Published in IIPS Mumbai, ENVIS center, Volume 6, No. 2-3,  July-December 2009

 

Access to Civic Amenities in Selected Metropolitan Cities in India:

A Study Based on National Family Health Survey (2005-2006)

Sujata Ganguly*

 

Introduction

In 2008, the world reached a momentous milestone for the first time in history with more than half its human population living in urban areas (3.3 billion). By 2030, this is expected to swell to almost 5 billion (UNFPA, 2007). Urbanization is rapid mainly in the fast growing economies of Asia-Pacific region where the average annual urban growth rate is more than 4 percent per annum. In India, the pace of urbanization has accelerated since 1951. Urban population has more than tripled from 62.4 million in 1951 to 285 million in 2001 i.e. the proportion of the population living in urban areas (level of urbanization) increased from 17.6 percent in 1951 to 27.8 percent in 2001.

The fast-paced growth of the Indian economy and particularly its cities has produced an urban crisis, one that is marked by the lack of adequate infrastructure and growth management as well as by sharp social divisions that are starkly etched in a landscape of bourgeois enclaves and slums (Roy, 2009). Slum population in India, according to 2001 census, stood as high as 40,297,341. This 40 million population accounts for about 14 percent of the total urban population. Amongst the states, Maharashtra leads with a slum population of 10,644,605 persons followed by Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

The definition of slum differs from one organization to another. For example, Census 2001 defines slum as all specified areas in a town or city notified as 'slum' by state, UT administration or local government under any act including a 'Slum Act'; all areas recognised as 'slum' by state, UT administration or local government, housing and slum boards, which may have not been formally notified as slum under any Act; a compact area of at least 300 populations or about 60-70 households of poorly built tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with inadequate and lacking in proper sanitation and drinking water facility (Mundu and Bhagat, 2008). National Family Health Survey which is a nationwide survey has adopted the definition given by Census 2001. UN-Habitat defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area and lacking one or more of the following: durable housing, sufficient living space, easy access to safe water in sufficient amounts at an affordable price, access to adequate sanitation and security of tenure that prevents forced evictions. The definition of a slum used by NSSO is similar to that of UN-Habitat (Chandrasekhar and Mukhopadhyay, 2008). In short, slums are residential areas where the dwellings by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangements of design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities or any combination of factors are detrimental to the safety and health of its residents.

Imperfections in land and housing markets and exorbitant increase in land prices have left the urban poor with virtually no alternative except to seek housing in the mushrooming slums. About one third of urban dwellers live below the poverty line and in subhuman conditions in such slums, without access to the basic minimum facilities of drinking water, sanitation, medical care, and public hygiene (Chakrabarti, 2001). Providing housing for the poor cities presents an entangled web of problems.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

* Junior Research Fellow, International Institute for Population Sciences, Govandi station road, Deonar, Mumbai-400088, Maharashtra, India.

E-mail: sujataganguly2002@rediffmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

First, neither government nor people have adequate resources to provide the quality of housing and infrastructure demanded by conventional housing codes. Moreover, poor citizens generally wish to live within walking distance of potential employment and this conflict with the land pressures and prices in rapidly expanding cities. Third, the squatters among the slum dwellers neither own nor rent land but simply construct their makeshift housing on privately or publicly held land; they lack-the security of tenure which would en c o urag e s tab il it y o f r e s id e n c e a nd improvement of housing. Fourth, any assistance given by government to the slum dwellers may be read as a welcome signal by potential future immigrants at a time when overcrowded cities wish to stem the immigrant flow. Finally, all of these problems demand increasing public attention as India's urban poor multiply both in number and in political organisation (Spodek, 1983).

In 1994, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development called on governments to “respond to the need of all citizens, including urban squatters, for personal safety, basic infrastructure and services, to eliminate health and social problems..........” (UN, 1995). More recently, the United Nations Millennium Declaration drew attention to the growing significance of urban poverty, specifying, in Target 11, the modest ambition of achieving by 2020 “a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers” (UN Millennium Project, 2005). Hence, an attempt has been made to study the conditions of slums including source of drinking water, type of toilet/latrine facility, household characteristics and household possessions in slum and non-slum areas of selected metropolitan cities of India.

