Operationalizing community-led housing in practice ...

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment (2016) 5, 564–578

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector

HO ST E D BYGulf Organisation for Research and Development

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment

ScienceDirectwww.sciencedirect.com

Original Article/Research

Operationalizing community-led housing in practice: Lessonsfrom Bangkok, Thailand and Mumbai, India

Md. Ashiq Ur Rahman a,⇑, Md. Zakir Hossain a, Md. Enamul Kabir b

aUrban and Rural Planning Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, BangladeshbForestry and Wood Technology Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh

Received 16 November 2015; accepted 8 May 2016

Abstract

In developing countries, cities are experiencing rapid urbanization with increasing informality affecting urban poor to live in slumsand squatters subject to eviction. Abating the issue, current participatory planning and collaborative actions are becoming popular.The major challenge in contemporary pro-poor housing practices is to explore the best practices of community participation, is well-discussed after the withdrawal of government intervention in housing and relying heavily on housing market. This study attemptedto explore different forms of community participation to identify options introducing community-led housing in Bangkok and Mumbaifor urban poor. The SWOT analyses of the ongoing projects in Bangkok and Mumbai identified scope and operational methodology ofcommunity-led housing. Results revealed that different forms of participatory practices are still considering urban poor as beneficiaries inexpert-designed pre-determined projects and programmes. Community-led housing process has emerged as a different thought of actionwhich is impulsive, inclusive and initiated by the community. We identified the elements of community-led housing are noticeablethrough representative networking, collective savings and blended financing, participatory designing, collective ownership, and partici-patory monitoring and evaluation. Although the community-led housing practice is becoming successful by enabling urban poor in fiveaspects, yet issue of scaling-up and institutionalization remains unsolved.� 2016 The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CCBY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Collective savings; Community driven development; Participatory designing; Representative networking; Self-help housing

1. Introduction

In countries in rapidly urbanizing world, provision forpublic participation in planning has often been a result of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.05.002

2212-6090/� 2016 The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development. Pro

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativec

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Md.A.Ur Rahman),

[email protected] (Md.Z. Hossain), [email protected](Md.E. Kabir).

Peer review under responsibility of The Gulf Organisation for Researchand Development.

either direct import of western planning legislation or thefunding of programmes and projects by international agen-cies (Jenkins et al., 2007). In most cases participation wasintroduced according to programme and project as aningredient to support local initiatives in a micro scale topromote better coordination and sustainability in projects.Due to the piecemeal process of such planning approachthe participation of poor people in planning was not main-streamed until 1970s. Thus participation here was a way oftapping local communities’ resources rather than providingthem with real participation in decision making. Later

duction and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

ommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

https://core.ac.uk/display/82672415?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22126090

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.05.002&domain=pdf

Md.A.Ur Rahman et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 564–578 565

UN-funded programmes and projects in the late 1980s and1990s focused on ‘empowering’ local communities and ‘en-abling’ these to manage their own development, thus sup-porting the implementation of enabling strategies(Jenkins et al., 2007). In addition to these forms of partic-ipation, urban poor people are often marginalized in deci-sion making due to the lack of representativeness in thepolitical structure.

The urban poor are occupying a major part of the econ-omy in urban areas through informality but, similar to thecase of recognition of their economic role, their rights arealways suppressed and they remain invisible in decision-making and planning. In this context the programmesand projects are always supply oriented and the demandand capacity of urban poor remains unattended. To tacklethis problem in 1990s, community action planning wasintroduced which took into consideration stakeholderinterests and aims to put in place processes which wereproblem driven, community based, participatory, small inscale, fast and incremental, with results which are tangible,immediate and sustainable (Hamdi and Goethert, 1997).But this approach is never incorporated with the main-stream of planning rather it was exercised by internationaldevelopment agencies and aided projects and programmeson a piecemeal basis. However in urban management thepartnership through participation is referred to as ‘commu-nity self-management’ which advocates an enablementparadigm. Moreover the policy options are not yet resolvedas to how the community will be involved in the develop-ment planning to define development by their own. Under-standing this context, to share common goals andobjectives within and between organizations for redis-tributing power relations and participation of people indecision making and implementation Baan Mankong pro-gramme of Thailand and Alliance programme of Indiawere initiated in the beginning of twentieth century. There-fore this paper attempts to identify the options for scalingup community led housing by analysing the Baan Man-kong programme of Thailand and Alliance programmeof India. These two programmes have been analysed in thispaper by setting up the analytical framework ofcommunity-led housing in the first six sections.

2. Differences between community-driven and community-led

development

In developing countries community-driven development(CDD) is the ongoing mechanism for channelling develop-ment aid to ensure community-based development.Community-based development is an umbrella term forprojects that actively include beneficiaries in their designand management. Community-led development refers todevelopment projects in which communities have directcontrol over key project decisions, including managementof investment funds (Mansuri and Rao, 2004). In this con-text ‘community-driven’ refers to relying on the communityfor propulsion of an initiative that has originated and

perhaps directed from outside of the community whereascommunity-led seems to infer that the community are moreinvolved in directing the trajectory of the project. But inmost cases pro-poor planning is based on developmentassistance following the mechanisms of CDD. The partici-pation of the urban poor is ensured in CDD process butthe capacity building activities are still fragile to ensure sus-tainability and empowerment.

Community–driven development (CDD) provides con-trol of decisions and resources to community groups. Thesegroups often work in partnership with demand-responsivesupport organizations and service providers, includingelected local governments, private sector, NGOs, and cen-tral government agencies. CDD is a way to provide socialand infrastructure services, organize economic activityand resource management, empower poor people, improvegovernance, and enhance security of the poorest’ (Dongieret al., 2002). But the question arises in the situation whichlacks the presence of such demand-responsive supportorganizations. In this context the capacity of communitycan be instrumental by creating an enabling environmentfor institutionalizing self-help approach, which is oftenexercised in the form of community-led development initia-tives in many cases in developing countries (seeBoonyabancha, 2005; Burra, 2005; Hasan, 2006).

Community driven development (CDD) has been devel-oped more as a variant of traditional developmentapproach to incorporate participation and empowermenttogether. In literature, some elements of CDD have beenfrequently mentioned and the ‘institutional arrangements’,‘community based targeting’, ‘learning by doing’, ‘access toinformation’, and ‘complementary service provision suchas credit, extension’, and ‘demand-responsive support’and these elements are linked by concepts like participa-tion, community and social capital (Ribot, 2005). Table 1identifies the evolution of development initiatives for theurban poor and also identifies the level of participation inthose approaches.

These three approaches mentioned in Table 1 are alwayscontested as the CDD approach assumes and exercises thevertical participatory approach where the programmes andprojects are already chosen and communities are attachedwith these projects, whereas in community-led planningthe sense and meaning of inclusive community is pre-existed to define the problem and identifying the capacitiesfor alternative choices. Table 2 explains that thecommunity-led and community-driven mechanisms differin terms of capacity building and problem recognition. Itis well-evident that without the capacity building throughmobilization often development initiatives remain unsus-tainable in terms of efficiency, participation and the long-term livelihood impact (Satterthwaite, 2001).

