The effect of neighborhood consolidation on the active participation of the inhabitants and social cohesion

(1)

Bachelorthesis

Human Geography

University of Amsterdam

Lara Wouters

10270566

15-8-2014

The effect of neighborhood consolidation on the active

participation of the inhabitants and social cohesion

(2)

2 Images front page by Michaela Hordijk.

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ms Dr Michaela Hordijk for enabling me to write this thesis by allowing me to use her own data concerning the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan, situated in Lima. Without her help I would not have been able to write my thesis about Lima, which has been a great wish of mine.

(4)

4

1. Introduction

In the 1950’s the most significant demographic shift of Latin America started which changed the spatial pattern of residence all over the continent. Due to the mechanization of agriculture and an increased population pressure, the conditions in the rural areas worsened and consequently induced a process of rural-to-urban migration. Moreover, the rising popularity of the city also contributed to this strong urbanization experienced since the 50’s. As a result of this urbanization the part of the total population of Latin America living in the urban areas rose from one-quarter in the 50’s to three-quarters in the beginning of the 21st century (Rowntree et al, 2009). Most of the rural-urban migrants of this era tried to escape from the poverty suffered in the rural areas and moved to the city in hope for better opportunities. However, they frequently ended up in the peripheral informal squatter settlements of the city due to a lack of cheap urban housing. In these settlements living conditions were tough and services and infrastructure were extremely limited (Andrews & Phillips, 1970).

This former described evolvement is also applicable to the Peruvian situation. Particularly for the capital of Lima, where nowadays around 40 percent of the population live in self-built housing in the squatter settlements of the city, which are named barriadas (Rowntree et al, 2009). For the development of these barriadas neighborhood organizations and the participation of the inhabitants have a significant importance, especially in the beginning of the settlement process (Riofrío, 2003). These early years of development are also characterized by the presence of a strong social cohesion within the community (Plöger). But what happens with the neighborhood when it reaches a certain consolidation level? Are the inhabitants still participating in neighborhood organizations? And is there still a strong social cohesion within the community or are the inhabitants acting more individualistically? By answering these answers an insight can be given in how the barriadas develop on a social level in the process of neighborhood improvement, which can be useful for urban policies.

Therefore, this research investigates the effect of neighborhood consolidation on the active participation of the inhabitants in neighborhood organizations and the social cohesion in the neighborhood a couple of decades after the settlement. This investigation concentrates on one squatter settlement neighborhood in Lima, the capital of Peru, called Pampas de San Juan. The exact research question that will be answered is as follows:

To what extent did the consolidation of the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan in Lima, Peru have an influence on the active participation in neighborhood organizations and social cohesion of the inhabitants of this neighborhood between 1997 and 2010?

In order to answer this question first a theoretical framework will be described. Then the three concepts of neighborhood consolidation, active participation in neighborhood committees and the social cohesion will be analyzed separately. At last, the effect of the neighborhood consolidation on the active participation and social cohesion will be explored.

(7)

7

2. Theoretical framework

The bulk of the low-income class living in the urban areas of developing countries live in informal neighborhoods, this is also the case in Lima, the capital of Peru. These informal neighborhoods can be categorized in three groups. First, the urbanized villages, which are villages that already existed but got enclosed by an expanding city. Second, the illegal urban subdivisions, which are developed by land brokers who disregard the existing city plan and regulations. And third, the invasion settlements, which derive as a result of (un)organized land invasion by rural migrants and the following land development (Baken et al, 1991).

Also the majority of the Peruvian rural-urban migrants of the 1950s ended up in informal neighborhoods, mostly in the squatter settlements of the capital city of Lima (Rowntree et al, 2009). These informal squatter settlements in Lima were known by the name

barriadas in the 1950s (Riofrío, 2003). The rise of these informal squatter settlements was

caused by a lack of cheap urban housing as a result of the strong urbanization. An informal neighborhood subsequently offered a cheaper option of housing than formal neighborhoods, caused by low overhead costs and low locational and physical qualities (Baken et al, 1991). This resulted in the growth of these underdeveloped informal settlements, and explains why many of the rural-urban migrants ended up in these informal squatter settlements with tough living conditions due to limited services and infrastructure (Andrews & Phillips, 1970). According to Hordijk (2000) most of the informal settlements derived from invasions in Lima survived, although some of them were relocated. The majority of the ones that did survive have gone through a long lasting process of incremental development, called neighborhood consolidation.

