International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
August 2019
Abstract
Residents of urban informal riverside settlements are regularly threatened by floods and simultaneously are facing potential eviction, particularly in multi-hazard prone cities in developing countries in Asia. Governments usually choose relocation as a preventive measure due to the high exposure of riverside communities whereas ignoring the repercussions on the resident’s socio-economic conditions of these dramatical changes. However, residents, despite the vulnerabilities, aim to remain in their original homes and to pursue possibilities to negotiate with the governments and ideally achieve fair alternatives for reducing the flood risk and change the negative public image of their communities. This study explores three scenarios of which resulted in failure, success and uncertain outcomes and exposes the governance challenges for a fair citizen-government negotiation.
Introduction
Since 1990, the exponential global urban population growth has challenged the governments capacity to provide adequate housing [1]. Moreover, global trends on urbanisation reached a milestone in when urban surpassed rural population in 2008 for the first time in human history [2]. In the developing world, the urban population increased to 48% [1] who are now living in crowded and unplanned cities which are unable to properly accommodate them. The new urban residents who reside in informal settlements account for 30% of the urban population in developing nations [1]. The United Nations defined the precarity of informal settlements according to the ‘Five Deprivations’ [3] such as lack of clean water, proper sanitation, security of tenure, sufficient living area and quality and durability of buildings. Additionally, to the precarious conditions of informal settlements, poor urban residents have no alternative but to occupy land that is vulnerable to multiple hazards and remains vacant or is in low demand [4] due to its unsuitability for formal subdivisions and housing projects.
Informal settlements established in floodplain areas are particularly vulnerable to massive rainfall caused by tropical storms which are recurrent events, particularly in Asian countries. The impact on the built-environment of these ‘water related’ disasters is tremendous, leaving 84, 244, 124 people homeless between 1990 and 2017 in Asia [5]. This shows evidence of the human nature of these so-called ‘natural disasters’. Blaikie et al. [6], argued ‘flood disasters are caused by people and not just water’. However, informal settlements are not only the result of ‘unconscious’ settlers who decided to live illegally occupying public or private land, but also the result of bad governance, corruption, inexistent or failed urban policies, dysfunctional land markets and lack of government will [7] as cited by UNESCAP [4]. Informal settlers did not simply choose to put their lives at risk living in hazardous sites. In fact, the causes of vulnerabilities to existing hazards are the consequences of social inequality, poverty, political ideology, class and power relations [8].
Informal settlers also face continuous social discrimination and disadvantage, unrecognized status in the governance frameworks, tenure insecurity and the threat of eviction because governments usually see these settlements as a problem in their agenda. In other cases, these settlements are undesirable ‘grey’ or blank spots in the urban fabric [9,10] which are consciously ignored or ‘forgotten’ [11]. However, the site-related vulnerabilities cannot be ignored as they are always present, and it is a matter of time until the everyday hazard exposure become disasters.
Despite the vulnerabilities and social stigmatization, informal settlements are highly dynamic, highly resourceful even with absolute lack of options [4]. In many cases, informal dwellers demonstrate active citizenships living and working against marginalisation and urban segregation. They are always willing to invest in improving their livelihoods, living conditions and social coexistence shaping the ‘city produced by the people’ [12]. In other words, despite the limitations, informal settlers have often built their own environments and communities through spontaneous self-management mechanisms. Recognising informal dwellers’ multiple capacities, including their non-obvious abilities to cope with disasters and resilience, are important to change their often-negative public image. As Lizarralde [13] explained the Cuban case, despite being a developing nation exposed to storms, hazardous events rarely cause huge impacts in the country whereas similar events result devastating in the US. These observations directly oppose to Smith’s (2007) claim the usual correlation between poverty and loss of life associated with disaster. Lizarralde observed that complementary to the clear government framework and policies for disaster prevention, there are other actors that directly interact with the communities as facilitators for their development and creation of safer habitats. Ortiz [14] have defined the process of self-production of settlements and housing as ‘Social Production of the Habitat’ which relies on community organization and collaboration with other stakeholders working on a non-profit basis.
The exclusion from government initiatives forces informal settlers living in flood prone areas to rely on intuitively self-produced plans and initiatives to protect themselves against potential disasters and evictions. This paper examines the limitations of communities’ self-help initiatives for achieving resilient environments and the levels of community-government negotiation that leads to different outcomes in the governance, community awareness and continuation or eradication of riverside informal settlements. We analysed three scenarios in the Philippines, Nepal and Indonesia: The first case where residents had been resettled because of massive floods caused by an unexpected strong tropical storm and the absence of community preventive measures. The second case presents local initiatives of riverside communities which have limited external support and rely on the construction of self-help housing adaptations in an attempt to keep their families safe. The third case presents a case of active negotiation between residents and governments, where there is a permanent support from an NGO and active community participation achieving high community awareness and positive public image and government support in their pathway for official recognition.
Section snippets
Methodology
The information for this paper was obtained in a series of field investigations, detailed as follows: In Cagayan de Oro in southern Philippines, the data collection was conducted between July and August 2014, 28 months after typhoon Washi hit the city causing unprecedent damage and casualties. The nature of the case study which included relocation and in-situ reconstruction requires authorities and communities as participants of the study. The data obtained includes 14 semi-structured
Limitations of the study
The paper addresses the diverse levels people’s negotiation capacities with local officials and the results obtained in their attempt to secure their permanence in their homes and avoid eviction. Due to the location in highly exposed areas the main concern from the authorities is the safety of the communities, although it might not be objective due to the informal nature of these settlements which prevents them from being officially recognised. Therefore, this paper does not attempt to measure
Is relocation the only alternative? Opportunities for resilience in riverside communities
In riverside informal communities, which are particularly vulnerable to recurrent floods, people do not perceive hazards as real threats because they often remain inactive if their possible losses are acceptable [15]. However, the anticipatory adaptation strategies that communities develop over time are considered crucial to achieve social resilience [16]. Despite the familiarity of recurrent hazardous events, like storms and floods, the perceived low risk is incompatible with the changing
Disaster governance in informal settlements
The relationship between the urban poor, particularly the informal dwellers, and the government has always been observed as controversial and limited due to the mutual lack of trust. Perlman [50] who studied the Rio de Janeiro’s ‘favelas’ for over forty years found that the community perceive the government proximity to them as more harmful than helpful. Similarly, Cross [51] observed in Cape Town informal settlements that people refer to the community and government relationships as a ‘history
Conclusion
This article exposed the difficulties for citizen-government negotiation, particularly for informal settlers of highly vulnerable riverside areas. The understanding of people’s priorities which rarely align with government’s approaches produces a gap and lack of mutual trust. Moreover, the three cases presented above are not isolated examples but reflect the national approaches for government approaches over vulnerable urban poor. The top-down experience in Cagayan de Oro (Fig. 8) shows the
