Jamuna Khadgi – Global College International (BBA)
- Background of the study
Nepal is a country with having 26.6 million population. The most populated area of Nepal is Kathmandu valley. Kathmandu valley is the largest urban enter in the country with five major cities. Since being the center of the country, it has got all the infrastructure and factors of living. Due to the high rate of proper employment, education, health, security, and infrastructure, many people from rural areas migrate here. Internal Migration is one of the major causes of the high population rate in the valley. Ultimately, the consequences of unplanned urban growth contribute to the expansion of informal settlements occupied predominantly by urban squatters.
The word “Socioeconomic status” refers to a person’s place in society as determined by a mix of occupational, economic, and educational factors, which are generally represented in ordered categories, or on an ordinal scale. Many classification systems have been proposed, ranging from a simple division based on occupation, which is usually closely related to income and educational level, to more complex systems based on specific details of educational level, income, occupation, and occasionally other criteria, such as whether the usual place of residence is owned or rented, and the rateable value of the dwelling. (Mattson, 2017) Other elements that impact socioeconomic status include ethnicity, literacy, and cultural traits.
Squatters or sukumbasi in Nepali, reside on land without legal rights. By living in informal settlements, they are excluded from basic rights, social services, and land security typically protected by the government because of their landlessness (Acharya 2010). They are generally characterized as slums due to their impoverished living conditions, highly congested spaces, and an absence of public facilities such as education, health, safe drinking water, sanitation, and waste management. Residents of these settlements are also highly vulnerable to eviction because of insecure residential status, deprived of their right to security of tenure (Shrestha 2010). Therefore, the growth of squatter settlements is not just a negative byproduct of urbanization, but a failure of government to manage urban development and ensure basic human rights through inclusionary policies and protection of the right to adequate housing.
- Statement of the problem
When the word squatters strike a common individual’s head, he/ she will obviously think of these people as dirty and bad people. Dirty in a sense, squatters are regarded as people living in unhealthy physical and social environments. People easily generalize squatter as people with low health and social status (UN Habitat, 2004). It’s true when people look from outside, squatters are the one who has unmanaged housing and living style, they eventually lack proper sanitation and other basic facilities. Houses made of temporary materials, such as the roofs are made of tin, narrow streets few/ no windows unhygienic living conditions, and thousands of people living in a very small area are some more characteristics of the squatters (Acharya, 2010). The living environment of the poor ranks as the most life-threatening and unhealthy living environment that exists on earth (UNCHS, 1994). Their dwellings are unsafe and lack the basic infrastructures and services such as water supply and sanitation, solid waste management, energy and transportation facilities, etc. due to insufficient quantities and unaffordable prices (Turkstra, 1992). These dwellings reside in environmentally unsafe locations such as flood-crowded, damp, inadequately lit, and poorly ventilated.
The urban poor is supposed to be the most sufferer group of urban society. The majority of residents in squatter settlements have very low incomes that force them to live in miserable conditions. The quality of life in these settlements is very poor (Hardy et al, 1997). Similar to this, a study on ‘the squatters of Banshighat settlement in Kathmandu’ were found living in flood plain areas with poor environmental conditions. That only 25% of the households possessed toilet, all of temporary nature and of the rest, 83% were defecating at the river bank. The majority (44%) of the house was found to be temporary in nature (Koirala, 2001). Another study on ‘squatter settlement of Kathmandu, Dhomakhel’ also gives a picture of poor living environment condition of the settlement where 74% of the houses were found in temporary condition with majority of the people without access to a private toilet, water supply, etc. (Pradhan, 2003).
To the best of my knowledge, there have been limited studies available on the issue of squatters which needs to be explored in multi-dimension. To date, no single researcher has focused their research on the socio-economic conditions of Squatters residing in Godavari, Lalitpur. So through this research, I have tried to bridge the gap by collecting information on the parameters related to the economic and social status of squatter’s settlement. Keeping this view in mind, this research has been conducted with the aim to collect some fresh quantitative data from the field on the socio-economic status of Godavari, Lalitpur.