In this chapter the existing definitions and theories concerning neighborhood consolidation, active participation of neighborhood inhabitants and social cohesion and the interrelatedness of these three concepts are described.

2.1 Neighborhood consolidation

The majority of the informal squatter settlements in Lima has gone through a process of neighborhood consolidation (Hordijk, 2000). Baken et al (1991) states that this process of neighborhood consolidation involves the three following aspects:

1. A rise of the de facto tenure security attached to residing in these neighborhoods 2. An increasing level of services and infrastructure, and improvement of the physical

quality of the housing stock

3. The formation and subsequent refinement of social networks and organizations (p. 18) Hordijk (2000) added a fourth aspect to these aspects of neighborhood consolidation, as described by Baken et al (1991), which is the improvement of economic conditions.

The first aspect, a rise of the de facto tenure security, is a prerequisite for neighborhood consolidation. Multiple investigations have shown that there exists a strong correlation between neighborhood consolidation and the de facto security of tenure

(8)

8 (Douglass, 1998, in Hordijk, 2000). This tenure security does not have to be based on official recognition of the informal neighborhoods by the government, but can also arise if governments provide urban service to these neighborhoods. The inhabitants of these neighborhoods then know that it is most likely that they can stay settled where they are and the investment risks will decrease (Hordijk, 2000). Subsequently, an increase of the de facto tenure security can lead to an increase in investments in housing and thereby cause a physical and residential densification. On the other hand, a lack of the de facto tenure security is a severe restriction for the start of most types of economic activity at the first stage of neighborhood consolidation (Baken et al, 1991).

Regarding to the second aspect of neighborhood consolidation of Baken et al (1991) – that is an increasing level of services and infrastructure, and improvement of the physical quality of the housing stock–Turner (1969) described the typical way of development of a house in a barriada, an informal squatter settlement situated in Lima. He states that these houses typically start as a shack or a group of shacks and end up as a dwelling with two or even three floors. These bigger houses often consist of multiple separated dwellings which are occupied by the owner’s children or which are rented to others in order to obtain an extra income for the owners. Often the ground floor of these multiple floor houses is used as a shop or a workshop. Thereby Turner states that the inhabitants of a barriada have the freedom to manipulate their own environment, including the whole community. Through local associations they can make decisions concerning issues like, for example, the number open spaces, schools and markets. Thereby they have an influence on the kinds of services and facilities established and partly regulate the improvement of services and infrastructure by themselves.

This argument of Turner brings us to the third aspect of Baken et al (1991), which is the formation and subsequent refinement of social networks and organizations. Turner (1969) states that the inhabitants of informal neighborhoods can improve their own environment through the formation of local associations. Thereby, the refinement of their informal social networks is a way for the inhabitants of the barriadas to stabilize their daily life with often unstable living conditions. By refining their informal social network, the inhabitants form a safety net for the community through which they can support each other materially and emotionally (Hordijk, 2000). This third aspect of Baken et al (1991) will be further explored later on.

On top of these three aspects described by Baken et al (1991), Hordijk, (2000) added a fourth aspect, which is the improvement of economic conditions. This improvement of economic conditions and the economical climate in an informal neighborhood that has been consolidated is reflected in the increase of the land prices (Baker et al, 1991).

Beside these four aspects of neighborhood consolidation described by Baken et al (1991) and Hordijk (2000), Baken et al state that the process of neighborhood consolidation often induce two other transformations. At first a densification of the neighborhood which is due to a combination of natural growth and in-migration. As a result of this process of densification, a rise of the potential demand for goods and services in the neighborhood

(9)

9 occurs. Secondly, the consolidating informal neighborhoods often experience a change in their relative location. This change of the relative location refers to the decrease of time and/or money needed to travel from the neighborhood to other places in the city and the other way around. This makes the location of the neighborhood ‘relatively’–namely indicated in time and/or money and not in distance–closer to, for example the city centre. This is a result of an improved infrastructure and better connections and makes a neighborhood more accessible. In this matter, the relative distance to other sides of the city will decrease and these neighborhoods can change from a underdeveloped peripheral neighborhood into a less peripheral neighborhood that can generate new economic functions (Baken et al, 1991).