The literature on CDD assumes that the results of par-ticipatory development interventions are always contested(Mansuri and Rao, 2004). However, this assumption arisesfrom the pre-mature development initiatives where thevoice of community is not well established to make a

Table 1Evolution of development initiatives for the urban poor.

Time period Approach for urban poor Goals and objectives Community participation

1950–1970s State-led project planning Promoting better coordination andsustainability in projects

Tokenism (not mainstreamed in process rather based onconsultation and information sharing)

1970–1980s Development assistancebased project planning

Empowering local communities fordecision making in selected projects

Tokenism (partnership was there but the control andpower relations were indistinct)

1980s to till now Community action planning Enablement for community self-management

Community-led actions where community is the core

Source: Author’s composition from Jenkins et al. (2007) and Arnstein (1969).

Table 2Mechanisms of community-driven and community-led development approach.

Mechanisms of planning Community-driven development Community-led development

Meaning of community Project assisted analogous group of people Self consensus federated group of peopleCommunity as an actor Stakeholder and beneficiary Originator and coordinatorExternal assistance In the initiation of programme and projects (assistance in

every sphere of a project)In the logistics part of projects (technical andfinancial assistance)

Problem recognition Pre-existed goals of programmes and projects Reframing the problem from the voice ofcommunity

Participation Assisted participation Self-actualized participation

Source: Author’s composition from Mansuri and Rao (2004) and Ribot (2005).

566 Md.A.Ur Rahman et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 564–578

significant role in representative political structure. Somobilization is essential component in participatory devel-opment planning, which is absent in CDD. Referring theArnsteins’s ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969), CDDconsiders the degrees of tokenism rather than degrees ofcitizen power as the CDD does not enable the communityfor trade-off to negotiate their choice in existing politicalstructure which is not possible without having pre-existedcommunity organizations that can play the role in repre-sentative political structure. In this context Fig. 1 describesthat participation can be instrumental for developmentprocess by considering the survival strategies of the urbanpoor and their internal linkages for networking that isinter-related with economic and social life of the urbanpoor.

3. Importance of community participation for urban poor

housing and evolution of community-led housing

In the case of housing the urban poor, the issue of com-munity involvement has been often ignored. Provision for

Figure 1. Ladder of participation and empowerment for transforming the pro2001).

public participation in planning and designing housingprovision has often been a result of either the direct impor-tation of western planning legislation or the funding of pro-grammes and projects by international agencies (Jenkinset al., 2007). Even more, the option for the housing provi-sion of urban poor was really limited through the state ini-tiatives. Most of the state initiatives were handicapped withthe policies that are securing the shelter for upper and mid-dle income class people by creating more housing stockwhere affordability is a major concern (Jenkins et al.,2007). The provision of housing process related to urbanpoor is often confined with site and services scheme inthe name of slum up-gradation where service provision isprime concern rather than built environment, tenure secu-rity and quality of houses. However, the service provisionis often limited and decisions always have some controver-sial indirect factors such as the power relations of commu-nity with local elected representative and the position of theelected representative in administrative structure. Thus, theinvolvement of community is often neglected in planningprocess, especially regarding housing.

cess. Source: Author’s composition from (Arnstein (1969); Satterthwaite,


Given that poor people often participate in politicsalong divisions which are based often on gender differ-ences, language, ethnic and religious identities and geo-graphic regions in which they live etc., it may be muchmore common for poor communities and individuals toparticipate in these ways than around certain issues andprogrammes or projects designed to directly improve theireconomic and social position in society (Jenkins et al.,2007). In addition to this view of participation, it has beenassumed in different literature that participation enlightensthe urban poor for social protection and economic gains.The proposition of participation for economic gain revealsthat, once the communities are enlightened they will rise toact upon their interests of positions which are defined bythe level of ‘economy and finances’, with regard to the con-cept of ‘false consciousness’, which is driven on the factiousconcept of achieving financial gain, thus the economicgains becomes a factor of building coalitions within andoutside the community (Fainstein, 2005). Moreover, ‘socialnetworks and relations’ through participation act as a fac-tor behind uniting communities to act together for theirright by regaining the ‘social status’ and ‘social protection’(Mitlin, 2008).

Understanding the aforementioned importance of com-munity participation, the self-help housing idea by Turner(1967) and later referred as self-management housingpaved the way for community participation and involve-ment in housing process in 1970s. Though the conceptwas criticized due to the dependency on subsidies, exclu-sion of private sector, inclusion of NGOs and the capacityof community, this approach reconsidered the capacity andinvolvement of community and state in a different scale.This approach presents the role of the state as an enablerrather than the provider and the issue of sustainability bycommunity involvement. However, community-led hous-ing is perceived to be a housing initiative led by communityorganization to secure land and housing by their own. Theconcept emerged in a different form in a different contextbut the common guiding principle was to ensure tenuresecurity for better housing and livelihood. The communityorganization within each community and the larger city-wide community network helps to link together and bridgetheir development plans with other actors in their cities ordistricts (Boonyabancha, 2008). However, the success ofcommunity-led programmes depends on urban poorgroups having the capacity and political space to producerepresentative organizations able to work at national andinternational levels, as well as in their own locality(Mitlin, 2008). Moreover, this process takes time and it iswell evident that in India and Thailand the process takesmore than twenty-five years for mobilization, negotiationand implementation (Levy, 2007; Boonyabancha, 2008).Table 3 summarizes the transformation process of self-help housing to community-led housing as a more partici-patory solution for pro-poor housing in developingcountries.

4. Challenges of community participation for housing the

urban poor

The major problem perceived in the process of housingthe urban poor was the matter of legality. Slum dwellersare often treated as ‘illegal’ and their settlements as ‘infor-mal’, this legislative vision to define a group of people is ahindrance to development initiatives (Rahman, 2009).Although the informal housing in urban areas is playingan important role in city economy, there is no recognitionor action for ensuring the access to services and infrastruc-ture including housing and land rights (Balbo, 1993).Moreover the deprivation towards informality automati-cally limits the political representation of urban poor whichis affecting the democratic dimension of development as apolitical process (Balbo, 1993). To tackle the informalityin housing sector numerous planning approaches wereintroduced ranging from modernization to slum up grada-tion. But all of these approaches are encountered with theproblem for injecting development rather than enablingpeople to solve the problem. In most cases theseapproaches of state-led housing failed to understand com-munity’s capacity along with the institutional and organi-zational lack of coordination. The emergence ofcommunity-led housing is resultant of such failure ofstate-led approach which did not consider the opportunityof self-help initiatives.

In most of the programmes for housing the urban poor,participation has been introduced on programme and pro-ject basis as an ingredient to support local initiatives in amicro scale to promote better coordination and sustain-ability in projects (Hamdi and Goethert, 1997). The majorproblem perceived as affecting the participation of theurban poor in different pro-poor housing programmes isthe willingness and commitment of the different actorsinvolved in such processes (Balbo, 1993). In addition to thisproblem, the institutional framework is the major determi-nant, which determines the level of participation of theurban poor (Levy, 2007). The lack of mobilization andawareness building activities is hindering the potentials ofparticipation as the ‘power of control’ often remains unfa-miliar to the urban poor (Lemanski, 2008). Thus the dis-course of community participation arises in a twofoldnature, on one side the institutional level, where the institu-tional framework and willingness of the actors determinethe level of participation; and on the other hand the capac-ity of the urban poor determines their representation.