 

Data

National Family Health Survey-3 (NFHS-3) conducted in the year 2005-2006 has been used for the study. NFHS-3 collected information from a nationally representative sample of 109041 households, 124385 women of the age group 15-49 and 74369 men of the age group 15­

54. The NFHS-3 sample covers 99 percent of India's population living in 29 states.

Additionally, NFHS-3 provides estimates for the slum and non-slum populations of eight cities, namely Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Meerut, Mumbai, and Nagpur (IIPS and MI, 2007).

Household file has been used to analyse the data on conditions of slum and non-slum. The total sample size is 18575 of which 8669 is slum households and 9906 is non-slum households. Delhi has 1196 and 1914 slum and non-slum households and Mumbai has 1104 and 1083 slum and non-slum households (Gupta et al., 2009).

 

Sample selection in eight cities according to NFHS-3

The urban and rural samples within each state were drawn separately and, to the extent possible, unless oversampling was required to permit separate estimates for urban slum and non-slum areas, the sample within each state was allocated proportionally to the size of the state's urban and rural populations. Based on the general assumption that a robust estimation of most population and health indicators requires a minimum sample of 1,000 ever-married women, the target sample size for the eight cities with separate slum and non-slum estimates was fixed at a minimum of 2,000 interviews with ever-married women (equally distributed between slum and non-slum areas of each city). To the extent possible, each state sample size was allocated to urban and rural areas in proportion to the population in the 2001 Census. However, in all those states for which city-level estimates were required, a larger proportion of the target sample was allocated to urban areas. The target sample size, which was fixed in terms of ever-married women, was transformed into the number of households to be covered by assuming the number of ever married women per household was the same as observed in NFHS-2. With the assumption that on average 30 households would be interviewed in each primary sampling unit (PSU), the number of PSUs to be surveyed in urban and rural areas of all states and the eight cities selected for slum/non slum measures was estimated.

In the eight cities for which separate indicators for slum and non-slum areas were to be provided, a different sampling procedure was adopted. Sample households in the cities were selected with a two-stage sampling design. At the first stage CEBs were selected and at the second stage households were selected. In each city, slum and non-slum PSUs were selected independently from the respective lists of slum and non-slum CEBs.

 

 

 
 

 

Sampling frame:

 Two separate lists of all the slum CEBs and non-slum CEBs in all the wards of each city served as two separate sampling frames at the first stage of selection. From each sampling frame, slum and non-slum PSUs were selected using PPS sampling. The house listing carried out in each of the selected CEBs served as the sampling frame for the selection of households.

 

Findings  

Table 1 reveals that slums have better source of drinking water (96 percent) than non-slums (91 percent). Mumbai slum has around cent percent improved source of drinking water which includes piped into dwelling, piped into yard/standpipe, tubewell or borewell and protected well. Generally, the first four types are common source of improved drinking water. In slums of Delhi and other cities, it is 94 and 93 percent respectively. Similiar condition prevails in non-slum as well. Non-improved source of drinking water is high in other cities except Mumbai particularly in non-slum areas. This source of drinking water comprise of unprotected well, tanker truck, cart with small tank and bottled water. Non-slum areas have higher percentage of source of drinking water on premises (85 percent) than slums (70 percent). On the whole, it can be seen that Mumbai slums have good source of drinking water and around 90 percent of the sources are within premises of the residence.

 

Type of toilet/latrine facility from Table 2 reveals that the improved facilities are available in non-slums (91 percent) than slums (74 percent). Improved type mainly consists of flush/pour flush to piped sewer system, flush/pour flush to septic tank and to pit latrine. Ventilated improved pit latrine/biogas latrine and pit latrine with slab are however negligible. Flush/pour flush to piped sewer system is 91 and 98 in Mumbai slum and non-slum areas. It is 41 and 83 percent in Delhi respectively. In Delhi slum, the percentage of households having not improved type of toilet/latrine facility comprising of flush/pour flush not to sewer/septic tank/pit latrine, pit latrine without slab/open pit/dry toilet and no facility/open/field is above 50 percent and households having no facility/open space/field are around 19 percent.

 

Above 90 percent households have electricity as well as pucca house (Table 3). In Delhi, Mumbai and other slums, 79, 74 and 66 percent are using one room for sleeping whereas in non-slums it is 45, 71 and 51 percent respectively. Around 14 percent households have 3 and more than 3 rooms for sleeping in non-slum areas compared to 4 percent in slums.