According to Baken et al (1991) there exists a strong relationship between the former mentioned physical, social, and legal aspects in the process of neighborhood consolidation, which means that a change of one of the aspects can influence the development of another. Hordijk (2000) adds the economical aspect of neighborhood consolidation as another strongly interrelated aspect to these physical, social and legal aspects of neighborhood consolidation Baken et al described.

The formation of informal settlements as the barriadas in Lima has not always been seen as a positive development by governments, international media, and public opinion (Fernández-Maldonado, 2007). Before the 1960s, the rapidly growing informal neighborhoods in the cities of the Third World were generally considered as places of criminality and social breakdown and defined negatively as ‘slums’. This public opinion was also reflected in the way government officials considered these informal neighborhoods. They were afraid for these neighborhoods to be a breeding place for left-wing revolts. This idea started to change when Turner showed with his work that this presumption was incorrect in case of the

barriadas in Lima (Fernández-Maldonado, 2007). He has been the most influential writer

about housing in the developing world in the post-war period and showed that social strengths and optimism in the future were the main characteristics of the barriadas (Harris, 2003 ; Fernández-Maldonado, 2007).

Turner had a big influence on the public opinion concerning informal neighborhoods (Harris, 2003). During the 1970’s and 1980’s the process of neighborhood consolidation of informal settlements even got gradually recognized as a positive development instead of a negative one. Governments of developing countries increasingly realized that they could not solve the problem of housing the urban poor by driving them out of their informal settlements and subsequently forcing them to resettle somewhere else. Hence, they gradually started to follow a new approach of regulation to stimulate the neighborhood consolidation. As a consequence, more programs were established in order to stimulate the regularization and development of the informal neighborhoods (Baken e.a., 1991).

2.2 Participation of inhabitants

This section concentrates some more on the third aspect of neighborhood consolidation provided by Baken et al (1991), namely the formation and subsequent refinement of social networks and organizations. Imparato & Ruster (2003) state that the performance and impact

(10)

10 of developing programs on the consolidation of informal neighborhoods in Latin America, like the barriadas in Lima, improves significantly when inhabitants of the neighborhoods participate in neighborhood organizations and neighborhood activities. The participation of the inhabitants can provide access to local knowledge–which is specified knowledge concerning a particular place–and thereby an organized expression of demand, since the inhabitants themselves can inform the leaders of the developing programs what exactly is needed to both fulfill the demands of the inhabitants and develop their neighborhood. Both of these things will improve the design and effectiveness of the programs. However, Imparato & Ruster (2003) state that the participation of the inhabitants in neighborhood organizations is not only beneficial for the program, but also for the inhabitants of the barriadas themselves, since the participation of the inhabitants can help them to achieve their overarching goals. These are goals concerning issues that affect all inhabitants and they would all benefit from if these goals would be reached, such as poverty reduction, good governance and democratization. Imparato & Ruster (2003) describe three ways the inhabitants can achieve these kinds of goals through participation. At first by means of obtaining an opportunity to affect the decisions made and actions initiated that influence their lives, secondly through the establishment of a network for the participation of the community in decision making, and at last the build of the local capacity to negotiate and cooperate with other authorities.

Thus, the participation of the inhabitants has proven to have a valuable part in the success of neighborhood consolidation programs, according to Imparato & Ruster (2003). Barrera & Ramírez Corzo (2004), however, see participation of inhabitants in consolidation programs as one of multiple factors that contribute to the consolidation of the barriadas in Lima. In addition to the participation of inhabitants, Barrera & Ramírez Corzo claim that also the capacity of the neighbors to organize themselves and fulfill their necessities through collective action plays an important role in successful neighborhood consolidation of informal settlements in Lima. Though, Imparato & Ruster (2003) state, based on their research in the

barriadas in Lima, that this participation of inhabitants in collective action and their

dedication on its own is mostly not effective as well to achieve the progress of neighborhood consolidation. They claim that the support and structure that programs provide is also necessary to achieve significant results in the consolidation process (Imparato & Ruster, 2003).