For housing the urban poor, the scarcity and increasingprice of land in urban areas is another major problem.Under conditions of rapid urbanization, competition forsecure, serviced land is increasing in all developing coun-tries, which is causing greater pressure on existing tenuresystems and requires governments to formulate policieswhich encourage efficient land use and improve accessibil-ity to it, especially for the urban poor (Payne, 2002). It isperceived that, collective land tenure works as a binding

Table 3Transformation of self-help housing to community-led housing.

Year Approach

1970 The concept of self-help housing was introduced by turner1980 The self-help housing process was modified with the collective intent of urban poor to define the process as a right based approach1980–1990 Mobilization process for community actualization, networking (local, national and international)1990–2000 New tools were emerged for implementing community-led housing (collective savings, blending finance, land picnic, community

survey)1990–2000 Negotiation with government for recognition and to ensure the right of the urban poor2000 to till now Piloting of community-led housing schemes

Source: Author’s composition from Jenkins et al. (2007) and Levy (2007).

1 The sustainable solution will be the course of actions that will allow theincreased opportunity and access for enhancing the human, social,physical, financial, environmental, institutional, and knowledge capitalof the urban poor. In this concept human capital (skills, information,knowledge, ability to labour, health), social capital (networks, member-ship of groups, relationships of trust, access to wider institutions), physicalcapital (housing, basic infrastructure), financial capital (savings, suppliesof credit, regular remittances or pensions), environmental capital (accessto natural resources), institutional capital (organizational forms, relation-ships and processes specifically developed by the poor) and knowledgecapital (negotiation of partnerships, collaborative and production andcollation of information by the poor) are an interrelated outcome of aprocess. (Source: Adopted from DFID (1999) and Mcleod (2001))


force and a vital mechanism to hold individual, poor fam-ilies in a community, together as a group and this groupcan slow down the penetration of the better-off buyersand act as a protective buffer to the market forces(Boonyabancha, 2008). In addition to this issue the sur-vival strategies and the collective attitude of urban poorto share and establish their common needs are setting theprecedent for community-led housing.

However this transformational model of enabling peo-ple for housing is also encountered with the problem wherecommunity’s capacity is ignored and the development ini-tiatives are assisted under pre-fabricated housing pro-grammes and projects. The power of control of the urbanpoor is the determining issue for success under thisapproach as they are sharing the burden and benefits. Toensure such control empowerment and capacity buildingcan be the fundamental instrument which is well-reflectedin community-led housing programmes (seeBoonyabancha, 2005; Burra, 2005; Hasan, 2006).

5. Advantages of community participation for housing the

urban poor

Community-led development can be considered as aholistic approach, which focuses on participation, empow-erment and social capital. Most of the empirical evidenceshows the effectiveness of community-led housing pro-grammes for sustainability as it considers the capacity ofpoor people through the institutional capacity, social net-working, collective and attitude (see Boonyabancha,2005; Burra, 2005; Hasan, 2006). Community-led pro-grammes can enhance sustainability, improve efficiencyand effectiveness, make to be inclusive of poor and vulner-able groups, build positive social capital, and give themgreater voice both in their community and with govern-ment entities (Dongier et al., 2002).

Community-led housing has enabled poor communitiesto organize with increasing sophistication, exchangingknowledge, experience and resources previously unattain-able to those without political or socioeconomic status(Lemanski, 2008). However community-led housing createssynergy between different actors involved in the housingprocess of a city as it ensures the voice for voiceless. Thetechnical skill of community is enhanced through the hous-ing process which has a multiplier effect in terms of social

and technical capital for enhanced livelihood opportuni-ties. However community-led housing is such a movementwhich makes the invisible visible that will redefine futurepolicy framework much more pro-poor through the feder-ated participation of the urban poor (Boonyabancha,2008).

Community-led programmes are often criticizedthrough the lack of local technical knowledge capacityand the issue of scaling up. In addition, the community’sstruggle to assert itself collectively over time, links theirpre-development community diversity to subsequent exclu-sion from the development process and continuing prob-lems of post development community consolidation(Lemanski, 2008). However the social networking andinstitutional linkages in local, national and internationallevels can resolve the issue of technical capacity along withthe financial assistance in the form of blending finance(added financial assistance with the community savings)for scaling up. The issue of community-diversity is thepower of decision making as it allows justifying the co-operative conflict among the stakeholders. The diversityproblem is encountered with community driven pro-grammes where the programmes and projects are assistedfrom outside but in community-led programmes the diver-sity will be instrumental for trade-off within the commu-nity. Thus, the community-led development will ensureequity for a sustainable1 solution.

6. The elements of community-led housing

After the emergence of enabling approach for housingthe urban poor, initiatives from government and interna-


tional agencies have had limited success in last 40 years.Perhaps the cause behind this limited success rate is thecausal effect of lack of influence of urban poor in severalissues like conception, location, design, resource mobiliza-tion, financing, implementation and management, andevaluation (Satterthwaite, 2001). To address the problems,different interrelated mechanisms are practiced for imple-menting community-led housing programmes. These mech-anisms are, in practice, treated as the major elements ofcommunity-led housing (Table 4), which can broadly becategorized as representativeness and networking, collec-tive savings and blending finance, participatory designing,communal ownership and participatory monitoring andevaluation.

6.1. Representativeness and networking

In the literature of community participation in develop-ment; ‘community is understood to be a group of peoplewith shared broad development goals; their behaviourand relationships are shaped by norms that are expectedto produce solidarity; those that do not belong areexcluded’ (Kumar, 2003). The inclusion of community isessential for implicit development which considers coher-ence or internal harmony of a group of people to identifyand mainstream the claim, capacity and interest. In thiscontext the representation of community is the key elementfor community-led housing programmes. However, thisdepends on urban poor groups having the capacity andpolitical space to produce representative organizations ableto work at national and international levels, as well as intheir own locality (Satterthwaite, 2001). The basic formof community representation is the self-help group which

Table 4Elements of community-led housing and its impact.

Elements Components

Representativeness and Networking Group formation (Self-help group), dalliance with different agencies (local,international community organizationagencies, NGOs, government agencieand dialogue within community andagencies

Collective savings and blendingfinance

Self-help savings and credit groups, dweekly/monthly savings scheme, consnetworking within community and wagencies

Participatory designing Participation in designing process, aptraining

Collective ownership Communal entitlement

Participatory monitoring andevaluation

Observatory survey, information colleassembling, negotiation and dialogueproviding agencies, group formation (housing society), incorporating intermorganizations

Source: Author’s composition from McLeod (2001), Mansuri and Rao (2004),Levy (2007) and Patel (2007).

is linked with city, national and international network ofsimilar groups of people who are working and sharingsame problems in a different context. To establish the voiceof such a community, it is essential to be federated in such amanner that will allow the power relation much moreinclusionary in decision-making. This federated form ofcommunity representation has legitimate right to speakon behalf of diverse groups that make up urban poorand to negotiate on their behalf as policies are developed,recommendations made and national and internationalinstitutions set up or changed (Satterthwaite, 2001). Inaddition the national and international network withinand between the self-help group, in a federated way, is cre-ating the learning opportunity for exploring better optionsto change housing process in an innovative and sustainableway (see Boonyabancha, 2005; Burra, 2005; Hasan, 2006).Moreover, the representativeness and networking of acommunity is enhancing social capital that is based onthe ‘features of organization, such as trust, norms, and net-works, which can improve the efficiency of society by facil-itating coordinated actions’ and also develop theindividual’s ability to build ‘bond’ within their own groupand ‘bridges’ to other groups for working collectively toachieve betterment of both individual and groups(Mansuri and Rao, 2004).

