Organized self-help housing: Key to housing the low and medium income majority in Zambia
INTRODUCTION
Housing is a basic social need after food and clothing and, as with the other basic need, adequate housing is a pre-requisite to national socio – economic development. Its inadequacy can have a severe impact on the environment, health and the general well-being of communities. In Zambia, inadequate housing is more pronounced in the low income groups which constitute the majority of the country’s population (GRZ, 1996).
Organized Self – Help Housing (OSHH) is the construction method where participating families, under the supervision of a Self - Help Housing grantee, utilize their own labor to reduce the total construction cost of all homes built by the group. According to Bennett (2005), Self-help housing as a concept is a proven and effective way of providing affordable housing.
Participating families are organized into groups generally of 4 to 10 families who work together from initial classes through completion of all of the group’s houses. Participants are screened, educated in the principles of homeownership and trained in the skills they will need to build their homes. They are supervised by skilled coordinators who are, in many ways, the heart of the program.
These specialists are experienced in construction; they supervise and instruct the owner-builders and organize the construction process including permits, inspections, skilled trades, purchase and delivery of materials and components and the timely and simultaneous completion of all the group’s houses.
1.1.0 BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM FORMULATION
Organized Self – Help Housing is not only a method to reach the housing needs, it also promotes the enhancement and organization of resources of the community and institution involved to make community development. The process builds a sense of ownership, construction skills, team work and, ultimately neighborhood among the participants. It also produces affordable houses for needy families at low costs (Bennett, 2005).
Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in Africa. The situation has brought about major urban development challenges such as provision of land and services to an ever-increasing urban population (UN-Habitat, 2007). The country’s urban areas are centres of industry, education and culture hosting almost 50% of the country’s population, and for this reason, they continue to attract many rural-urban drifters hoping to improve their lives, creating shelter problems in the process (Ibid).
Owning a house, especially in Zambia is everyone’s wish. However, this wish is mostly beyond the reach of many due to economic constraints. It has been argued that over 80 per cent of the population in Zambia lives below the poverty datum line (PDL) and therefore cannot afford to own decent shelter (Musampula, 2005). The situation has been made worse in the recent past due to the liberalization of the economy.
The closure and sale of most state owned enterprises, resulted in the loss of many jobs hence relegating the majority middle class to the lower class and creating an unprecedented shortage in the low income housing quarters (Schlyter, 2004).
Despite all attributes to solve the housing situation, most of the people in Zambia continue to live in the squatter settlements. This accounts for about 72% of the population living in a poor and unhealthy environment (Construction news, issue number 4, 2001). This is because of affordability problems that most of the average Zambian face when it comes to housing.
Most of them cannot meet the cost of building or buying a house using their own resources (saving from income).
Zambia has been facing a very critical shortage of housing since independence. The lopsided pattern of development between rural and urban areas has resulted in very high rural-urban migration without a corresponding provision of appropriate housing in the expanding urban regions. Moreover, until 1996, the country had no housing policy that could guide action in the sector; the availability of adequate housing is an important pre-requisite to national development, as it is a basic social need after food and clothing.
Inadequate housing, especially among the urban poor, has severe negative impacts on the community well-being and the environment (UN-Habitat, 2007).
• Click on download for the complete and text • This is a sharing plattform for papers • Upload your paper and receive this one for free • Or you can buy simply this text
Currently, Zambia is suffering from an acute shortage of housing particularly in the middle and low-income groups and little or no new investment has taken place in the housing deficit.
According to the National Housing Policy, in 1993, there was a total number of 1.3 million housing units and there was a housing deficit of about 846,000 units. In 1996, the country faced a housing shortage of over 1,000,000 housing units (GRZ, 1996). Therefore, 12 years down the line, with the increase in population and households, the number of units required has certainly increased by a large margin.
To clear the shortage over the following ten years, the government required a building rate of about 110,000 dwelling units per annum (Ibid).
The government committed to construct 1.5 million housing units by the year 2010, under the theme “Shelter for All”. Since then there have been programs such as the Presidential Housing Initiative (PHI) which has built just over 500 housing units at the Bennie Mwiinga housing area along the Great East Road in Lusaka and 102 housing units at Twapia housing area in Ndola.
