Slums Effect on Urban Sustainability: Suggested Planning Mechanisms for Development
, , oraz | 21 cze 2024
O artykule
Data publikacji: 21 cze 2024
Zakres stron: 49 - 66
Otrzymano: 19 sty 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/quageo-2024-0019
© 2024 Ihsan Abbas Jasim et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Percentage of respondents by the type of housing unit.
| Apartment type | Observed frequencies and their percentages | Slum area | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damoc and Zahra | Al-karama | Aljihad | Eiza | |||
| House | Repetition | 310 | 176 | 52 | 12 | 550 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 56% | 32% | 10% | 2% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 89% | 72% | 61% | 57% | 79% | |
| Percentage of total | 44% | 25% | 7% | 2% | 79% | |
| Mud House | Repetition | 35 | 66 | 26 | 4 | 131 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 27% | 50% | 20% | 3% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 10% | 27% | 31% | 19% | 19% | |
| Percentage of total | 5% | 9% | 4% | 1% | 19% | |
| Metal Shanties | Repetition | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 19 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 16% | 21% | 37% | 26% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 1% | 2% | 8% | 24% | 3% | |
| Percentage of total | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 3% | |
| Total | Repetition | 348 | 246 | 85 | 21 | 700 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 50% | 35% | 12% | 3% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| Percentage of total | 50% | 35% | 12% | 3% | 100% | |
| Coefficient of compatibility and its significance | CC = 0.336 |
|||||
The social aspect.
| Very high | High | Medium | Minimum | No effect | Minimum negative impact | Medium negative impact | High negative impact | Very high negative impact | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Security of slums and city | 7 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 2 | Providing shelter for people | 2 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | Failure to reward transgressors and deter transgression | 30 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 4 | Legitimising services and improving social status | 25 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 5 | Social justice | 13 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
The environmental aspect.
| Very high | High | Medium | Minimum | No effect | Minimum negative | Medium negative | High negative | Very high negative | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Impact on natural environment | 13 | 11 | 12 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 2 | Impact on city’s environment | 15 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | Improved slum environment | 12 | 16 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | Depletion of agricultural land and distinctive sites in city | 14 | 16 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Do you think there are technical obstacles that prevent the implementation of the idea of exchange (land for time)?
| There are no technical obstacles | 38 | There are technical obstacles | 13 |
The economic aspect.
| Very high | High | Medium | Minimum | No effect | Minimum negative | Medium negative | High Negative | Very high negative | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Impact on city’s economic efficiency | 11 | 14 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2 | Maintaining value of real estate in city | 29 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | Preserving urban capital | 13 | 20 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 4 | Effect on transport movement in city | 2 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 5 | Processing policies expenses | 21 | 12 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Land-for-time policy effect on urban sustainability factors in the form (positive, neutral, negative).
| Aspect | Influence | % positive | % neutral | % negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | Impact on natural environment | 72 | 26 | 2 |
| Impact on city’s environment | 74 | 24 | 2 | |
| Improved slum environment | 70 | 22 | 8 | |
| Depletion of agricultural land and distinctive sites in city | 78 | 16 | 6 | |
| Economic | Impact on city’s economic efficiency | 66 | 28 | 6 |
| Maintaining value of real estate in city | 86 | 10 | 4 | |
| Preserving urban capital | 80 | 18 | 2 | |
| Effect on transport movement in city | 50 | 44 | 6 | |
| Processing policies expenses | 84 | 12 | 4 | |
| Social | Security of slums and city | 60 | 38 | 2 |
| Providing shelter for people | 50 | 44 | 6 | |
| Failure to reward transgressors and deter transgression | 88 | 10 | 2 | |
| Legitimising services and improving social status | 86 | 12 | 2 | |
| Social justice | 68 | 22 | 10 |
Is the idea of exchange (land for time) practical and applicable?
| It can be applied easily | 23 | It can be applied with difficulty | 19 | It cannot be applied | 8 |
Do you think there are administrative obstacles that prevent the implementation of the idea of exchange (land for time)?
| There are no administrative obstacles | 35 | There are administrative obstacles | 15th |
Slums solutions compared with the use of the goal achievement matrix.
| Main objectives | Weight | Secondary goals | Weight | Current situation | Removal policy | Upgrading policy | Trade-off policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social aspect | 33 | Security of slums and city | 7 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Providing shelter for people | 7 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Failure to reward transgressors and deter transgression | 6 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Providing services and improving social status | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Social justice | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | ||
| Environmental aspect | 34 | Impact on natural environment | 10 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Impact on city’s environment | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | ||
| Improved slum environment | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | ||
| Depletion of agricultural land in city | 9 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 8 | ||
| Economic aspect | 33 | Impact on city’s economic efficiency | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| Maintaining value of real estate in city | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Preserving urban capital | 6 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | ||
| Effect on transport movement in city | 8 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 5 | ||
| Processing policies expenses | 6 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 100 | Total | 100 | 31 | 61 | 51 | 75 |