 

LPG/natural gas, kerosene and wood are the most common type of cooking fuel (Table 4). Around 46, 68 and 50 percent household use LPG/Natural gas in slums of Delhi, Mumbai and other cities respectively whereas it is 89, 85 and 74 percent in non-slum respectively. The use of kerosene is around 29 percent is slum and 9 percent in non-slum. 18, 1 and 11 percent households in slums of Delhi, Mumbai and other cities use wood respectively whereas the use of wood is around 3 percent in non-slum. Around 37 percent households have separate room for kitchen in slum compared to 70 percent in non-slum. On the other hand, 55 and 25 percent of households have no separate room for kitchen in slum and non-slum respectively. In Mumbai, stove is mainly used for cooking (above 90 percent). In Delhi, 39 and 58 percent household use open fire and stove respectively. Similiar condition prevails in slums of other cities as well. In non-slum, 32 and 61 percent households use open fire and stove for cooking respectively.

 

The household possession is comparatively better in non-slum than slum (Table 5). Among the slum areas, Mumbai has better household condition compared to slums in Delhi and other cities in terms of having electric fan, colour television, mobile phone, refrigerator etc. In non-slum, Delhi and Mumbai do not have notable difference in household goods. The percentage of households owning any means of transport in Mumbai is comparatively less. This may be due to the availability of easy means of local transportation. Delhi non-slum has better means of transport compared to slum. Similiar is the situation with slums and non-slums of other cities. 52 and 70 percent households in slum and non-slum have bank account or post office account. It is highest in Mumbai i.e. 63 and 81 percent respectively. 6 and 16 percent households in slum and non-slum are covered by a health scheme or health insurance. 

 

Conclusion

India has undergone rapid urbanization especially after independence. Development of industries augment rural-urban migration which leads to shortage of space and as a result of lack of affordability, accessibility and availability, people start residing in squatter settlements near the work place. Natural increase is another component which supplements the pace of urbanization. The recent National Family Health Survey conducted in 2005-2006 has collected data on slum and non-slum households from eight cities namely, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Meerut, Mumbai, and Nagpur.

 

The household conditions comprising of source of drinking water, type of toilet/latrine facility, household characteristics, type of cooking fuel used/place for cooking and household possession in slums and non-slums of Delhi, Mumbai and among other metropolitan cities combined has been compared. Surprisingly, source of drinking water is improved in slum than non-slum particularly in Mumbai. In addition to it, though the availability of improved toilet/latrine facility is better in non-slum than slum, Mumbai has exceptionally high improved toilet/latrine facility. On the other hand, in Delhi slum more than half of the households have non-improved toilet/latrine facility. Housing characteristics comprising of availability of electricity, type of house and separate room for kitchen do not reveal considerable variation. Another aspect to be noted is that the use of LPG/natural gas for cooking is high in non-slum than slum and particularly in Mumbai. Moreover, slums mostly do not have separate room for cooking. In general, Mumbai slums have better facilities than other slums.

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

References

Chakrabarti, Dhar P.G., 2001. “Urban Crisis in India: New Initiatives for Sustainable Cities”,     Development in Practice, 11(2/3): 260-272.

 

Chandrasekhar S. and Mukhopadhyay A., 2008. “Multiple  Dimensions of Urban Well-

Being: Evidence from India”. Available at:

www.isid.ac.in/.../doc/Multiple_Dimensions_Urban_Well_Being.pdf (Accessed on 1st September, 2009).

 

Gupta K., Arnold F. and Lhungdim H., 2009. Health and Living Conditions in Eight Indian Cities. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), India, 2005-2006. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences; Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF Macro.

 

International Institute for Population Sciences and Macro International, 2007. National             Family

             Health Survey, 2005-2006: India, IIPS, Mumbai. Volume I.

 

Mundu, G. B. and Bhagat, R.B., 2008. “Slum Conditions in Mumbai with Reference to the        Access of Civic Amenities”, Population and Environment Bulletin, 5 (1): 3-13.

 

Roy, A., 2009. “Why India cannot Plan its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of         Urbanization”, Planning Theory, 8(1): 76-87.

 

Spodek, H., 1983. “Squatter Settlements in Urban India: Self-Help and Government Policies”, Economic and Political Weekly, 18(36/37): 1575-1586.

 

United Nations, 1995. Population and Development, Volume 1: Programme of Action        adopted at the International Conference on Population Development: Cairo, held between 5-13 September, 1994, UNs, New York, USA.

 

UNFPA, 2007. State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth,        United Nations Population Fund, New York, USA.

 

UN Millennium Project, 2005. Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve t       Millennium Development Goals, report to the UN secretary-general, London and            Sterling,            Virginia: Earthscan.