However, these units are beyond the reach of the majority of the Zambians for whom the shortage is critical. In addition, the number of units is so insignificant that it does not even begin to offset the problem. In addition, the government, in the FNDP, through the National Housing Developing Programme committed to construct 100 Housing units every year (50 low cost, 30 medium cost and 20 high cost houses) in each district, but this has not been fulfilled as well.
Government has attributed the inability to provide adequate shelter to inadequate funds Nonetheless, efforts are being made by public and private institutions and individuals, to stem the housing problem in the country. However, the pace is not fast enough to meet the underlying objective of providing shelter for all by 2010 and beyond.
A series of housing delivery systems has been attempted over the past years by government but these have failed to yield the expected results. These include the squatter upgrading system, site and service schemes, village improvement schemes, the national housing policy and the PHI. While the other housing delivery systems did not fail completely, the village improvement scheme and national housing policy failed completely (Christola, 2005).
By 2001, the national housing stock was 2,311,988 with a population of about 10,000,000 falling below the required amount to house the ever increasing population. The city of Lusaka has only 200,000 formal houses, although its population is approaching 2 million.
In all the schemes above, there has been a high dependence on the government for funding and hence the reason for failure. Organized Self-Help Housing on the contrary utilizes less of the government and brings on board other stakeholders in fostering development in this sector. These can be NGOs or other organizations in the private sector.
In some of the schemes highlighted above, the actual non-involvement of the beneficiaries in undertaking the housing developments resulted in their failure. Organized Self-Help Housing on the other hand involves the beneficiaries from the start of the project to the final stages.
According to the Central Statistical Office, Zambia has a 65 per cent of poverty, with women-headed households taking a larger potion of this percentage. Organized self-help housing projects encourage a large percentage of women participation, therefore ensuring the housing of many women headed households.
According to Lazenby (1977), to build one’s own house is an enabling and self-satisfying experience for a family, or group of families, to undertake, and the economic advantages are considerable. He continues to say that approximately 45% of the cost of a contractor-built house will consist of labour.
In Self-help building, the labour input is contributed by the families and the cost with self –help can be up to 40% cheaper than that of a dwelling of comparable size built by a contractor.
1.2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT
High dependence on government funding for shelter provision has resulted in many well-intentioned housing schemes failing to yield intended results.
1.3.0 HYPOTHESIS
Organized self-help housing schemes provide the key to the provision of adequate and affordable housing for the low and medium income groups in Zambia.
1.4.0 OBJECTIVES
1.To discuss the available housing delivery systems.
2.To discuss the housing delivery systems that have been undertaken in the country.
3.To determine the principles of Organized Self-Help Housing Projects.
4.To determine the feasibility and sustainability of self-help housing projects in the country.
5.To make appropriate conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of the research.
1.5.0 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
As earlier alluded to, improved housing policies and programmes are a major component of achieving the goal of adequate shelter for all. The development of efficient, effective and affordable housing delivery systems is an essential element of this objective. The study will highlight how the housing delivery system (Self-Help Housing) can be effectively implemented and the benefits that will be accrued from this system.
By so doing, the research brings out an alternative to solving the problem of inadequate affordable housing. The study is also important as it will highlight the various roles that different professionals will play in the provision of adequate and affordable housing. The literature gathered and findings of the study shall act as a source of knowledge for future academic studies and research at both under and post graduate levels.
1.6.0 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.7.0 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
vliterature review from books, periodicals, magazines, newspapers and the internet
vQuestionnaires
vInterviews
vPersonal observations
1.8.0 CHAPTER SYNTHESIS
This study consists of a five chapter research study:
Chapter one – this chapter provides a background to the study; problem formulation; statement of the problem; hypothesis and objectives; scope of the study; importance of the research; and the methodology that will be employed in undertaking the research.
Chapter two – this chapter examines the available information on the genesis of housing inadequacy in the country. This will be done by discussing the available housing delivery systems and those that have been undertaken in Zambia
Chapter three – the research here will aim to determine the principles underlying the organization and implementation of self-help housing schemes. The chapter will also examine the participants involved in self-help housing schemes.
Chapter four –This chapter’s aim will be to determine the feasibility and sustainability of self-help housing projects in the country. This will be done through an in-depth of information obtained from different stake holders during the field survey.
