SITE AND SERVICES SCHEME

CONTENT
• INTRODUCTION
• THE BASIC PRINCIPLES
• VARIATIONS
• KEY ACTORS
• CONSTRAINTS
• CASE STUDIES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
• Rapid growth of urban areas in most developing countries in the last few decades
has led to shortfall in many sectors, primarily housing.
•The problem has been two-fold: on one hand, the majority of the people moving to
the urban areas have lacked the necessary asset and financial holdings in order to
acquire a "decent" house.
•On the other hand, the designated government agencies and bodies have not
provided sufficient housing units which are affordable for the poor majority in urban
areas.
•The proliferation of slums and squatter
settlements has been a result of this scenario.
But a growing understanding of the dynamics
involved in the development and expansion
of squatter settlements has led to a number
of innovative housing schemes in various
developing countries to solve the "dilemma"
of housing.
•Particularly with the intention of improving
the environmental quality of squatter
settlements and provide it with the basic
necessary infrastructure, one such
innovative schemes which has received
wide acknowledgement and following has
been "SITES-AND-SERVICES" schemes.
•The realization that providing a "complete"
serviced house by government agencies is not possible or simply cannot
be afforded by most low-income families prompted a shift in focus from
supplying a fully serviced house to that of providing only serviced land.
•The key characteristic of the approach the use of the beneficiaries' "sweat
equity" and other internal resources (community, financial and so on) in the
actual construction and development of the houses.
•Many countries in South America, Asia and Africa took up this concept, and
with the World Bank strongly advocating this approach and providing key
finance for a number of projects, the idea received widespread approval.
THE BASIC PRINCIPLES
• The key components of a housing scheme are
the plot of land, infrastructure (like roads,
water supply, drainage, electricity or a sanitary
network), and the house itself.
• Various inputs that go into them include
finance, building materials/technology, and
labour.
• Thus, the sites-and-services approach
advocated the role of government agencies
only in the preparation of land parcels or
plots with certain basic infrastructure, which
was to be sold or leased to the intended
• Depending on the investment made, resources available, the
implementing agency or degree of organization of the
beneficiaries, sites-and-services schemes were activated in a
number of differing ways.
• This variation was a result of the attempt to strike a balance
between minimum "acceptable" housing conditions and
affordability of the beneficiaries.
• While following the basic rule of a plot of land (sites) and
essential infrastructure (services), the degree of participation
and inputs of the implementing agency on one hand, and the
beneficiaries on the other, varied greatly.
• They ranged from an empty plot of land and some services
(like water, electricity and sanitation connections) to the
provision of a "core" house (consisting of a toilet and kitchen
only) on the plot of land with attached services.
VARIATIONS
Some of the variations attempted in sites-and-
services projects include:
• 1) Utility wall: A "utility" wall is built on the
plot which contains the connections for water,
drainage, sewerage and electricity. The
beneficiaries had to build the house around this
wall, and utilize the connections from it. Some
projects provided this utility wall in the form of a
sanitary core consisting of a bathroom/toilet,
and/or a kitchen.
•2) Latrine: Due to its critical waste disposal
problem, many project provide a basic latrine
KEY ACTORS
• The two key actors in a sites-and-services project are the
intended beneficiaries and the implementing agency.
• In most cases, the intended beneficiaries of the project
belong to the lower income group of an urban area - for
example, squatters who have been relocated from their
original illegal settlement.
• They are characterized by low incomes, informal sector jobs
or irregular employment and lack the necessary assets to
enable them to afford a "formal" sector house. With basic
skills in construction, many are in a position to build their own
house (there are however exceptions to these features -
which have resulted in the failure of many sites-and-services
schemes).
• The other principle actor in the sites-and-services schemes is
the implementing agency. In most cases, this is a government
department or similar body, like the Housing Boards.
Operating from goals and objectives on a city-wide scale and
for all income groups, such agencies initiate sites-and-services
schemes both for the provision of housing of low-income
families as well as removing "eyesores" that squatter
settlements depict.
• The basic division of the stages of implementation between
these two principle actors determines the type of scheme
being proposed. Several other actors play essentially
supportive roles, including various government agencies
responsible for provision of infrastructure, non-governmental
or voluntary organizations and so on.
CONSTRAINTS
•With several assumptions and misconceptions regarding low-income
families, sites-and-services projects have been subject to many
shortcomings in its conception, identification of beneficiaries,
implementation and cost recovery.