- Rationale of the study
This study highlighted the socio-economic condition of squatters. The study might be helpful to extend the knowledge regarding this issue. It may serve as helpful guidance for future research studies. The study may help policymakers and development planners in introducing relevant development interventions. This research might be the better guidelines for the various organizations that are interested to do something better for those communities to uplift their living standard. Therefore, this study could be important for knowing and exploring the situation to initiate necessary programs in improving the livelihood of the squatters, the urban poor. It depicts to present socio-economic status of the squatter’s people, the cause of becoming squatter, the origin of squatter, health and sanitation condition, livelihood assets, and vulnerability. - Objective of the study.
a. To determine the socio-economic condition of squatters.
b. To examine the livelihood of squatter settlement.
c. To find out the socio-economic characteristics.
d. To analyze the vulnerability and coping strategies of squatters. - Limitations of the study
a. This study covers only the squatters of the Godavari area.
b. This study has got small sample size.
c. This research is done by a student who does not have expertise in knowledge.
d. Finding of this research may not be representing other urban areas of the country.
e. The major parameters of the study are Status of Residence, Occupation, Monthly Income, Literacy, Drinking Water, Toilet Facilities, Waste Management, Age of Marriage, Dowry, Menstruation Taboos, and Social Problem. - Literature review
Squatting has become an increasingly common phenomenon in developing countries due to imbalance and lack of harmonious development in
Every part of the country. People are very much interested to reside in city area and enjoy all sorts of facilities. But in countries like Nepal
The harsh reality is that the urban planning or the policymaker doesn’t have the proper policy to address the growing demand of the people settling in a new area. Each year, Nepal’s urban population increase by 7 percent, and Kathmandu’s urban population increases by 4 percent (World Bank, 2013).
History of Squatters
The Kathmandu Valley, which is Nepal’s political, cultural, industrial, and hospital center, has become the favorite destination for rural people migrating from the hills. The concentration of political and economic power, as well as of tourist centers, with their employment activities and numerous opportunities, has favored urbanization. Due to the Maoist insurgency (1996-2005), there has been a huge influx of internally displaced people in recent years in search of security, employment, government aid, and shelter. The population of Kathmandu, which in 1971 amounted to 150,000 inhabitants (105,000 in 1952), had reached 671,000 in 2001 and is most probably more than four million today (admittedly within a larger administrative territory) (Kathmandu Valley Environment Outlook 2007). The rate of growth between 1991 and 2002 was 4.67 percent per year. The density of inner-city areas is high compared to the Valley as a whole. In 2001, they were 11,099 persons per [km.sup.2] in Kathmandu City, 6,808 in Lalitpur City, and 5,700 in Bhaktapur City (Kathmandu Valley 2007). In 2001, the Valley’s average population density was 1,837 persons per [km.sup.2]. It is believed that the squatters were not termed as the problematic issue in the past because there were very few squatters or let’s say handful number of the squatters living in Kathmandu valley. In 1985, there were 17 identified squatter communities in Kathmandu Valley (CIUD, 2008). Today, 4,000,000 squatters live in Nepal, of which around 50,000 squatters live in over 45 informal settlements in Kathmandu Valley (CIUD, 2008). Even the history of squatter settlements on the bank of the Bagmati River shows that these were established more than 50 years ago but they were very few in comparison to the present. (Deshar, 2013). From the time period of Maoist insurgency to today’s date many people migrated to Kathmandu valley. With new hope and dream to achieve something in life, especially people from poor economic background left their home town and started residing in rivers bank and government land. They have contributed a lot to the growth rate of the population of Kathmandu valley. It also affected the places near Kathmandu. Mostly the targeted area was Bagmati, river Hanumante River, Bishnumati River, dhobi Khola, and tukhucha Khola.
Pawar, D.H. & Mane, V. D. (2013) have studied the socio-economic conditions of the squatters and investigated that, the socio-economic status is calculated through
Explanted the occupation, income, expenditure of the population. Occupation is playing an important role in socio-economic status. It affects other elements like the living standard of the population, the socio-economic status of the population, and development and progress. The socio- Economic status depends upon the living standard of individuals. The living standard also depends upon the income of the family. It is helpful for the improvement of the good life. Occupations are depended upon education level, family background, employment facilities in their periphery, and skills. Squatters performed occupations like a tailor, retail shopkeeper, home servant, construction labor, catering, and alcohol retailer and like these other illegal activities, herding of goats, sheep’s, hen and cocks, etc. Similarly, Prasad, R. & Singh, MN. (2009) have studied the living conditions and socio-economic conditions of the Monkhood squatters, Mumbai with a calculation of the working profile various aspects are considered as like- current working status, work profile (Daily wage worker Salaried worker, Own business, Others), working hour and time is taken to reach the place of work. This study also illustrates the poor housing condition of the squatters. For the past two decades, the government of Nepal has made significant efforts to improve the country’s water supply and sanitation condition by creating and executing a variety of WASH policies, guidelines, and acts. The government created a comprehensive Water and Sanitation Strategy in 1997, with the goal of achieving 100% sanitation coverage in the country by 2017 AD. Through the integrated National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Policy and Strategy 2004, the government committed to ensuring that all people have access to basic water supply and sanitation services by the end of 2017 (HMG, 2004). The government implemented the Sanitation and Hygiene Master Plan (SHMP) to ramp up sanitation and hygiene programs, ensuring that all people have access to basic WASH facilities by the end of 2017 (GoN, 2011).