6.2. Collective savings and blending finance

For the representation and formation of a group withina community, financial issue plays an important role. Inmost developing countries, the basic functional unit of aself-help group is in the form of a savings co-operative.Thus, the collective savings is instrumental for

Impact

evelopingnational,s, developments), negotiationwith different

Representative political structure, negotiation of co-operative conflict, representation and mainstream ofthe claim, capacity and interest of community, socialcapital development

aily/ultation andith different

Creation of resource base, accumulation of fundingopportunities, financial liquidity, entrepreneurshipdevelopment

plied research, Appropriation of space, demand based design, skilldevelopment, enhanced income generatingopportunityPrevention of selling-out problem, communal identityand belongingness

ction andwith servicei.e., co-operativeediate

Accountability and efficiency, empowering thecommunity, networking

Boonyabancha (2005), (2008), Burra (2005), Ribot (2005), Hasan (2006),


community-led housing in terms of financial, social andpolitical capital. Community managed savings and loanprogramme is the powerful tool of community-led housingas the community is managing the programme and creatinga resource base (Boonyabancha, 2001). If savings groupsare linked to institutions that provide capital, then theycan offer an even more powerful route to expanding local-ized financial activities and can provide low-income com-munities with the financial liquidity that developmentrequires (Boonyabancha, 2001). Collective savings consti-tutes group formation, followed by daily, weekly ormonthly savings from each household. Collective savingsallow people to network with a community for collectivedecision making. Collective savings for community-ledhousing is the basic resource which initiates the pro-grammes and projects blended with government grantand subsidies, private loans and international aid anddonation. For such blending financial mechanism to scaleup any programme and projects representation and net-working is essential. Moreover, collective savings and loanactivities are not simply an end in themselves, rather theyare a means to strengthen community processes so thatpeople can work together to achieve their multiple anddiverse needs (Boonyabancha, 2001).

6.3. Participatory designing

Livelihood opportunity of urban poor is enacted withhousing in most cities of the developing countries. The sur-vival strategy of urban poor, which relies on diversified useof home-based labour, depends on provision, location andstructure of housing (Patel, 2007). The state-led design pro-cess often ignores this symbiotic relationship of housingstructure and livelihood opportunities as there is no reflec-tion of urban poor in such process. On the contrary,community-led housing allows a participatory design pro-cess that communities can decide upon and participate inhousing design and construction (see Boonyabancha,2005; Burra, 2005; Hasan, 2006). Through the participa-tory design process it ensures the highest form of participa-tion; citizen empowerment (Arnstein, 1969) and it enhancesthe technical skill of community which can enhance thehuman capital of a community for diversified incomeopportunities. The participatory design process includesapplied research where the academic institutes can assistthe process to set the precedent of collective learning. Inaddition, participatory design includes the training forthe community which have significant impact on knowl-edge capital. Participatory design process ensures appropri-ation of space which allocates the home based work ofwomen that recognizes productive role of women throughhousing process. Selection of location is also an importantissue of participatory designing. Housing cost incommunity-led process is lower because of its transparencyand collective decision making process (Boonyabancha,2008). Challenging issue for participatory designing isbuilding standard and planning permission to customize

the design process. Conflict between planning standardsis often restricting the affordable and participatory solu-tions. However, there is always a trade-off in the designprocess, but in community-led process, this trade-off canbe minimized through the collective intent of community.

6.4. Collective ownership

Under conditions of rapid urbanization, competition forsecure, serviced land is increasing in all developing coun-tries, causing greater pressure on existing tenure systemsand requires governments to formulate policies whichencourage efficient land use and improve accessibility toit, especially for the urban poor (Payne, 2002). It is per-ceived that, collective land tenure works as a binding forceand a vital mechanism to hold individual poor families in acommunity together as a group and this group can slowdown the penetration of the better-off buyers and act as aprotective buffer to the market forces (Boonyabancha,2008). In addition community-led housing process ensuresformal entitlement (see Boonyabancha, 2005; Burra, 2005;Hasan, 2006). Formal entitlement is essential for: (1)encouraging investment in housing construction andimprovements; (2) improving access to formal channels ofcredit; (3) widening the property tax revenue base of localauthorities; (4) enabling urban development authorities toincrease their influence over land and housing markets;(5) improving efficiency and (6) ensuring equity (Payne,2002). However in community-led housing communal enti-tlement is giving the sense of citizenship as the accommo-dation of people are becoming formalized which ismaking the invisible slum dwellers more visible. Anotherimportant aspect of communal ownership is the ability toprevent the selling off houses as the housing process is sub-sidized and holds the signatory of the community as a com-munity. Still there are some criticisms about the communalownership due to its failure to guarantee secure capitalinvestment for individuals after investing money over along duration, although after the completion of collectiverepayment of loan individual titling can overcome thislimitation.

6.5. Participatory monitoring and evaluation

Participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanismrecognizes the diverse need of community. This is theway to engage people more effectively for reviving manage-rial capability of community. Participatory monitoring andevaluation creates space for community to engage withgovernment agencies for the betterment of service provi-sion in housing process. In community-led housing partic-ipatory monitoring and evaluation ensures the efficiencyand accountability of projects and programmes. Majorcomponents of participatory monitoring and evaluationare to conduct observatory survey, information collectionand assembling, group formation and dialogue with respec-tive agencies involved in housing process. A major issue of


such participatory mechanism is to incorporate intermedi-aries for lobbying with government agencies and capacitybuilding of a community to conduct surveys and evaluateoutcomes. Thus in most community-led housing pro-grammes and projects, NGOs are playing such role (seeBoonyabancha, 2005; Burra, 2005; Hasan, 2006). Howeverparticipatory monitoring and evaluation mechanism isenhancing social, institutional and knowledge capital ofthe urban poor.

7. Best practices of community-led housing programmes

This section analyses two case studies (Thailand andIndia) using SWOT. To analyse the SWOT (Strength,Weakness, Opportunity and Threat) of community-ledhousing programme, it is essential to analyse the contextand mechanism of such planning process. In this section,shifting nature of planning process is analysed for the caseof Thailand and India. In case of Thailand, direct interven-tion of government organizations are playing an importantrole for scaling up, while for India, negotiation and consen-sus building is still going on for institutionalizing thecommunity-led housing programme. However, the follow-ing section summarizes the evolution of ideas and processrelated to community-led housing in Thailand and Indiaaccordingly.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Thailand wit-nessed great economic success however the trickledowneffect did not occur, and thus the success brought little ben-efit to the poorest groups (Rahman, 2009). To address theissues of urban poverty and housing since the 1980s, theGovernment of Thailand has taken different initiatives.Though, the initiatives were specific, in reality, initiativesfailed to attain the scale. One of the underlying assump-tions of this failure can be stated as the initiatives weresupply-driven and the role of government was as a provi-der. After the failure of several projects and programmes,Thai government realized the need of an enabling approachand took a new initiative with the programme Baan Man-kong, which is demand-driven and participatory in nature.Perceiving the success of UCDO (Urban CommunityDevelopment Office) in community-led programmes inurban areas, Thai government set up a new institutionnamed the Community Organizations Development Insti-tute (CODI) by merging UCDO and RDF (Rural Develop-ment Fund) to implement the programme. The guidingprinciple of that programme was to support the initiativesof the community organization to resolve the issue of poorcommunities. The hypothesis of that programme was com-munity belonging and culture of collectivism within thepoor communities. This programme is a challenging hierar-chical and bureaucratic approach and opened up the par-ticipatory regime of planning in Thailand. Moreover, thisapproach assumes people as community and the decisionsare the outcome of consensus for implementing pro-grammes interactively.