Stated that the participation of inhabitants in neighborhood organizations and programs is valuable for both themselves as for the success of the program, the question rises what aspects or characteristics play a role for inhabitants in determining to participate in these programs, or not. Portes (1972) states that, in the context of the slums in Latin America, this decision is a matter of individual rational-utilitarian considerations. In these kinds of considerations the benefits and the cost of each option will be evaluated before the decision will be made. The option with the highest benefits and the lowest cost will be chosen. These kinds of benefits and costs do not necessarily have to be economical, but could also consist of psychological benefits. In the decision whether to participate in neighborhood activities and

(11)

11 organizations or not the time and effort the participation consumes and the personal benefits of this participation will be individually evaluated. According to this theory, an inhabitant would participate in neighborhood activities and organizations if the benefits are considered more valuable than the time and effort the participation consumes. In case of the underdeveloped neighborhoods collective action is often necessary in order to solve the existing problems. When these problems in need of collective action become relevant for the individuals the participation of the inhabitants of the neighborhood in the organizations and programs will increase. Consequently, when there is an absence of individually relevant issues and problems are solved, the participation of the inhabitants will decrease. This means that neighborhood organizations might have periods of inactivity, and in case of the slums in Latin America these organizations should be seen as a tool only to be used when necessary (Portes, 1972).

Although the participation in neighborhood organizations is an individual choice, some people lack the opportunity to participate in neighborhood organizations or collective action. According to Brodrecht (2012) this can be due to several aspects. A lack of education is one of the aspects that could limit these people as a result of the often consistent inadequate communicational, organizational and legal skills. Another result of a lack of education is employment in the informal sector, which subsequently causes an inability to contribute materials, money, and sometimes even time to participate (Brodrecht, 2012). Another aspect that influences the participation of inhabitants is the whether they possess social capital of not. Brodrecht (2012) states that social capital is needed for inhabitants in order to participate in civil groups, such as neighborhood organizations. Thus, in order to make collective action possible the development of social capital is necessary. Social capital is defined by Putnam (1993) as concept that ‘refers to features of social organization, such as

networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits of investment in physical and human capital’ (p. 35). Moreover, the participation of inhabitants

in neighborhood activities and organizations can be influenced by the existence of a form of social cohesion in the neighborhood, which would encourage the participation (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

As mentioned before the participation of the inhabitants in neighborhood organizations is important for the development of the informal neighborhoods in Lima. Plöger (2012) states that there has been an apparent decline of these once so important community organizations in the barriadas of Lima in the past decades. According to Plöger (2012), this decline of participation and community organization is due to a few different factors. The first is the consolidation progress of the barriadas. Collective organization, action and participation of the inhabitants used to be necessary in order to solve problems as a lack of basic services and security of the concerning neighborhoods. Nowadays, most of the barriadas have gone through a process of neighborhood improvement and have now reached a remarkable higher level of consolidation. Many households were able to improve the quality of their houses in consequence of their rising incomes. This consolidation resulted in a decline of community organization since the need for collective action in order to solve collective problems

(12)

12 decreased. A second cause of the decline of collective action concerns the involvement of the Peruvian government. The past few decades the government interfered more in the development of the barriadas with among others self-help supporting policies and a legal recognition and formalization of the neighborhoods. As a result the major objectives of the majority of the community organizations were weakened, resulting in a decline of these organizations. The third factor Plöger mentioned as a contributing factor to the decline of community organizations is the decentralization process Peru has gone through. Since the 1980s the governments of the districts became stronger and the democratically elected local authorities became a competitors for community organizations. This converted the barriada problem from a problem of the inhabitants into a problem of the municipalities–which took the responsibility of the problems–and made the number of community organizations decline.

Concluding it can be stated that the participation of inhabitants is important for both the success of developing programs of informal neighborhoods as for the inhabitants themselves. Although, this participation is less needed by the inhabitants when the relevant issues and problems are solved. Consequently, an improvement of the neighborhood will lead to a decrease in the participation of the inhabitants in neighborhood organizations and actions, which is now the case in the barriadas in Lima.

2.3 Social cohesion

The extent of social cohesion that is present in a community plays a role in the formation and subsequent refinement of social networks and organizations. This is the third aspect of neighborhood consolidation as defined by Baken et al (1991). Forrest & Kearns (2001: p. 2128) summarize the concept of social cohesion as the following ‘social cohesion can

emphasize the need for a shared sense of morality and common purpose; aspects of social control and social order; the threat to social solidarity of income and wealth inequalities between people, groups and places; the level of social interaction within communities or families; and a sense of belonging to place’. In this citation multiple aspects are mentioned,

which Forrest & Kearns redefined into five domains of this definition of social cohesion: common values and a civic culture, social order and social control, social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities, social networks and social capital and at last place attachment and identity.

