1.

Community-based Approach for Improving

Vulnerable Urban Space

Tetsuo Kidokoro

1.1 Introduction
According to the statistics of UNHABITAT, about one billion people, onethird of the worlds 3.2-billion urban population, live in substandard informal settlements as of 2005, and this population is increasing by 2.2%
annually (Fig. 1-1). The improvement of urban slum areas is one of the
critical issues in the 21st century. As much as 40% of the population are
estimated to live in substandard informal settlements in Manila. Even in
Bangkok, which has achieved remarkable economic growth, the resident
population in slum areas is estimated to exceed one million, and the number has not decreased.

Tetsuo Kidokoro

These substandard informal settlements are definitely the most vulnerable areas in the city (Fig. 1-2). Many of them are developed informally
without applying formal planning procedures. Residents have often occupied the underused land without formal land rights. They are often under
the threat of eviction. Those underused places are a citys most vulnerable
areas in terms of natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and fires,
and temporary building structures are quite weak once hit by disaster.
They are generally poor communities, and are thus economically vulnerable. Slum areas lack basic infrastructure such as water supply, sewage,
drainage and solid waste collection, and thus health risks are particularly
high (Fig. 1-3 and 1-4).
Physical
-

vulnerability to natural disaster

lack of basic infrastructure
health risks

Social
-

threat of eviction
inadequate access to social/public service
loss of cultural diversity

Economic
-

inadequate opportunity to materialize potential capability (access

to education/training, labor market, financial resources, etc.)

Fig. 1-2. Vulnerability of informal settlements

Fig. 1-3. Slum in Bangkok, Thailand.

Childrens play area; full of disposed
garbage, which causes serious health
risks.

Fig. 1-4. Informal settlements, Kabul,

Afghanistan. Vulnerable urban space

1. Community-based Approach for Improving Vulnerable Urban Space

1.2 From Public Supply to Self-help Housing

In the early 1970s, improvement of slum areas where the urban poverty
class is concentrated became an important issue in many developing countries, and efforts were made to provide housing for the urban poverty class
through establishing housing corporations. It became immediately clear,
however, that it is not at all possible to provide housing at rents payable by
the urban poor, and that such a public housing strategy is possible only
through vast government subsidies. Further, public housing with low rents
due to subsidies became a profit opportunity for a very limited number of
lucky people, and the tenants were soon replaced by people in the middleincome class, which also became a big problem (Fig. 1-5).
On the other hand, self-help-type housing (occupying land without official rights, build a house through self-help efforts, without taking official
procedures, such as acquisition of a building permit, and start living) in
slum areas in developing countries came to attract attention as a form of
housing, under the influence of advocacy planning in the 1960s. In such a
trend, the World Bank, which has influential power in policy making in
developing countries, started housing sector financing for the urban poor.
As a result, in the late 1970s and thereafter, self-help-type housing became
the mainstream concept.

Fig. 1-5. Sites and services: Innovative, but not replicable. The government provided sites and basic services in suburban areas to make the land affordable to the
poor. But it became difficult to publicly supply enough land for the rapidly increasing population; thus it was generally not replicable, except for some model
projects.

Tetsuo Kidokoro

1.3 From Self-help Housing to Urban Management

In the process of slum improvement projects (minimum living environment improvement projects, such as establishment of water supply and
drain conduits, and simple pavement of passages, in existing slum areas),
which have been conducted with the Word Banks financial help in many
developing countries, the importance and effectiveness of establishing a
basic infrastructure in respective areas according to needs, through community participation methods, under support of government and NGOs,
became clear.
A well-known example is KIP (Kampung Improvement Program),
which has been widely implemented in many cities in Indonesia. In KIP, in
residential districts with poor living infrastructure that spontaneously developed in existing urban areas, pavement of alleys, drainage, public toilets, etc., are established and improved through the involvement of residents in construction works and with technical and financial support from
government agencies. KIP has successfully shown that it is possible to incrementally implement improvement of informally developed areas at the
city scale through the involvement of residents, if there is a political will.
Similar slum up-grading projects have been conducted in many cities in
developing countries with financial support from international aid agencies
such the World Bank, with a certain level of success (Fig. 1-6 and 1-7).
On the other hand, there is much criticism that government leadership
has become stronger, and resident participation has been reduced to a shell,
after project scale rapidly expanded. Based on such experiences, it

Fig. 1-6. Improved slum, Manila,

Philippines. Importantly, the provision
of basic infrastructure in slum areas
by the government with the involvement of residents stimulates investment in housing by residents themselves, because residents feel the
threat of eviction is gone.