In the case of India, urban poor people were invisible topolicy makers and they were treated as the illegal occu-pants. Until 1980s, the common practice relating to slumdwellers was eviction. But during the period of 1980–1990 several movements by civil society organizationsincluding NGOs, Slum Dwellers International andNational Slum Dwellers Federation, put forward the issuerelated with slum dwellers. Later, this allied movement ofcommunity people brought significant changes in policymaking process by introducing the relocation and rehabil-itation (R&R) policy and right to life act for preventingforced evictions. In the relocation and rehabilitation(R&R) policy, participation was the key instrumental toolfor any programme and projects. Therefore, in reality, allof the slum improvement projects were confined with thetop-down approaches of planning. This externally imposeddevelopment approaches was always supply driven whichignored the complex demand and sustenance policy ofthe urban poor. As a result most of the planning initiativesare either implemented against the will and best interests ofmany residents or are stalled indefinitely (Patel, 2007).Under this context a new approach of relocation and reha-bilitation was introduced with the allied effort of poor com-munities, National Slum Dwellers Federation and an NGO(SPARC). The mechanism of this effort was to ensure par-ticipatory community development plans. Thus thecommunity-led housing process was initiated by the com-munity. The planning process involved the community atevery stage and was aimed to produce upgrading alterna-tives that reflect the diversity of community aspirationsand consider resident needs in light of realistic financingoptions and the larger context of the city (Patel, 2007).

The major task for this community-led housing processwas to building the community. The mechanism of build-ing community was based on collective savings groups laterthat turned into the CBO called Mahila Milan (MM).NSDF organized people with a common land holding,MM is the savings and loan catalysts and are also the mem-ber of NSDF, the cooperatives are formulated on the basisthe people are living together. The precedent of acommunity-led housing process is already set as seventy-two households of pavement dwellers in Mumbai whoare relocated in a participatory process but the arising issuefor this process is scaling up. However in the following sec-tions the analysis of SWOT of Thailand and India caseexplores the fundamental policy option for each elementof community-led housing.

8. SWOT of community-led housing in Thailand

To explore the policy options for community-led hous-ing, in this section the SWOT of different element ofcommunity-led housing in Thailand is analysed. The majorfocus of such an analysis is the process of representation,financing, decision making and monitoring. In analysingthe case study of Thailand, the programme Baan Mankong


is reviewed in light of the process and mechanism of partic-ipation of urban poor communities.

8.1. Representativeness and networking in Baan Mankong

programme, Thailand

The strength of the Baan Mankong programme is torepresent community as the project owner which ensuresthe belongingness of the community to the programme.This strength of the programme builds up the communityorganizations, later creating a network among the differentcommunity organizations and with the external govern-ment and non-government organizations. However theprogramme is institutionalized through establishing anumbrella organization named CODI as it coordinates theprocess in scale. But the weakness of the representationof community organization is affected with the lack ofcapacity building programmes as very few NGOs are work-ing in capacity building programme. However the govern-ment vision in Thailand for participatory development andthe institutionalized process of Baan Mankong providesthe opportunity for spreading the programme to nationalscale as the programme is not affected by political volatil-ity. But the ethnic and racial diversity of the communityis a major challenge for successful implementation of theplan. Moreover Baan Mankong taken into account of scal-ing up in such a way that deliberately promotes the scale interms of mutual inclusiveness (Rahman, 2009). The goalwas fixed up as a common one and shared responsibilitiesand activities strengthen the mechanism as well. The keytool for this sort of inclusiveness is changing nature of com-munity participation. Individual people became the part ofthe community by developing community organization.Finally these community organizations became the dele-gate for peoples’ needs and expectations in terms ofrepresentativeness.

8.2. Collective savings and blending finance in Baan

Mankong programme, Thailand

The strength of community-led housing programmesdepends on the strength of community as a group. It is wellevident that the collective savings scheme is playing a vitalrole in this regard. In the Baan Mankong programme, thecollective daily savings scheme is the financial strength ofcommunity organizations. The savings are blended withthe subsidies and loans available from CODI to purchaseor lease private lands or to construct houses. The financialweakness of Baan Mankong programme is the lack ofavailable funding for community mobilization programme,though the government is providing the opportunity forcommunity development by subsidies. In addition theopportunity for accessing loans from government organi-zations is providing financial stability in the Baan Man-kong programme. However the dependency ongovernment subsidies can put a challenge in the whole pro-cess as the government is allocating fund right now, but in

future if any dispute arises then there is no alternative planfor preparedness. Moreover, the collective savings schemeallows the community to revive the culture of collectivismfor strengthening community organizations and providesthe opportunity to manage financial issues collectively aswell. However, it is worth saying that the demand of fund-ing is there, so there is a need to include the private andcommercial sectors.

8.3. Participatory designing in Baan Mankong programme,

Thailand

Participatory design enables people for decision makingas well this process provides the learning opportunity ofpeople to develop the technical and managerial skill. InBaan Mankong programme the strength of participatorydesigning was revealed from the piloting as it exposed thetangible output of a community in front of the other com-munities to act on. This piloting provides the opportunityto contextualize the up gradation programme in every sin-gle community by considering the skill, managerial abilityand demand of those communities. But the issue of partic-ipatory designing varies with the context otherwise it canbe affected with the weakness of cost estimation as the landprice differs with location. In addition the participatoryapplied research by different academic institutions in theBaan Mankong project ensures the choice for people todecide about the housing design and construction. Themost important attribute for the Baan Mankong pro-gramme was providing the opportunity to involve womenin the design process, which ensures the appropriation ofspace in the neighbourhood and single unit scale. Howeverthis process takes time to accomplish but it is effective atthe end. Moreover in participatory designing process com-munities decide to begin with the upgrading of a commu-nity that they consider is ‘‘achievable” (Boonyabancha,2005).

