Learning from informal markets: Innovative approaches to land and housing provision; Berner

The migration to the urban areas, particularly in developing countries poses a challenge on international, national and local policy making. In most developing countries the attempts to formalize markets have failed to provide the adequate housing for the ever-growing urban population. Self-help housing and squatting has long been seen as detrimental to sound urban development and planning. In last two decades it has been recognized that self-help housing has a great contribution towards providing a sufficient housing for the urban poor and “it is still the only architecture that works” (Turner, 1976) This form of housing is not only crucial for providing housing for the poor working in the informal sector but it also plays an important role in the urban economy. Without this informal settlements the local economy could not be competitive in the global context.

In the urban context the urban poverty is closely associated with spatial segregation; overcrowding, filth, unemployment, total absence of social services, malnutrition – this representation of poverty is only one-sided and represents only partial reality. To address the issues of urban poverty it is fundamental to recognize that housing needs to meet adequate living standards “as well as cultural definitions of security of tenure as an essential part of a decent standard of living”.  Substandard informal housing has two major issues:1. lack of quality, infrastructure and space and 2. insecurity.

Current policies fail to recognize the importance of providing appropriate land for the housing. Evictions and relocation are justified by governments wanting to beautify and redevelop the cities. These schemes more often than not result in communities repopulation the vacated site. In the case of social housing, the immense expenditures on land and adherence to inappropriate building regulations make the resulting products unaffordable for the urban poor. Since the 70’s slum upgrading and upgrading sites and services are the major approaches to introduce participation and self-help housing into practical policies. It is more efficient to improve the existing settlements that to build new ones, yet the performance and scale of upgrading is disappointing. The upgrades face the inappropriate planning standards and building regulations which increase the public investment and limit the investment to single intervention. In addition the issue of land ownership is a major constrain to redevelopments. The land central to the city is usually to expensive to be populated by the urban poor resulting in relocations. The alternative locations are usually on the periphery, without the adequate transport links to the livelihoods. The prime locations come with the price tag, even the pavement dwellers in India have to pay regular fees to the policemen or syndicates. The informal market plays a significant role in providing housing to the poor. Houses built without permits with a substandard infrastructure and quality, by cutting corners and cost are the only affordable option for the poor. This kind of housing represents an opportunity for the occupant to incrementally improves the home, however the improvements also increase the value of the property which can increase the rent in case of rented properties.

Energy Access in Urban Slums: A case of Khon Kaen, Thailand; Asian Institute of Technology

The article discusses how accessible are modern forms of energy focusing on urban and peri-urban areas of Thailand, the energy consumption patterns and the total energy related expenditures in urban poor and peri urban areas. Secondly it discusses the impact of past and planned energy policies on the current energy situation.

The initial assessment study was primarily focused on Bangkok. In Bangkok and its suburbs electricity is distributed by a single utility, the Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) and in the rest of the country the electricity is distributed by the Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA).” In year 2005, 87.5% of the population had access to grid electricity (DEDE, 2005). 99% of the registered households have electricity connection (AESIEAP, 2007)., Biomass accounts for 33% of the total household energy consumption in Thailand. 57.5% of the households cook with LPG while only 32.8% of households cook with traditional biomass (NSO, 2005b). Renewable energy had a share of 16.9% in the total primary energy supply in year 2004.” the Parliament Office recognises that modern energy sources represent only a small portion of energy consumed in poor areas due to higher cost and limited supply in rural areas.

The two main policies affecting the energy access for the urban poor are policies on household registration and electricity pricing. The household registration is required to apply for different services, including electricity. Majority of slum households do not meet requirements for household registration. According to survey almost 60% of households were not registered( based on Bangkok slums only).

Electricity Pricing Policy

The Metropolitan Electricity Authority provides reduced tariff for households consuming up to an average of 150kWh per month over a period of 3 months; otherwise the household faces the regular tariff. This scheme is only available to registered households. The electricity tariff increases at a higher level than an average income for both poor and non-poor.

House Registration Policy

In 1956 house registration was introduced in Thailand. Currently the house registration is required to access ant type of government services, ie. citizenship, healthcare, education, banking services and electricity connection. In the slums some dwellers do not have house registration which affects their access to the electricity. To overcome this problem, in 1995 the Thai government began to issue temporary registration numbers to those households who do not have permanent registration number. This allowed the households to apply for the legal connection to the electricity supply, however the initial deposit for the electric meter is higher for the temporary registered households. This policy substantially reduced the number of illegal connections (connection through the neighbor) in Thailand. In Bangkok slums 68% of households have a direct connection to the grid and 32% through their neighbors.

Territorialisation and State Power in Thailand; Peter Vandergeest and Nancy Lee Peluso

The article initially elaborates on different work of political geographers in recent years and explains different theories on state powers. Its draws the attention that many of theories do not incorporate the territorial strategies used by modern states in the definitions. Rulers territorialized state power firstly to make claims on territory to protect access to people and income from taxes and natural resources. Secondly territorialisation enabled increased efficiency in collection of regular taxes, which was needed to finance permanent militaries, assess the availability of young men for a conscript military and to finance a growing bureaucracy as well as government investment that sustained local production in context of global competition.

 Territorialisation is described to be about excluding or including people within particular geographic boundaries, and about controlling what people do and their access to natural resources within those boundaries.

In Thai context, the State has divided its territories into complex and overlapping political and economic zones, rearranged people and resources within these units and created regulations delineating how and by whom these areas can be used. In addition the state has increased its capacity and willingness to deploy violent means of land-use control, in part due to its involvement in the global political-economy and the high stakes in the export-led economic growth strategies.

The article focuses specifically on the territorialisation of resources and people in rural areas: 1) The territorialisation of civil administration in rural Thailand 2) state attempts to take over the administration of rights to land through mandatory registration of land titles based on surveys  3) state attempts to control the use of major portions of national territory by demarcating it and defining it as forest.

Urbanization linked with past agricultural landuse patterns in the urban fringe of a deltaic Asian mega-city: a case study in Bangkok

The article sets out to investigate how urban sprawl and land use changes, which are increasing rapidly in the suburbs of Bangkok, are causing serious environmental problems. The land use shifting from paddy field to urban dwellings are causing increased hazard of flooding.

Historically human settlements were located only on high level micro-landforms, such as natural levees; however the construction of canals and the development of agricultural engineering technology have helped humans to start using deltas for agricultural land. As the deltas, which were previously considered a wasteland, were converted into productive farm land, the land previously used for paddies has been used as a urban development land.

Shifting from rice fields into urbanised land has lead to loss of flood-water retention areas and thus created the increased of flood hazard.

OMA Opens Up to Bangkok

OMA proposed a 77-storey skyscraper, called MahaNakhon in response to development possibilities and desire for new design in Thailand. Designers were more concerned with creating a status building for Bangkok than designing a building that responds to its surroundings.

 The design idea, “according to the designers, is to expose the insides of the building to the city around it—to reduce the skyscraper’s natural insularity and promote some type of integration between the tower and its surroundings. OMA has a history of carefully considering urban settings in their designs and, socially, the emphasis here on public space and connections to mass transit hubs is laudable.”(http://www.metropolismag.com/pov/20090723/oma-opens-up-to-bangkok, accessed 25/2/11)

The skyscraper will feature seven floors of retail, residential units (managed by Ritz-Carlton), a hotel and a sky bar. This shows that developer’s interest is purely in profit making rather than creating new, affordable homes.