Chapter five – this chapter provides the conclusion to the dissertation, recommends the way forward to housing delivery systems in the country, highlights the limitations of the study and the proposals for further research.
2.0.0INTRODUCTION
Shelter is one of the basic requirements that man needs. Long ago shelter was very simple and it was in a form of caves compared to now where shelter is more than just a shield against animals or rains. Nowadays, shelter for man is more complex than before as it is in form of a house that must be constructed using different types of materials by experienced or trained people.
In addition, the provision of shelter is a multi-faceted social-economic phenomenon that goes beyond just the provision of shelter, but looks at social and economical aspects including services, making housing affordable and the provision of cost aspects to shelter. The task facing Zambia in housing is mammoth. The country is not only faced with an enormous housing backlog, but it also lacks an effective housing delivery system (GRZ, 1996).
Schlyter (2004) defines a housing delivery system as a summary of how housing is planned, financed, built, tenured, and distributed.
The need for adequate and affordable housing can not be overemphasized. Improved housing policies and programmes are a major component of achieving the goal of adequate shelter for all. The development of efficient, effective and affordable housing delivery systems is an essential element of this objective.
It is also important to ensure efficient and equitable systems for management and maintenance of the existing housing stock (UN-Habitat, 2007).
Everyone needs to have access to housing: hence, there are delivery strategies that must be used to achieve this goal. There are three main housing delivery strategies used in Zambia. These are conventional housing schemes, site and service schemes and squatter upgrading. Efficiency in the delivery system of housing depends on the appropriateness of the housing delivery strategies being used.
The decision in choosing the housing delivery system to employ would depend on a number of factors such as income and population of the people that has to be served. The income group of the people in relation to housing is one of the critical issues in the analysis of the best housing strategy to employ because this will determine if the houses constructed will be affordable to the beneficiaries.
It is therefore the aim of this chapter to discuss the available information on housing delivery systems. The literature review on each housing delivery system will consist of the ideal situation of the system and the situation as was undertaken in the Zambian case. The achievements and the failures of each system in Zambia will be highlighted.
This will enable us to note mistakes that were made and try to avoid them when adopting other new housing delivery systems.
2.1.0 TYPES OF HOUSING DELIVERY SYSTEMS
2.1.1 INTEGRATED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Integrated housing developments incorporate different types of residential dwellings or commercial buildings, including individual houses, Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUDs) and mixed use developments) on one parcel of land. Integrated housing developments often feature internal private access roads and are typically developed into community tittle type sub-divisions (Anon).
Amcud (2008 pg 6), continues on to say that integrated housing developments promote mixed settlement of people of different economic backgrounds and mixed use of condominium houses for commercial and residential purposes. This type of housing delivery also encourages the use of local medium size contractors and micro and small enterprises in the construction of houses.
Majele (2008 pg1) explains the term ‛integrated’ to mean overall social, economic and spatial integration of a city whereby poorer and marginalized sections of a city are formally integrated into the rest of the city. For example( unserviced areas are connected to water, sewage and other public utilities, whole land occupation is regularized and attempts made to integrate informal settlements into the framework of city/municipal development and the normal economy.
2.1.2 PRIVATE TENEMENT
‛Tenement’ according to Laird (2002 pg 2) means taking all the communal housing types together and the Oxford dictionary describes ‛tenement’ as a room or a set of rooms forming a separate residence within a house or block of flats. Mc Donald (2003 pg 6) continues to say that most tenements are residential blocks, but the definition also includes office blocks and large houses that have been divided into flats.
Ochieng (2007 pg 2) goes on to say that private tenement projects can be owned by both the government as well as private agencies. He continues to say that most of the projects undertaken by the government often lacked government oversight which resulted in problems ( e.g. lack of building permits, builders failing to follow by-laws). Most of the units observed were in a poor condition and were inhabited by poor families (ibid).
Conventional housing is one of the housing delivery strategies. In this housing delivery strategy, a contractor puts investment in the property, which is supposed to be returned with interest when families move in. The eventual occupants may pay up to quarter of the investment costs with a down payment in case of housing been sold on mortgage and hire purchase contracts (Skinner et al, 1983).