8.4. Collective ownership in Baan Mankong programme,Thailand

Baan Mankong was perceived as a collective designedprocess to spread over 300 different cities with the mecha-nism of enablement. It is often challenging for any pro-gramme and projects to deal with different ideas andconflicts among the stakeholders, whereas Baan Mankongis a long term process that leads the challenge irresistible.The major challenge for Baan Mankong was to decidethe ownership of land. Thus the collective ownership pat-tern was adopted by the communities themselves. Thestrength of collective ownership is to prevent selling outproblem which ensures tenure security. The strength ofBaan Mankong programme was to ensure the amendmentof law to allow the provision of collective ownership pat-tern. The weakness of the programme was the conflictamong the interest of different stakeholders. However,the mechanism for conflict resolution was based on trust


building activities and constant meetings where the jointcommittee met with representatives from all urban poorcommunities to exchange the views and ideas(Boonyabancha, 2005). In addition the involvement ofNGOs for intra-community negotiation was anotheropportunity for conflict resolution. Another opportunityof the Baan Mankong programme was the assistance andcoordination by CODI for purchasing privately-ownedland and leasing land from different public agencies. More-over, the collective culture and negotiation by the NGOsare scaling up the programme collectively.

8.5. Participatory monitoring and evaluation in Baan

Mankong programme, Thailand

In the Baan Mankong programme the strength of par-ticipatory monitoring and evaluation relies on the institu-tionalization process. As the programme isinstitutionalized by the umbrella organization CODI sothe feedback of the programmes are directly channelledbetween the community organization and CODI. Thus,the bureaucratic time consuming problem is resolved inBaan Mankong programme. In addition the programmerelies on the people managed monitoring system thus eachactivities is accountable to the community through the sav-ings group. The weakness of the programme is the limitedscope of communities to negotiate with GOs for the utilityservices. The opportunity of the Baan Mankong pro-gramme is that the communities are linked with differentNGOs and academic institution which allows the commu-nity for sharing and disseminating information. The threatof this programme is as it was designed under CODI socommunities are dependable to act with other GOs forclaiming services and different opportunities. However,the community organizations have the scope to evaluateand monitor any issue related with the built environmentof the neighbourhood.

9. SWOT of community-led housing in India

In this section the community-led housing process ofMumbai, India will be analysed considering SWOTs. Thepurpose of this analysis is to explore the policy optionsof community-led housing. The case of Mumbai is basedon the relocation of pavement dwellers led by the alliance.2

Under this relocation process pavement dwellers were relo-cated in a participatory process. The steps of such processare followed by community building by collective savings,

2 The partnership of the Alliance is the National Slum DwellersFederation (NSDF), Mahila Milan (MM), and the Society for thePromotion of Area Resources (SPARC). The aim of the Alliance is to‘‘develop solutions that work for the poorest and most marginalised in thecity” by addressing housing and infrastructure deficiencies. Thus, theAlliance works towards a process through which the urban poor – women,men, boys, and girls – are the key actors in the transformation of their ownliving conditions.

land survey, demonstration, house model exhibition andcollective ownership.

9.1. Representativeness and networking in the Alliance

programme, India

In the alliance relocation process of Mumbai, Indiacommunities are represented in two different tiers. In termsof an individual community, the members of the commu-nity are attached with the co-operative named MahilaMilan, which is the basic form of a collective savingsgroup. In the second tier the community is allied and fed-erated with the National Slum Dwellers Federation thusthe voice of the community is represented in macro scale.The strength of such representativeness belongs to thehomogeneity of the community and the allied relationshipwith NSDF. Mainstreaming women in co-operatives forcollective savings is also strengthening the community foracting together. The weakness of this representativeness isflashed out while the non-Mahila Milan members areexcluded from the process of relocation so the processfailed to reach the scale. Though the conflict between theLocal Government Planning Authority (MCGM) and thealliance is a sign of a threat to the programme but theR&R policy to recognize community participation for relo-cation and rehabilitation is the opportunity forcommunity-led housing programme in Mumbai, India.However the political willingness of some governmentagencies (MHADA) and the international networking(Federated with AHRC, SDI) is representing the issues ofurban poor communities. Moreover, the representativenessof poor communities for right to the city is well establishedas the poor people are visible in official statistics by com-munity survey.

9.2. Collective savings and blending finance in the Alliance

programme, India

The initiation of the alliance relocation process of Mum-bai, India happened through the collective savings groupformation. The daily savings scheme of the co-operative(Mahila Milan) formed with women was transformed intothe community based organization which led the relocationprocess. The financial strength of the relocation processwas based on the daily savings of group members. Lateron the daily savings were blended with international donorsupport, private bank loans and government subsidies toaccomplish the whole process. Before the daily savingsscheme there was no resource allocation for the relocationprocess while the daily savings scheme put forward themovement by gaining the attraction of international andnational agencies. However, the weakness of the dailysavings scheme is well-known as the income generatingoptions for the urban poor, who are mostly engaged ininformal sectors, are uncertain. In addition the amountof deposit (20,000 Rs) excludes some people from therelocation process. But the policy options like TDR


(Transferable Development Rights) is creating opportunityas it attracts private sectors to be involved in the construc-tion of housing for the urban poor. In the case of thealliance relocation process of Mumbai, India, governmentis providing the land free of cost which is financial backupfor the poor communities. In addition the urban renewalmission (JNNURM) can be the opportunity for gettingmore funds in the community-led housing process. How-ever, the relocation process is affecting the people for elitecapture as the network with local elites has been disrupteddue to relocation. But it is well evident that the survivalstrategies of urban poor will come up and the threat is tran-sitional as the community moved for few years (the reloca-tion happened in 2005).

9.3. Participatory designing in the Alliance programme,

India

The participatory designing process in the alliance relo-cation process of Mumbai, India is creating the organiza-tional capability of community. The strength of suchprocess is mentioned as the CBO organizational capacityto demonstrate self-survey processes (Levy, 2007). Thestrength of community for exhibiting and constructingmodel houses is creating the options for alternativedemand-based choices. The multiplier effect of participa-tory designing is focusing the strength of the community-led housing process as it is providing options for alternativeskill development of women for better income generatingactivities. Nevertheless, the lack of applied research andsite selection process is the weakness of the relocation pro-cess. However the inclusions of local academic institutionsfor applied research and enhanced livelihood opportuni-ties, such as construction workers for the communities,are the opportunities of this process to strengthen partici-patory designing process. Till now there has been no opentender policy in the construction work and no participationin the plan layout for the relocated neighbourhood, whichis the threat for the relocation programmes. However, theinstitutionalization of design process can overcome thisthreat.

9.4. Collective ownership in the Alliance programme, India

The land titling process in the alliance relocation processof Mumbai, India is collective. Strong community belong-ingness which leads to conflict negotiation is the strengthfor such land titling system. Every household is allocatedwith a single unit in this process. Overlooking the house-hold size for allocating the available number of units isthe weakness of the project. In addition the increased main-tenance cost is not affordable for every single household.However, the individual allotment documents after a cer-tain period of time will provide the opportunity forresource creation. The increased rent of housing howeveris provoking the relocated peoples to rent out the unit

which is a threat to the goal of the programme to securehousing for the community.

9.5. Participatory monitoring and evaluation in the Alliance

programme, India

The monitoring and evaluation of a community-ledrelocation process is not yet defined. But the strength ofthe monitoring and evaluation is the shifting role of MahilaMilan acting as co-operative housing society. However, thequality of built environment is not well maintained in therelocated site which is the weakness of the programme.The social mobilization programme, however by NGOsand recognition of co-operative housing society in R&Rpolicy is an opportunity to overcome such weaknesses.However, the transitional role of Mahila Milan and thebureaucratic feedback system of MCGM for service provi-sion and maintenance is the major threat for participatorymonitoring and evaluation. The lack of experience ofMahila Milan executive member to deal with such situationis the reason for this threat. Nevertheless the capacitybuilding programme will be effective to resolve suchthreats.