•Thus sites-and-services schemes have often been rendered
unaffordable or inaccessible for the lowest-income groups by
bureaucratic procedures, institutional requirements and political
problems.
Some of the constraints have been:
•Location: With high land costs in urban areas, most sites-and-services
schemes are location on the fringe where such costs are not very high.
This however causes two problems: one, the large distance between the
site and existing delivery networks, off-site and on-site provision of
infrastructure is high and construction can be delayed. Two, the extra
distances that the beneficiaries have to travel (and the consequent extra
costs) to the employment centers would discourage many beneficiaries
to take advantage of such schemes.
• Bureaucratic Procedures: Selection procedures, designed to
ascertain that applicants meet eligibility criteria, tend to be
cumbersome, time- consuming and full of bureaucratic pitfalls,
and provide opportunities for corruption. Besides, for many low-
income families, the eligibility criteria are impossible to meet
due to informal sector jobs or low/irregular incomes.
• Delay in provision of Services: Due to a lack of coordination
between the various implementation agencies and a "spread" of
responsibility of providing the infrastructure and services, there
is considerable delay in the final provision the services, even
after the land has been allocated to the beneficiaries.
• Standards: High standards of construction and building quality is
set by the implementing agencies making such schemes
unaffordable to the target beneficiaries. Some sites-and-
services schemes, for example, prohibit income generating
activities on residential plots, including rental of rooms: they,
thereby, limit the opportunities of residents to earn an
(additional) income to pay for their plot and their house.
• Cost Recovery: Most sites-and-services schemes are plagued
by poor cost recovery. One reason is the high costs that
beneficiaries have to bear shortly after moving into the
scheme. They have to pay for the plot as well as construction
of the house, while they might be facing loss of income due to
the move to the new scheme. Transport, water and electricity
costs add to the burden which they might not have had before.
But some of the main reasons for poor recovery has been
delay in provision of services, inadequate collection methods,
lack of sanctions for non-payment and absence of political will
to enforce pay men.
• The positive aspect of sites-and-services
schemes that deserves support is its
recognition of the ability of people to house
themselves, with a little backing from the
government agencies.
• Thus the role of the government changes
from that of a "provider" to an "enabler".
• It also enables them to save scarce resources
by "sharing" the responsibility of housing with
the intended beneficiaries.
• On the part of the beneficiaries, it makes best
use of existing/potential resources, both at
Case studies: Sites and Services Program in India
•The first World Bank sites and services project in India was approved in 1973 in
Calcutta.
•Between 1973 and 1997, the World Bank financed 11 projects in India with sites
and services components, covering approximately 3,200 hectares and providing
approximately 280,000 plots across 27 cities.
•The projects had an average implementation period of 8 years.
ARANYA HOUSING INDORE - AR. B. V. DOSHI
•Location - 6km from the centre of Indore city, M.P.
•Client- Indore Development Authority
•Principal Architect - Balkrishna Doshi
•Project Associate - Mr. Himanshu Parikh
•Structural Engineer - M/s Stein Doshi &Bhalla, New Delhi
•Project Engineers –Environmental Engineering Consultants, Bombay
•Total Built-up Area -100,000 m2
•Project Cost - Rs.100 Million
•Year of completion – 1989
•Award - Aga Khan award for Architecture in 1996
OBJECTIVES
• To improve and upgrade the existing slum area
• To provide serviced sites for new housing developments instead of building
complete houses.
• To provide for 6,500 residential plots ranging in size from 35sq.m. for EWS to
475sq.m. for high income groups
Financial Aspects:
• The idea was to mix some middle income plots with EWS plots to use the profits to
raise capital towards development of local trades.
• Funding – 100% public sources.
Site selection criteria:
• Linkages to the city
• Employment generating industrial areas in the surroundings.
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Foundation: Under rimmed piles in concrete, cast in situ locally was used as the soil
was black cotton soil.
Structural members: Reinforced concrete plinth beams, load bearing brick walls,
reinforced concrete slabs.
Exterior finishes:
• Bright colour in the façade, railing, grills and cornices seen in the old houses of
Indore used in some houses in the township.
• Residents were free to use any material like brick or stone that were locally
available.
ZONING I Residential commercial N
ZONING II
DISTRIBUTION OF PLOTS ACCORDING TO INCOME GROUPS
• Lower income and economically weaker sections of the society EWS 65%
• uniformly distributed LIG 11%
• uniformly distributed MIG 14%
• close to artery HIG 9%
HIERARCHY OF ROADS
60 m 30 m 12 m 15 m 9.5 m 4.5 m 1.5 m N
ROADS
• Segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
• Offsets break visual monotony.