 

Table 1: Percentage distribution of slum households by source, time to collect drinking water, India, NFHS (2005-2006)

 

Slum

Non-Slum

Drinking water characteristics

Delhi

Mumbai

*Other cities

Total

Delhi

Mumbai

*Other cities

Total

Source of drinking water

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improved source of drinking water

93.95

99.86

92.70

96.06

89.83

100.00

89.89

91.18

Piped into dwelling

42.68

59.29

19.90

44.17

77.66

80.91

29.01

64.33

Piped into yard/plot

6.69

28.00

26.95

20.00

3.82

11.27

32.72

12.97

Public tap/standpipe

35.03

12.43

32.49

25.28

4.03

7.64

17.79

8.39

Tubewell or borewell

9.39

0.14

12.85

6.43

4.27

0.18

9.87

5.32

Protected well

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.12

0.04

0.00

0.59

0.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-improved source of drinking water

6.05

0.14

7.30

3.94

10.13

0.00

10.03

8.77

Unprotected well

0.00

0.00

0.76

0.17

0.00

0.00

0.84

0.24

Tanker truck

5.89

0.00

4.53

3.19

7.53

0.00

2.19

5.03

Cart with small tank

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.06

0.20

0.00

0.08

0.14

Bottled water1

0.32

0.14

1.76

0.58

2.40

0.00

6.83

3.34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time to obtain drinking water

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water on premises

55.66

89.68

60.10

70.48

87.13

93.61

77.45

85.24

Less than 30 minutes

30.94

9.46

35.86

23.36

7.90

6.20

20.35

11.20

30 minutes or longer

13.40

0.86

4.04

6.16

4.97

0.18

2.20

3.56

Note: 1 Because the quality of bottled water is not known in slums

 

* Other cities include Chennai, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Meerut and Nagpur.

 

Table 2: Percentage distribution of slum households by type of toilet/latrine facilities, India, NFHS (2005-2006)

 

Type of toilet/latrine facility

 

Slum

 

 

 

Non Slum

 

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Delhi

Mumbai Other cities

Total

Improved

47.13

95.70

77.33

73.77

94.46

99.64 79.93

91.03

Flush/pour flush to piped

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sewer system

40.96

91.50

48.48

63.15

83.32

98.18 52.66

76.60

Flush/pour flush to septic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tank

5.60

4.61

25.51

9.80

10.98

1.09 23.97

13.36

Flush/pour flush to pit latrine

0.96

0.14

2.78

1.05

0.16

0.18 2.70

0.88

Ventilated improved pit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(VIP) latrine/biogas latrine

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.06

0.00

0.00 0.25

0.07

Pit latrine with slab

0.00

0.00

0.51

0.12

0.00

0.00 0.51

0.14

Not improved

52.23

3.72

22.42

25.71

5.54

0.36 19.90

8.92

Flush/pour flush not to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sewer/septic tank/pit latrine

31.68

2.16

16.67

16.27

2.24

0.18 17.89

6.39

Pit latrine without

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

slab/open pit

0.16

0.00

0.25

0.12

0.12

0.00 0.17

0.12

Dry toilet

1.44

0.00

0.25

0.58

0.57

0.00 0.08

0.36

No facility/open space/field

19.20

1.59

5.30

8.86

2.60

0.36 1.77

2.08

Other

0.64

0.57

0.25

0.52

0.00

0.00 0.17

0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Table 3: Percentage distribution of slum households by housing characteristics, India, NFHS (2005-2006)

 

Slum

Non-Slum

Housing characteristics

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Electricity

98.09

99.57

94.46

97.86

99.67

99.09

98.23

99.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of house

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kachha

1.28

0.14

0.76

0.70

0.90

0.00

0.25

0.60

Semi-pucca

12.00

2.30

13.96

8.51

1.30

1.83

7.43

3.10

Pucca

86.72

97.56

85.28

90.79

97.80

98.17

92.32

96.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rooms for sleeping

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

79.43

73.96

65.58

74.01

45.28

70.86

51.14

50.29

2

16.11

23.61

26.88

21.64

37.83

25.68

36.23

35.78

3+

4.47

2.43

7.54

4.35

16.90

3.46

12.64

13.93

Table 4: Percentage distribution of slum households by cooking fuel/place of cooking, India, NFHS (2005-2006)

 