10. Lessons learnt from the case analysis

Table 5 Summarizes the strength, weakness, opportuni-ties and threats of Baan Mankong and the Alliance pro-gramme considering the elements of community-ledhousing. Though these two projects were introduced as aparticipatory approach for housing the urban poor butthe outcome differs under the broader framework ofcommunity-led housing approach. It has been observedthat in both cases the elements of community-led housingare appearing but the issue of institutionalization remainsas the major challenge for scaling up the Alliance pro-gramme of India (levy, 2007). The Baan Mankong pro-gramme is a more institutionalized programme; though itcan be argued that whether it is a community driven devel-opment effort or a community-led development effort. Thedebate arises as the programme was initially designed andinitiated by CODI. However this programme addressesall of the elements of community-led housing later on.The scale of the programme also requires a coordinatingagency from the government side as the programme is run-ning with the support of government subsidies. Thereforeall of the urban poor are included in this programme. How-ever, the Alliance programme is more propulsive but againthreatened by a single effort in a single community scale.Therefore exclusion of the urban poor from this processis a major threat which supports the argument related towillingness and commitment of the different actorsinvolved in such process (Balbo, 1993). The financialstrength is another issue which is a pre-requisite for imple-menting successful community-led housing programme. Ithas been observed in both cases that urban poor havelimited or no access to financial resources for housing.

Table 5SWOT analysis of Baan Mankong and the Alliance programme.

Elements of Community-ledHousing

Alliance programme Baan Mankong Programme

Strength Representativeness andNetworking

Communities of same localityAlliance with NSDF and NGOsMainstreaming women’s role in decision making

Changing the role of people from ‘‘beneficiaries” or ‘‘support receivers” to ‘‘projectowners”Neighbourhood based individual community organizationEach of the community organizations are linked with NGOs for capacity buildingOrganising network meetings of representative of each community organizationsThe umbrella organization is CODIa for coordination and fund management

Collective savings andblending finance

Daily savings schemeb

CLIFFcDaily savings schemeCODI fund

Participatory designing Community-led land availability surveyModel house constructionTraining for the women as construction worker

Community-led construction managementPiloting for ‘learning by doing’Community-led survey, planning and constructionContext based up gradation and design

Collective ownership Collective land title processIndividual unit allocation

Amendment of law to establish community mutual rightCommunity-led renting/leasing land for tenure security


Mahila Milan based maintenance committee Direct feedback system by CODIThe whole projects are accountable to community committee/savings group

Weakness Representativeness andNetworking

Non-member communities of Mahila Milan are excludedThe community-led process is mostly case specific not widelyexercised throughout the country

Lack of total number of NGOs for community mobilization


The savings ability of people is not equalThe amount of deposit (20,000 Rs) excludes some people

Lack of funding for community mobilization and knowledge grants

Participatory designing Most of the community members did not visited the site beforemovingThere is no applied research about housing designContractor based constructionNo participation in the plan lay-out for the relocated neighbourhood

Cost of land affects the floor space

Collective ownership Prevents the option for selling out the unit as a propertyIncreased maintenance costHousehold size is not considered for allocation of units

Prevents the option for selling out the unit as a propertyConflict among the interest of different stakeholders


Quality of built environment Negotiation for utility services is done by GOs

Opportunities Representativeness andnetworking

The R&R policy recognizes community participation for relocationand rehabilitationMHADA (housing authority) has the political commitment to workwith communityNetworking with International Alliance (AHRC, SDI)

Government vision for community development and community participation inslum upgrading in a national scaleEstablishing specialized agency for such programme for institutionalization of theprocess


TDR (Transferable Development Rights)d

Allocation of land by GOsJNNURM funding provisione

Subsidy for community development from governmentvHousing loans from GOs in a lower rate

Participatory designing Inclusion of local academic institutions for applied researchEnhanced livelihood opportunities as construction worker

Inclusion of academic institutions for applied researchEnsuring participation of women for appropriation of space

Collective ownership After 5 years individual allocation papers will be providedCommunity belongingness of individuals

CODI assistance to tackle the eviction in private landCODI assistance and cost-sharing for purchasing privately-owned landCoordination of CODI with different land-holding agenciesRole of NGOs for conflict negotiation


Social mobilization by NGOsRecognition of Co-operative housing society in R&R policy

Communities are linked with NGOs and Universities for monitoring and evaluation

(continued on next page)

Md.A.U

rRahmanet

al./In

ternatio

nalJournalofSusta

inable

Built

Enviro

nment5(2016)564–578

575

Table 5 (continued)

Elements of Community-ledHousing

Alliance programme Baan Mankong Programme

Threats Representativeness andNetworking

The conflict between the Alliance and MCGM (the LocalGovernment Planning Authority)Interruption of political connection in relocated sites

Ethnic and racial diversity of the community


Lack of internal donationInsufficient allocation from local governmentInterrupted connection with the elites in relocated sites

No alternative plan in absence of government subsidies

Participatory designing There is no open tender policy in the construction work Lengthy process of training and consultationCollective ownership Increased value and rent of housing Higher value of privately owned land close to city centresParticipatory monitoring andevaluation

Bureaucratic feedback system of MCGM for service provision andmaintenanceThe transitional role of Mahila Milan after relocation

Networking with other GOs depends on CODI

Source: Author’s composition from Levy (2007), Burra (2005), Patel (2007) and Boonyabancha (2001), (2005).a CODI (Community Organizations Development Institute) was established in 2000 with the legal standing as an independent public organization (under the Ministry of Social Development and

Human Security of Thailand) provided it with greater possibilities (for instance, being able to apply directly to the annual government budget), wider linkages and new possibilities for supportingcollaboration between urban and rural community groups for housing and slum upgrading (Boonyabancha, 2005). CODI is providing assistance and loans to community groups under a network,provided it could show that the community has the capacity to manage savings and loans and that the loans could be used to respond to the particular needs of each group (Boonyabancha, 2005).b Daily savings scheme is the savings by individual to be a member of cooperative organization. There is no minimum or maximum amount for deposit. This is the mechanism to strengthen

community organization by collective savings. Mahila Milan (Women Cooperatives) is coordinating the whole process that represented by the member of the community. The savings scheme has themultiplier effect in terms of capital accumulation for housing, access to loan in crisis and organizational capability to deal with financial issues (DPU Field Trip Lecture Series, 2009).c CLIFF is the tool for blending finance for bridging the finance gap in community-led development programmes. Under this tool the grants from the donor is channelized through development

organizations for guarantee fund to banks in the form of capital grants, technical assistance grants for training and capacity building, knowledge grants for applied action research and managementgrants (DPU Field Trip Lecture Series, 2009).d TDR (Transferable Development Rights) is to cross-subsidize rehabilitation housing through market sales. This mechanism allows private developers for constructing the buildings for urban poor

community in return of increased Floor Space Index in the commercial construction in a different location. This mechanism is channelling the private fund for constructing the buildings for the urbanpoor and rehabilitation and relocation scheme in India.e JNNURM is the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, which is a national scale programme having the grant to ensure the basic urban infrastructure and services for the urban poor.