According to Putnam (1996) social cohesion and thereby active citizens in neighborhood activities are created by engaged communities. Forrest & Kearns (2001) state that the problem of the development of poor neighborhoods in Latin America is (often) the lack of this engagement and social cohesion. These underdeveloped neighborhoods often suffer a lack of elements and qualities which are necessary in order to produce and obtain social cohesion (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). This lack of social cohesion can lead to a communities with ‘social disorder and conflict, disparate moral values, extreme social

inequality, low levels of social interaction between and within communities and low levels of place attachment’ (Forrest, Kearns, 2001, p. 2128).

(13)

13 Plöger (2012) states that the first years of development and formation of the

barriadas in Lima are typically characterized by the presence of a strong social cohesion

within the community, which is often based on a common cultural and regional background. This strong cohesion enables the practice of spatial and social control which is important for an successful invasion and neighborhood consolidation. Also the local leaders of these neighborhoods confirm the assumption that a strong community cohesion is an essential factor in the process of neighborhood ‘survival’ in the urban environment (Plöger, 2012).

(14)

14

3. Methodology

The central question in this research is:

To what extent did the consolidation of the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan in Lima, Peru have an influence on the active participation in neighborhood organizations and social cohesion of the inhabitants of this neighborhood between 1997 and 2010?

This question will be answered by means of several sub questions which are the following: 1. How did the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan consolidate between 1997 and 2010? 2. To what extent, and in what way did the active participation in neighborhood

organizations of the inhabitants change between 1997 and 2010?

3. To what extent, and in what way did the social cohesion between the inhabitants of then neighborhood change between 1997 and 2010?

4. Is there a relation between the extent of the neighborhood consolidation and active participation in neighborhood organizations of the inhabitants?

5. Is there a relation between the extent of neighborhood consolidation and the social cohesion experienced by the inhabitants?

By answering the first three sub question the three concepts of neighborhood consolidation, active participation in neighborhood organizations and social cohesion will be explored separately. Subsequently, two single linear regression analysis will be done in order to answer the last two sub questions. With these analysis both the relation between neighborhood consolidation and social cohesion, and the relation between neighborhood consolidation and active participation in neighborhood organizations will be investigated. All these sub questions will be answered by means of data obtained through surveys taken in 1997 and 2010 by Dr Michaela Hordijk among 224 households living in the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan. In 1997 a single random sample has been taken of all households living in the neighborhood. In 2010 the same addresses have been visited in order to take another survey. An amount of 224 addresses have a filled in a survey by the household in both 1997 and 2010. In 157 of the cases it can be sure that the family living at the addresses was the same in both 1997 and 2010. It is important to have interviewed the same households in both 1997 and 2010 in order to be sure that changes are not due to a change of the family living at the approached addresses. Therefore, the surveys of the 157 households that were identical will be used for the two single regression analysis. For the separate analysis of the three variables all 224 households will be used.

This chapter will continue with a short introduction of the study area, the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan. Then the way the analysis will be done is explained in the operationalization paragraph. The last part of this chapter will explain the way the three

(15)

15 concepts of neighborhood consolidation, active participation in neighborhood organizations and social cohesion are computed.

3.1 The neighborhood Pampas de San Juan

The area in which the surveys are taken that are used for this research is the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan. This neighborhood is a subsection of the district San Juan de Miraflores and situated in Lima, the capital of Peru. The district San Juan de Miraflores is situated in a peripheral area in the south of Lima. It is a district that started to develop around 1954 and belongs to one of the poorest districts of Lima. In 2010 the district was housing 386,124 inhabitants and was still growing. Nowadays the neighborhood has an amount of 400,630 inhabitants (INEI, 2010). The neighborhood Pampas de San Juan is situated in the south of the district San Juan de Miraflores and was founded in the 1979 when the first invaders started to build up informal settlements. In 1982 the neighborhood experienced a massive wave of invasions and in 1984 the neighborhood was already housing an estimate of 7,000 families. In the year 2000 a total of around 50,000 inhabitants lived in the neighborhood (Hordijk, 2000). Both the district of San Juan de Miraflores and the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan are shown in Figure 1.