Slum

Non-Slum

Cooking fuel/Place of cooking

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Electricity

1.91

0.14

0.25

0.81

1.06

0.36

0.50

0.81

LPG/Natural gas

46.42

67.81

50.00

55.90

88.54

84.88

74.43

84.07

Biogas

0.16

0.00

0.75

0.23

0.00

0.00

0.67

0.19

Kerosene

29.89

30.19

27.50

29.46

4.63

13.30

15.48

8.84

Coal, lignite

0.16

0.14

4.25

1.10

0.00

0.18

1.18

0.36

Charcoal

0.16

0.00

0.75

0.23

0.12

0.00

0.25

0.14

Wood

17.65

0.86

11.50

9.43

3.25

0.18

5.30

3.43

Straw/shrubs/grass

0.16

0.00

0.75

0.23

0.12

0.00

0.34

0.17

Agricultural crop

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.02

Animal dung

1.75

0.00

2.75

1.27

0.85

0.18

0.50

0.67

Other

1.75

0.86

1.25

1.27

1.42

0.91

1.26

1.31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Place for cooking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the house, separate room

25.92

40.83

47.86

37.03

72.86

60.66

68.83

70.12

In the house, no separate room

60.96

57.74

41.31

55.12

22.15

37.52

23.25

24.48

In a separate building

1.44

0.43

2.52

1.28

2.00

0.91

3.71

2.34

Outdoors

10.08

0.14

7.30

5.41

2.04

0.18

3.12

2.10

Other

1.60

0.86

1.01

1.16

0.94

0.73

1.10

0.96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food cooked on stove or open fire

 

 

 

 

 

Open fire (including Chullah)

38.82

2.69

41.24

28.55

42.98

2.50

31.25

32.13

Stove

58.07

94.62

56.70

68.74

47.11

91.25

64.24

60.98

Other

3.11

2.69

2.06

2.71

9.92

6.25

4.51

6.89

Table 5: Percentage distribution of slum households possessing various household goods, means of transport, percentage with a bank account, health scheme/insurance, BPL card, India, NFHS (2005-2006)

 

Slum

Non-Slum

Household possession

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Delhi

Mumbai

Other cities

Total

Household goods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mattress

70.22

74.68

67.00

71.29

92.35

90.15

77.84

87.96

Pressure cooker

69.75

81.26

68.01

74.01

92.68

90.51

81.87

89.34

Chair

43.54

61.52

69.60

56.84

82.87

81.93

84.50

83.21

Cot or bed

77.55

67.67

78.39

73.74

91.01

84.28

84.08

88.17

Table

42.52

51.72

53.65

48.81

82.66

77.74

71.69

78.91

Electric fan

86.31

94.42

88.66

90.14

95.28

96.53

94.69

95.28

Radio or transistor

36.94

40.97

38.54

38.94

57.61

56.75

49.16

55.10

Television (black and white)

21.97

13.16

27.64

19.71

16.84

6.96

21.25

16.80

Television (colour)

49.36

66.52

49.25

56.29

77.91

83.58

66.86

75.52

Any television

67.99

77.94

74.31

73.48

87.67

88.52

84.92

87.01

Sewing machine

32.32

18.62

24.62

25.00

63.16

19.56

29.51

47.95

Mobile telephone

30.41

45.35

32.24

36.89

66.71

61.97

52.99

62.20

Any other type of telephone

12.76

26.79

16.62

19.34

45.47

49.82

37.66

43.82

Computer

3.82

6.15

5.29

5.10

19.67

15.69

16.51

18.25

Refrigerator

30.94

36.48

24.43

31.69

69.57

65.81

45.91

62.38

Watch

84.90

91.27

89.92

88.64

93.89

94.71

94.52

94.18

Water pump

6.53

0.57

10.55

5.04

16.14

0.37

17.86

14.57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Means of transport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle

24.20

13.73

46.85

25.17

37.35

14.78

46.21

36.90

Motorcycle or scooter

12.58

11.16

23.12

14.43

41.94

19.20

41.28

38.79

Car

2.71

2.58

3.53

2.84

18.67

6.59

11.20

14.98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage having a bank account/post office account

43.86

62.71

48.36

52.55

71.55

80.84

64.25

70.70

Percentage covered by a health scheme/health insurance

5.57

6.58

7.04

6.32

16.15

21.35

14.57

16.38

Percentage owing a BPL card

5.41

2.58

13.60

6.15

1.34

1.46

8.25

3.31