identify and prioritize residents’ most critical needs.
Surabaya was able to raise outside funding from development organizations, including the World Bank, to provide basic infrastructure such as gutters, paved footpaths, stormwater drainage, public toilets, waste management and primary schools. On top of physical interventions, the city empowered individuals to participate in planning processes and upgrading their homes. Communities typically contributed between one-third and one-half of upgrade costs. Residents also helped with the ongoing operation and management of projects like piped water and roads, which created a greater sense of neighborhood ownership and agency.
An Uncertain Future for Surabaya’s Informal Settlements
The Kampung Improvement Projects have been good for Surabaya. Residents have benefited from improved access to basic services, structurally sound houses and shops, a healthy local environment, and a sense of pride and ownership over their neighborhoods. This isn’t to say that the program has solved all of Surabaya’s housing problems, but the policy of on-site upgrading has improved the lives of the poor while respecting personal and cultural preferences for their homes and neighborhoods.
However, new challenges threaten Surabaya’s legacy, including rising demand for land and infrastructure and a shift away from Kampung Improvement Projects to public rental houses known as rusunawa. Since the late 1980s, developers in Surabaya have favored large-scale projects that push out and price out low-income residents — a problem that many cities face. Surabaya’s outward expansion has outpaced improvements to the struggling public transportation network, limiting many residents’ access to jobs, healthcare and schools. Compounding the problem are biases against the growing migrant population, city resource constraints, and an emphasis on overly technocratic urban planning that glosses over social issues. Surabaya will have to overcome these challenges if it is to continue providing affordable housing to its growing population.
How Can Cities Preserve Affordable Housing While Providing Services and Opportunities?
Improving the urban poor’s quality of life and access to services can improve a city’s economy, environment, public health, education levels, and more. In fact, upgrading slums in place to be safer, more livable and more resilient against climate change is written into the New Urban Agenda, a global standard for sustainable urban development.
Other countries have adopted similar programs. In Thailand, the Baan Mankong program provided loans to informal communities to invest in sustainable redevelopment projects. This led to a nearly 20% rise in the number of people living in durable homes in the country. Mumbai, India has moved away from razing slums to embrace participatory and on-site upgrading, championed by an alliance between an NGO and two civil society organizations representing slum dwellers.
Solutions common to these programs include:
For rapidly growing cities in developing and emerging economies, addressing affordable housing and curbing unmanaged urban expansion are urgent problems. Upgrading slums, which already provide affordable if inadequate housing — with input from the people who actually live in these neighborhoods — is an essential part of the solution.
Source: World Resources Institute