(16)

16

3.2 Operationalization

In order to answer the first sub question about the consolidation of the neighborhood between 1997 and 2010 the focus will be on the second aspect of neighborhood consolidation from Baken et al (1991). This is an increasing level of services and infrastructure, and improvement of the physical quality of the housing stock. The analysis will be done on the level of the neighborhood, in which also the change of problems the households experience in the neighborhood will be taken into account. After this analysis the focus will shift to an individual level by analyzing the individual consolidation of the households. This will be done because the sum of individual improvement of the households in a neighborhood can also be seen as neighborhood consolidation.

In the second sub question the active participation of the neighborhood in neighborhood organizations and activities will be analyzed. The focus of this analysis will be on the neighborhood level. Whether the inhabitants can be seen as active participators in neighborhood organizations or not will be measured by their participation in the different present neighborhood organizations.

In order to answer the third sub question the social cohesion in the neighborhood will be analyzed by means of several indicators. This again will be done on a neighborhood level. The social cohesion the inhabitants experience have the following indicators; mutual help and the kind of mutual help, presence of neighborhood committees, the organizations of neighborhood parties and activities and at last if the people know the leader of the neighborhood council.

After these three separate analysis of the concepts the two single regression analysis will be done in order to find out if there is a relation between the change in neighborhood consolidation and both the change of experienced social cohesion and active participation of the inhabitants in neighborhood organizations and activities between 1997 and 2010. The neighborhood consolidation is here the independent variable and social cohesion. The participation in neighborhood organizations are both dependent variables and the research design is longitudinal since the situation of 1997 will be compared with the situation in 2010. Figure 2 shows how the three concepts are interrelated, based on the literature explored in chapter 2. Though only the effect of neighborhood consolidation on the social cohesion and the active participation in neighborhood committees will be further explored in this research.

(17)

17

Figure 2: Conceptual framework

Before these analysis can be done, the three concepts of neighborhood consolidation, the active participation in neighborhood organizations by inhabitants and social cohesion among these inhabitants need to be made measurable. This operationalization will be done by giving these concepts indicators which are measured by the surveys taken in 1997 and 2010 among the households of the neighborhood. Each concept will be made measurable by the sum of the scores at the different indicators for the concept. This way the three concepts will be converted into three variables which can be quantitatively analyzed. How the concepts are operationalized exactly will be explained later on. The research units in the two single linear regression analysis are the households. This means that the three concepts will thus be analyzed at a household level. The concept of neighborhood consolidation will thus be measured through the consolidation of the households. Indicators for their consolidation that will be used are; state of the house, possession of luxury goods, employment and social mobility. The concept of active participation and social cohesion will be measured by means of the same concepts as the separate analysis of these concepts. Table 1 gives an overview of the concepts and the indicators used to make them measureable.

Neighborhood

consolidation

Social

cohesion

Active

participation

in

neighborhood

committees

(18)

18

Operationalization scheme

Concept Definition Indicators

Neighborhood Consolidation

Four aspects:

- A rise of the de-facto tenure of security

- An increasing level of services and infrastructure, and improvement of the physical quality of the housing stock (aspect used for research) - The formation and subsequent

refinement of social networks and organizations

- Improvement of economic conditions

(Baken et al, 1991; Hordijk, 2000)

- More and better roads - Better sanitary services - Less waste

- Improved housing quality - Increase of problems (or

change in kinds of problems)

Neighborhood consolidation (household level)

- Sum of individual improvement seen as neighborhood consolidation as well.

-Possession of luxury goods - Quality of the house - Employment - Social mobility Active participation in neighborhood organizations and activities - Participation in different neighborhood organizations/activities Social cohesion Five domains:

- Common values and a civic culture - Social order and social control - Social solidarity and reductions in

wealth disparities

- Social networks and social capital - Place attachment and identity

(Forrest & Kearns, 2001)

- Are the inhabitants helping each other?

-Are there neighborhood parties?

- Do people know the leader of the neighborhood council -Are there neighborhood committees?

Table1: Operationalization scheme

3.3 The composition of the variables 3.3.1. Neighborhood consolidation

As stated in the paragraph before the variable of neighborhood consolidation will be measured by the consolidation of the household. For the composition of this variable the following four indicators are used: state of the house, possession of luxury goods, employment and social mobility.