Fig. 1-7. Improved slum, Bankok,

Thailand. A strong sense of community is an important asset for slum
communities, and building capacity of
the community in the process of implementing physical improvement
projects is a key to the sustainable improvement of vulnerable urban slums.

1. Community-based Approach for Improving Vulnerable Urban Space

gradually became recognized, in the 1980s and thereafter, that improvement of slum areas based on the idea of self-help requires improvement of
various institutional frameworks, such as the regularization of land use
rights and enhancement of efficiency of public projects related to water
supply, electricity, housing, etc.
In countries that achieved considerable economic growth under economic
globalization, such as Thailand, private housing developers grew, and developed housing became attainable for those with upper lower-level incomes. It
became recognized that strengthening urban management to appropriately
form such a private housing market, which means improvement, etc., of the
land system and the home financing system, is an important subject. Under
expansion of such recognition, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (HABITAT) and the World Bank presented an enabling strategy in
the late 1980s. The strategy was based on the idea that government should enable the private sector, NGOs, resident organizations, etc., to provide housing
and improve the housing environment, instead of directly providing housing,
which means government should engage in establishing necessary conditions
and strengthen its capacity in urban management (Fig. 1-8).

Fig. 1-8. Low-cost housing, Manila, Philippines. The deregulation of building

codes, zoning ordinances as well as the provision of housing finance have to some
extent enabled social enterprises to provide affordable low-cost housing to lower
middle-income people in Manila since the 1990s. Initial investment is lowered as
much as possible and buyers furnish houses after they start living, in self-help
style.

Tetsuo Kidokoro

1.4 From Urban Management to Community Management

Though the basic urban management approach itself may not be wrong,
there are lots of difficulties ahead. In particular, it was proved that the improvement of the land management system certainly takes time and need
enormous efforts for government to rouse itself and tackle the issues, because it often necessitates fundamental reforms that affect the basis of the
country. Although institutional improvement is important, it becomes effective only with enhancement of communities capabilities to develop
themselves; and further, that it is important to connect institutional improvement to communities capabilities to develop themselves.
Nowadays, there is a growing consensus that in order to improve slum
areas, it is essential to conduct community-based projects through collaboration with the voluntary sector such as community-based organizations
(CBOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Conceptually,
community-based slum improvement projects can be classified into three
types: empowerment approach, community development approach and
community management (Fig. 1-9).
The empowerment approach will be effective when representative community organizations are not generated or the governments are not positive
about the improvement of slum areas. In these cases, intermediary NGOs
or other organizations support the organization of community-based
groups to conduct community-based activities. Through these activities, it
is expected that community-based organizations possibly acquire the capacity to improve their areas themselves and to negotiate with the government to respond to their voices.
Capacity of community
(leadership, organization,
representation, social network,
financial sustainability)

Community
Management
Approach

Community
Involvement
Approach

Empowerment
Approach

Level of the capacity of the government

(Efficiency, Transparency, Responsiveness, Participation)

Fig. 1-9. Community-based formalization process

1. Community-based Approach for Improving Vulnerable Urban Space

A good example of the empowerment approach is the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP), implemented in the Orangi district, in Karachi, Pakistan. In this
project, residents themselves construct low-cost sewage and drainage facilities through low-cost technology development. The OPP, an NGO,
conducts community organization support activities through organizing
residents lane by lane, and eventually organizing representative community organizations through the federations of lane neighborhood organizations. The motivation for residents is that the self-help construction of
sewage in the lane in front of their houses dramatically improves the
physical environment, but it requires collaboration with other lane
neighborhood organizations, simply because they need to be connected to
make sewage effective (Fig. 1-10 and 1-11). In the case of Orangi, people
themselves promoted the establishment of necessary infrastructure under
the support of an NGO. An important point here is that the OPP supported
the formation of a neighborhood organization, and strengthened it, by using a specific goal (construction of sewage) as means, instead of simply
promoting construction of sewage/drainage facilities with resident participation, in an informally developed area where representative community
organizations had not been formed. In other words, improvement of the
physical environment was just a means, and the goal was to improve the
social environment. It is also noted that formation of representative community organizations strengthened their voices to the city government,
which started to support OPP through connecting the sewage in Orangi to
the city drainage systems.
By using the OPP as a model, projects in many developing country cities are being promoted, mainly by NGOs, to connect improvement of the
communitys physical environment with improvement of the social