The Ministry of Water Supply and Sanitation has developed a long-term sectorial Development plan (SDP) that identifies priority areas for future interventions as well as a Number of theme approaches with the goal of reaching the WASH sector target by the year 2030. SDP is a guiding framework for planning, implementing, coordinating, and monitoring all actions in the sector, and it is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. The government has set a goal of providing basic WASH services to the entire population by 2020, and then improving service levels (medium 50% and high 50%) by the end of 2030. Furthermore, Nepal has set particular targets for 2030 under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, including basic water supply coverage for 99 percent of households, piped water delivery, and improved sanitation for 90 percent of households, as well as the eradication of open defecation (NPC, 2018). An examination of the current WASH scenario exposes the actual gap that the government must gradually close in order to meet the SDGs by 2030. This article examines the progress and the current state of WASH in Nepal from this perspective.
Water facility
Pure water scarcity is everywhere, but squatters are more affected by the unavailability of water for drinking and bathing facility. Generally, squatter areas are poor in terms of the supply of drinking water (Rao, 2009). Also, Rao (2009) investigated that, water is one of the basic requirements for livelihood. But the scarcity of water stands as a vital problem
For many people all over the world. The squatters of many urban areas throughout the world
Are having a serious water problem.
Squatter vs Slum
The terms squatter and slum are often interchanged and used in our daily life. These two terms have created confusion. The meanings of these two terms are similar but can’t be said exactly. Not every squatter can be termed as slum and not all slums can be called squatter. “Slum” was originally used mainly in the phrase “back slum”, meaning a back room, and later “back alley”. The origin of this word is thought to come from the Irish phrase ‘Slomic’ (pron. slum ae) meaning ‘exposed vulnerable place’. The Oxford English Dictionary says it may be a “can’t” word of Roma (Gypsy) origin. The etymologist Eric Partridge says flatly that it is “of unknown origin”. In short, ‘slum’ means a community of a low-class, homeless population. The word “slum” was first used in London at the beginning of the 19th century to describe a “room of low repute” or “low, unfrequented parts of the town”, but has since undergone many modifications in meaning and application (UN-HABITAT, 2003b). While early definitions of slum-dwelling combined physical, spatial, social, and even behavioral aspects of urban poverty (UN-HABITAT, 2003), the spread of associations has more recently narrowed.
The term “squatter settlement” is in fact a more recent western-initiated development, which came about by the writings of Charles Abrams and John Turner and particularly during and immediately after the Habitat Conference of 1976 in Vancouver, Canada. This delineation of such informal or spontaneous settlements as “squatter” settlements represented a growing change in attitude from outright hostility to that of support and protection (Srinivas, 2015)
Squatter settlements are usually areas of unauthorized housing made from found
Materials such as cardboard, metal, packing cases, plywood, etc. They generally have no sanitation or electricity or water. Squatters settle on land, especially public or unoccupied land, without right or title. They are tolerated in some areas due to the number of homeless people who have nowhere else to go. Some local government provides as scant services as possible others periodically wipe them out with bulldozers driving the people to move elsewhere.
Slums are highly congested urban areas marked by deteriorated, unsanitary buildings with absentee landlords, poverty, squalor, and social disorganization. Populated by poor people, slums are often the oldest section of a town or city. ‘Slum’, at its simplest, is a heavily populated urban area characterized by sub-standard housing and squalor. This definition encapsulates the essential characteristics of slums: high densities and low standards of housing ‘structures and services’ and squalor. The first two criteria are physical and spatial, while the third is social and behavioral.
We can simplify both the term as slum refers to the environmental aspects of the area where the community resides, while squatters refer to the legality of the land ownership and other infrastructure provision. Low income, lack of urban services and low living condition makes the slum. On the other hand, illegal settlers who might have money and a good way of life but only lack ownership make the squatter.
High rate of poverty, high incidence of unemployment, the huge extent of urban decay, breeding grounds for social problems like crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc., high rates of mental illness and suicide, etc.; Low level of the economic status of its residents, inadequate infrastructural facilities, the acute problem of malnutrition lack of drinking water, lack of basic healthcare, unsanitary and unary environment, low standard of living or poor quality of life are basic characteristics of squatters.