In most cases, houses which are constructed with this system are very expensive to be afforded using personal savings of the average Zambian (Reporter TOZ, 2005). In this housing delivery strategy, both the initial savings for the eown payments ane subsequent periodical installments depend on the physical availability of the completed house.
This housing delivery system has been undertaken by the government in Zambia and the results will be given in the paragraphs below. Most property developers use this method in housing development but it only suits those in formal employment because they require collateral which may include a latest pay slip, a 20% down payment which can not be afforded by people in the low brackets.
There are many variants of this housing delivery system. These may include; self-help schemes (to be discussed in chapter three), site and service schemes, squatter upgrading schemes, village improvement schemes.
2.1.4.1 Site and Service Schemes
In their pure form, site and service schemes (s and s) provide plots on virgin sites for allocation to potential residents, with essential public services laid on, and sometimes with credit for the purchase of materials and technical advice or stipulations about construction standards (Winpenny, 1972).
Government can develop between two to five site and services plots with resources needed to build a single house in a conventional housing project (Skinner, 1983).
The variety of different s and s schemes is best brought out by discussing their employment effects under the three heads: infrastructure, buildings and access.
i.Infrastructure: Schemes commonly provide land, access roads to a public highway system, footpaths, storm drains, water supply (either public standpipes or piped connections to individual plots), sewerage (piped or pit latrines), and sometimes electric power (street lighting and, more rarely, house connections).
ii.Structures: The level of public provision can vary from empty sites, through the construction of a ‛wet core’ structure (containing washing and toilet facilities), to the construction of a basic shelter (normally one-room) to house the occupant while he builds on the rest of the house.
iii.Access: Site and service schemes are usually conceived of as large scale developments. Since the units are normally single-storey, the schemes require more land than, say, multi-storey public housing blocks.
The city authorities can often only buy sites of the required size, or use empty land already in their possession, at acceptable cost on the edge of the city. This helps to explain why so many s and s schemes have inherent transport problems for their occupants. (The earlier site and service schemes in Lusaka were so far from the city centre that there were few applicants).
Advantages of site and service schemes housing strategies
There is freedom of designing and building of a house of one’s choice.
More people especially the low-income group can afford to own a house since they are free to build what is affordable to them.
There is no restriction as to the standards of materials.
There is no uniformity of houses built in one area.
Most of the houses built are of substandard materials.
There is land speculation. Not all plots will be developed; some owners will keep selling in future at a high price(Skinner, 1983).
2.1.4.2 Squatter Upgrading
This is another housing delivery strategy that can be used to provide housing for the poor people who cannot manage to get houses from conventional housing or site and service schemes.
Squatter upgrading is the improvement of social and physical infrastructure within an existing settlement and the “self-help” improvement of the homes by occupants (Ghana, 1998). Upgrading means recognition of a squatter settlement as part of the responsibility of the local authority (Knauder, 1982). Upgrading solves the housing problem by the transforming of illegal dwellings into legal ones.
The great merit of upgrading schemes is that they do not entail destruction of existing units, with a consequent loss of previous investment and disruption of work patterns and supplier-client relations. Although upgrading does not create new housing units, it can stimulate the creation of new housing space (by extensions to existing structures) and can bring structures up to a standard of services more satisfactory to the occupant and to society (Winpenny, 1972).
It preserves existing economic systems and opportunities for those most in need, the rural/ urban.
It preserves a low-cost housing system, usually at advantageous locations, thus enabling the inhabitants to retain the maximum disposable income.
It preserves a community, which has many internal linkages to safeguard interests of the individual family and the groups.
Disadvantages of squatter upgrading
There is no uniformity of upgraded houses in one area.
Most of the upgraded houses are of substandard materials and unregulated designs (ibid).
The alternative to upgrading is relocation in one form or another: this is socially disruptive and by usually being to a much less favorable location, results in higher transport costs and less access to informal employment opportunities (ibid).
Squatter upgrading has been tried in many other countries as well and below is an example squatter upgrading in Brazil.
2.1.4.3 Village Improvement Schemes
The aim of this housing delivery systems is regrouping people, before providing them with communal and infrastructure services. It can be related to Ujamaa, a village regrouping exercise, practiced in Tanzania under the rule of the late former President Julius Nyerere (Makasa, 2005).