Fig. 1-10. Orangi Pilot Project, Karachi, Pakistan (Photo by Maki Morikawa). People themselves plan, finance and construct simple sewers on
the basis of neighborhood organizations created lane by lane.

Fig. 1-11. Orangi Pilot Project, Karachi, Pakistan (Photo by Maki Morikawa). OPP, an NPO, provides technical as well as organizational support
to residents neighborhood organizations.

10

Tetsuo Kidokoro

environment, that is, the formation of social networks among residents.

The community development approach refers to styles such as conducting slum improvement projects in areas where a certain kind of representative community organizations exists. In these cases, capacity building of
community organizations as well as the efficient and equitable conduct of
slum improvement projects will be pursued largely by the supporting government agencies. Notably, successful cases are often conducted in collaboration with intermediary NGOs, who coordinate the needs and specific
conditions of communities and the intentions and limitations of the government agencies. A good example is KIP, mentioned above.
The community management approach is a more advanced model in
terms of community initiative. The government devolves necessary power
and financial capability for community-based organizations to conduct improvement projects. On that basis, improvement projects are conducted
and managed under the initiative of community-based organizations in collaboration with relevant government agencies and intermediary NGOs.
Most importantly, continuous improvement projects should be conducted
towards the overall improvement of the communitys quality of life. Of
course, these approaches should be understood as ideal types. Actual slum
improvement projects are conducted through combinations of these different approaches, and there are few cases in which only one of the three approached is dominantly observed.
In the San Antonio community, which is a slum community in Manila, Philippines, waste-recycling activity is conducted on a large scale as voluntary activity by a community organization (Fig. 1-12 and 1-13). Initially, the activity
was started by an NGO called SPM (Save the Pasig River Movement). SPM
supported organizing a resident organization in charge of recycling activity

Fig. 1-12. San Antonio, Manila, Philippines (Photo by Maiko Nishi).

Community-based waste collection
and recycling in a slum community
can become sustainable as a community-based social enterprise.

Fig. 1-13. San Antonio, Manila, Philippines (Photo by Maiko Nishi). Partnership with supportive local governments is essential to link the
community activity with the city service.

1. Community-based Approach for Improving Vulnerable Urban Space

11

through discovering leaders from various existing volunteer activities, implementing community development training for leaders, etc., and it also played
an important role in starting recycling activities through providing technical
support for recycling methods, contributing temporary storage for recycling
goods, and coordinating with the local government for waste collection that is
done alongside recycling (Nishi and Kidokoro et al. (2000)). It is noted that
collecting wastes and recycling not only considerably improve the physical
environment, but also generate income for those who participate in waste collection. Thus, waste collection can become a kind of community-based social
enterprise so that recycling can become a sustainable activity in San Antonio.
Since the late 1990s, micro finance, as well as networking and partnership,
have emerged as important aspects of poverty issues. A well-known example of micro finance is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The Grameen
Bank, established in 1976, gives out small loans without collateral to poor
women in rural areas. A small group, consisting of five people, is formed
under close instruction by staff, and the entire group has joint responsibility for the loan. Members use small loans for income generating activities,
and it has been shown that they can successfully repay loans. Presently, the
Bank has expanded to entire rural areas in Bangladesh, and has grown to
provide loans to 2.3 million poor women. Using the Grameen Bank as a
successful model, micro finance for the urban poor has expanded as effective empowerment means since the 1990s.
A well-known successful example of micro finance in the urban residential field is the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) of the Philippines.
The CMP, started in 1989, is a system in which the government loans
money to slum area residents for land acquisition, basic infrastructure provision such as water supply/drainage facilities, and housing construction,
for a long term (15 years) at low interest with subsidy from the government. As a characteristic feature, NGOs or the local governments give
support for the formation of community organizations and clerical procedures. Loans are given to community organizations. During the first two
years, a community organization, instead of an individual, retains rights to
the land, and has responsibility for repaying the loan, and thereafter land
rights are transferred to individuals. The average repayment rate is reported to be as high as 90% or more, particularly when NGOs are loan
originators. This reflects the fact that NGOs conduct various activities to
support building the capacity of community organizations, not just clerical
work to provide loans to the community.
Using CMP as a precedent, in Thailand the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO: currently reorganized as the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI)) started as a partnership-type project by government and NGOs and representatives of CBOs. The UCDO