The objective of that programme is to ensure adequate funding investment for integrated planned development in inner city renewal.

576Md.A.U

rRahmanet

al./In

ternatio

nalJournalofSusta

inable

Built

Enviro

nment5(2016)564–578


Therefore group savings scheme cannot alone solve theissue of financial strength to scale up community-led hous-ing practices. Therefore more institutionalized approach ofBaan Mankong has the added advantage considering thefinancial sustainability. Moreover the analysis of thesetwo cases represents that the process of institutionalizationis the major issue for operationalizing community-ledhousing in practice.

The issues explored from the SWOT analysis of thecases also provide the major keys for implementing success-ful community-led housing. The importance of capacitybuilding programme, the necessity of institutionalization,the role of collective financing and designing and network-ing have been instrumental to identify the policy optionsfor community-led housing.

� To build the community and to develop the technical,managerial skill of community it is well evident fromthe two cases that the inclusions of NGOs are essentialfor capacity building. However, the extent of interven-tion for capacity building programme can be identifiedthrough the participatory applied research where thevoice of the people will be merged with expert knowl-edge in a collective manner.

� By observing the weakness of the alliance relocationprocess of Mumbai, India it is notable that the issueof scaling up requires the institutionalization whereasthe Baan Mankong programme is going for scaling upunder the umbrella organization (CODI). In this contextthe separate organization is essential to deal with thecommunity-led housing process for better co-ordination, negotiation and assistance.

� The institutionalization through organizational linkageand federated intervention ensures the learning opportu-nity and better co-ordination. However such organiza-tions have to be represented with the communityrepresentative to ensure the accountability of the pro-cess. Moreover the initiation of collective savingsscheme can be the benchmark for community-led hous-ing programme.

� The participatory design process enables people techni-cally and creates the sense of belongingness tocommunity-led programmes. In addition participatorydesigning process can create multiplier effect throughoutthe process by enhancing versatile income generatingoptions. In terms of networking the piloting of differentparticipatory design programme can be instrumental tomobilize other communities for initiating community-led housing programmes.

� The networking of different communities will create thepolitical pressure that may lead the change in policystructure of government to revisit the options forcommunity-led housing. Moreover the learning lessonfrom the two cases is to conceptualize the importanceof institutionalizing the community-led process in a par-ticipatory way.

11. Conclusions

Though the community-led housing process in practice,it is evident after the period of 1990s until now, there are stillsome unresolved issues. In different cases, the problem is toscale-up the community-led housing process. The scaling-up process requires the political willingness and institution-alization, which remain beyond the community’s limit. Thedependency on intermediaries for lobbying and negotiationis still required due to the lack of awareness and capacity ofthe urban poor. Another limitation of community-led hous-ing perceived in different programmes is the exclusion ofultra poor as they do not have any ability to save. However,Community participation is seen as an important factor inachieving sustainable resolution of slum and pro-poor inter-ventions or strategies, as maximum level of participationassures that the needs of people being affected are met withhighest standards and propulsive interest. The old school ofthought of learning by doing is now transformed andreshaped with empowered participation. However, it is evi-dent to have a national level framework which not onlyadvocates ‘participation’ as a way of consulting with poorcommunities but actually creates possibilities for communi-ties to involve to the maximum level. In addition, there is aneed for national level common policy to confirm that levelof participation empowers poor communities to make deci-sions for their betterment and find ways to solve their prob-lems, acknowledging community knowledge, their right tolivelihoods and right to live in cities.

References

Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann.35 (4), 216–224.

Balbo, M., 1993. Urban planning and the fragmented city of developingcountries. Third World Plann. Rev. 15 (1), 23–38.

Boonyabancha, S., 2001. Savings and loans; drawing lessons from someexperiences in Asia. Environ. Urban. 13 (1), 9–22.

Boonyabancha, S., 2005. Baan Mankong: going to scale with ‘slum’ andsquatter upgrading in Thailand. Environ. Urban. 17 (1), 21–46.

Boonyabancha, S., 2008. Land for housing the poor – by the poor:experiences from the Baan Mankong nationwide slum upgradingprogramme in Thailand. Environ. Urban. 21 (2), 309–329.

Burra, S., 2005. Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading inMumbai, India. Environ. Urban. 17 (1), 67–88.

DFID, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, Numbers 1–8.Department for International Development, London, UK.

Dongier, P., Domelen, J.V., Ostrom, E., Ryan, A., Wakeman, W.,Bebbington, A., Alkire, S., Esmail, T., Polski, M., 2002. Communitydriven development. In: Klugman, J. (Ed.), A Sourcebook for PovertyReduction Strategies. World Bank, Washington DC, pp. 3–30.

Fainstein, S., 2005. Planning theory and the city. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 25,121–130.

Hamdi, N., Goethert, R., 1997. Action Planning for Cities: A Guide toCommunity Practice. John Wiley Publishers, New York.

Hasan, A., 2006. Orangi pilot project: the expansion of work beyondOrangi and the mapping of informal settlements and infrastructure.Environ. Urban. 18 (2), 451–480.

Jenkins, P., Smith, H., Wang, P.Y., 2007. Planning and Housing in theRapidly Urbanising World. Routledge Publishers, New York.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-6090(15)30104-7/h0005





























Kumar, N., 2003. Community Driven Development: Lessons from theSahel, An Analytical Review. The World Bank, Washington.

Lemanski, C., 2008. Houses without community: problems of community(in) capacity in Cape Town, South Africa. Environ. Urban. 20 (1),393–410.

Levy, C., 2007. Defining collective strategic action led by civil societyorganisations: the case of CLIFF, India. In: 8th N-AERUS Confer-ence, September 7–9th 2007. DPU-UCL, London.

Mansuri, G., Rao, V., 2004. Community-based and-driven development: acritical review. In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3209.

Mcleod, R., 2001. The impact of regulations and procedures on thelivelihoods and asset base of the urban poor, RGUU Working Papers.Practical Action, UK.

Mitlin, D., 2008. Transformation for grassroots organizations with andbeyond the state co-production as a route to political influence, power.Environ. Urban. 20 (2), 339–360.

Patel, S., 2007. An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict in Dharavi,Mumbai? Environ. Urban. 19 (1), 501–508.

Payne, G., 2002. Introduction. In: Payne, G. (Ed.), Land, Rights andInnovation: Improving tenure security for the urban poor. ITDGPublishing, London, pp. 3–22.

Rahman, M., 2009. Understanding the Context for Securing Housing ofthe Urban Poor; Reflection from Community led Approach ofMumbai and Bangkok. DPU-UCL, London.

Ribot, J.C., 2005. Steering Community Driven Development? A DeskStudy of NRM Choices. The World Resources Institute.

Satterthwaite, D., 2001. From professionally driven to people-drivenpoverty reduction: reflections on the role of shack/slum dwellersinternational. Environ. Urban. 13 (1), 135–138.

Turner, C.J., 1967. Housing priorities, settlement patterns, and urbandevelopment in modernizing countries. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 34 (1),354–363.

































Date post:	15-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Operationalizing community-led housing in practice ...

Documents