• Hierarchy is based on the volume of the traffic and activities.
• The roads suit human scale.
• Use of cul-de-sacs to avoid traffic.
CIRCULATION AND LINKAGES
For clear segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic:
• Vehicular access in the form rectilinear and formal roads in the hierarchy of 4.5m
wide to 15m wide road draw the vehicles outwardly.
• Pedestrian access in the form of informal interlinked open spaces draws people
inwardly.
• Vehicular roads Informal pedestrian pathways and open spaces
HIERARCHY OF OPEN SPACES
• Interlinked informal spaces.
• Continuous system of open spaces is provided.
• Staggered roads create spaces for community congregation.
• A single large open space is avoided Access to open spaces in minutes.
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
• Roads 26%
• Residential Space 58%
• Open Spaces 9%
• Community &Commercial facilities 7%
SITE AND SERVICE SCHEME OF DESIGN
•In this scheme services like water tap, toilets and street lights and a plinth are
provided around which houses can have different configurations.
•Longer side of a block of row house was oriented north south to reduce solar
radiation
•Provision of vertical expansions
•Housing was seen more as a process than a product.
SITE AND SERVICE APPROACH
•Cost-effective
•Progressive development of facilities.
•Houses built by the people themselves to suit their needs.
•Each family provided with a plot having a water tank, sewerage connection,
paved access with street lighting, storm water drainage
•Service cores - key to this site and service scheme. - nuclei around which
houses were built.
•Houses were clustered in groups of 10.
•Septic tank provided for every 2 clusters.
•Water drawn from 3 local reservoirs.
•To economize, 20 toilets are connected to1 manhole.
•One service line serves four rows of houses.
SEWERAGE SYSTEM
•Major alternatives:- Sewer-less sanitation.-Conventional sewerage
system.
•The soil being impermeable black soil of 2m depth, conventional
sewerage system was adopted.
•Designed after thorough analysis of topography –naturally slopes
towards NW
•Higher income groups, using more water were located at high ground
level to generate large flow.
•Lower income groups, usingless water located at lower ground level.
•This resulted in 10-15%savings.
TREATMENT SYSTEM
•For conveyance system, a wet well and lift station was constructed
near the final manhole.
•Oxidation pond - located on the NW corner of the site. - removes
biological oxygen - simple in operation - effluent suitable for disposal
STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
•Very efficient and facilitates healthy and clean living.
•Combination of underground and surface drainage system.
•Underground used for wider roads
•Surface drainage used for internal roads
ELECTRICITY
•High income and middle-income groups were provided with overhead
cables.
•Economically Weaker Sections were provided with underground
cables
MUMBAI AND CHENNAI
•The Chennai program consisted of three projects—the first ran from 1977-
1982, the second from 1980-1988, and the third from 1988-1997.
• The city of Mumbai invested in a single project that was initiated later in 1985.
•Due to land acquisition issues, the investments in Mumbai took longer to be
realized than expected but still managed to deliver more than the targeted
number of plots and apartments before it closed in 1994.
•All sites in both Mumbai and Chennai were greenfield developments,
predominantly on reclaimed land scattered across the peripheries of
metropolitan areas.
• In Chennai, project land was sourced exclusively from areas around large
water reservoirs.
•In Mumbai, the original plan was to reclaim coastal wetlands but a regulatory
ban forced project site relocations after implementation began
PROGRAM SITES IN
MUMBAI AND
CHENNAI
The number of beneficiaries was greater than planned, and increased over
time
•At project close, the number of plots developed under the sites and services
projects was 56,970 in Chennai and 90,000 in Mumbai.
•Assuming each plot was acquired by a single household with an average
household size of 4, this translates to 227,880 beneficiaries in Chennai, and
360,000 beneficiaries in Mumbai.
•These numbers exceed the project targets set at inception.
•In addition, project evaluators concluded that about 60-70 percent of the
beneficiaries were indeed low-income families (World Bank 1986, 1990, 1992
and 1997).
•The number of beneficiaries has continued to increase over time.
Bibliography
•http://www.gdrc.org/uem/squatters/s-and-
s.html
•http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/3711814891
81586833/Sitesandservices-DRAFT-for-
discussion-15Dec2016.pdf