12

Tetsuo Kidokoro

was established in 1992 under the National Housing Authority (NHA), a

government agency in charge of providing housing to low- and middleincome people, through funds from the Thai government (US$50 million).
It merged with Rural Community Development in 2000 and was renamed
CODI (Community Organization Development Institute). Its board of directors, which is a decision-making body, is a partnership-type organization independent from the government, consists of related government
agencies, NGOs, professionals and representatives of CBOs, from an equal
standpoint.
Using its funds, the CODI provides loans to community-based saving
groups that they help to organize in low-income communities according to
the Cooperative Law. Then, the saving groups provide loans to the respective group members. Though the CODI provides loans at lower interest
than the market rate, the community-based saving groups give out loans to
respective group members at a level similar to the market rate. The split of
interest rates are kept by the community-based saving groups, and the
funds can be used for community projects, thus creating a system for the
community to be financially capable. When the CODI provides a loan to a
saving group, a project to be financed is decided based on both parties
agreement. Eligible projects are not limited to housing or basic infrastructure improvement activities in communities, but can also include incomegenerating activities. The CODI not only implements micro finance but
also provides support so that communities can develop themselves, such as
organizing saving groups, support for networking among these groups,
training programs, etc. According to the CODI report, about half of the
poor urban communities (1,271 communities) had been benefited as of
2005.

1.5 Conclusion
This chapter overviews improvement projects in substandard informal settlements of cities and introduces specific examples. As shown by these examples, a shift to community-initiative-type approaches is a major trend,
and the importance of the following elements have become widely recognized: the role of NGOs to support such projects; networking among government, NGOs, CBOs, etc., as an institutional system to enable community-based projects; and partnership-type organizations independent from
government agencies. Huge investment is generally needed for conventional urban infrastructure development projects such as water supply,
sewage, waste management, and flood protection. Of course, these are of-

1. Community-based Approach for Improving Vulnerable Urban Space

13

ten not affordable for the urban poor, and thus low-income informal settlements are not covered. Structural reinforcement measures to increase the
preparedness for natural disaster such as earthquakes and floods are also
often not the first priority for low-income people. As discussed above, the
progress of the community-based approach is key, and requires capacity
building both at the community and local government levels as well as
partnership-building among different levels of governments, NGOs, CBOs
and the private sector.

References
Abbot, J. (1996) Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Development, in Arrossi, S. et al. (eds) Funding Community Initiatives, Earthscan
Hamdi N. and Goethert R. (1997) Action Planning For Cities: A Guide to Community Practice, Willey
Kidokoro, T. (2004) Formation of Sustainable Urban Development Strategy in
Asia in Sasaki, T. (ed) Nature and Human Communities, Springer
Kidokoro, T. (2000) Roles of ODA at the Intersection of Urban Environment Improvement and Poverty Alleviation, JBIC Review, Special Issue: Infrastructure for Development in the 21st Century
Kidokoro, T., Nguyen, T.A. and Tran, M.A. (2007) Improving Spatial Planning
Systems and Development Control Mechanisms Towards Sustainable Urban
Development in Asian Cities (Proceeding of 4th Urban Research Symposium, 14-16, May 2007, World Bank, Washington DC)
Sanoff, A. (2000) Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning,
JohnWiley & Sons
Schubeler, S. (1996) Participation and Partnership in Urban Infrastructure Management (Urban Management Programme Policy Paper 19, the World Bank)
Nishi, M., Kidokoro, T. and Onishi, T. (2000) A study on community-based recycling activities in a slum community in Manila, Philippines, Papers on
City Planning, 35 (in Japanese)