The state of the house had been observed by the interviewers themselves. They divided the houses into six different categories which are: 1) houses made of straw, 2) houses made of wood, 3) houses made of concrete with one floor without a roof, 4) houses made of concrete with one floor and a roof, 5) houses made of concrete with two floors without a roof and 6) houses made of concrete with two or more floors and a roof. Houses made of brick fit in the same category as the houses made of concrete. Consequently, the houses with the highest score have the best quality and with the lowest score the worst. In order to measure the change between 1997 and 2010 both answers were subtracted, which result in a positive score in case of an improvement and a negative score in case of a deterioration. The

(19)

19 minimum and maximum the households could possibly score are a 5 and a -5. This score was divided through 5 in order to get a minimum and maximum of -1 and 1 and afterwards multiplied by 2 because this indicator is seen as an important indicator that should weigh twice as much as the other indicators.

The second indicator is the possession of luxury goods. In the surveys the question was asked whether the households possess certain luxury goods. The luxury goods that were both investigated in 1997 and 2010 are a color television, a car, a Video Home System (VHS), a fridge, a landline and a sound system. For both the years 1997 and 2010 the households could get a score of 1 if they possessed the luxury good, or a 0 if they did not. These scores were counted and then divided by 6 since there are 6 luxury goods measured. At last the scores of 1997 and 2010 were subtracted so the maximum a household could score is a 1 in case they did not have any luxury good in 1997 and had all six luxury goods in 2010. The minimum score is a -1 which the households scored in case they got all six luxury goods in 1997 and did not have any of them left in 2010. However, there were also some luxury goods that were not included in the survey of 1997, but were in the survey of 2010. This was due to the fact that these luxury goods did not exist in the year 1997 or were not common to use for personal objectives. Therefore it can be assumed that none of the households did possess these luxury goods in 1997 and the possession of it in 2010 can be included in the measure of the consolidation level. These luxury goods were a mobile phone, a computer and internet. These luxury goods were divided by 3 so the maximum households could possibly score is a 1 and the minimum a 0. Consequently, the maximum the households could possibly score by their possession of luxury goods is a 2 and the minimum a -1. Because this indicator is also seen as an important indicator for the consolidation level of the household, this indicator is not further divided by 2.

The third indicator is employment. Unfortunately only the status of employment of the woman of the household has been asked in 1997, so only this change could be included in the variable of consolidation level. The question was asked whether the women are employed or not. They could get a score of 1 if they were and got a score of 0 if they were not. Afterward the scores of 1997 and 2010 were subtracted so the women would score a -1 if they got unemployed and a 1 if they got employed between 1997 and 2010. A -1 would thus indicate a deterioration. However, this does not always have to be the case regarding to employment, because the women could also have got retired between 1997 and 2010. The official age of getting retired is 65, though this is age is not always followed in case of informal jobs. Nevertheless it can also not been said for sure that the inhabitants of the neighborhood have an informal job. Therefore all the women that scored a -1 and had an age above 65 were excluded from the analysis.

The last indicator for the individual consolidation level is the social mobility of the household. A positive score, namely a 1, at this indicator indicates that the children are following better education or having a higher social status than their parents, and thus have better future income perspectives. The households score positively at this indicator in the following cases: when at least two of the children have a job, when at least one of the

(20)

20 children has a job with a form of social security, when at least one of the children is following a form of technical education or university. A negative score, namely a -1, consequently means that the children are having worse future prospects than their parents. For example, if they are not following any education while their parents did.

All these indicator of individual consolidation have been taken together in order to form the variable of neighborhood consolidation. The maximum a household could score for this variable is a 6.00 and the minimum a -5.00. The following graph gives an overview about the way the indicator of neighborhood consolidation is composed.

Figure 3: Variable of consolidation level of the household (Source: Self-made)

3.3.2. Active participation in neighborhood committees

The variable of active participation in neighborhood committees is also measured at an individual level, namely the households. There will not be made any distinction between which member of the household participates. This means that the participation of any of the members of the household in a neighborhood organization will result in a positive score for this variable. Unfortunately, the questions asked in 1997 are not all the same as the questions asked in 2010. In order to compare the active participation in neighborhood organizations in 1997 and 2010 it is important that the same questions that indicate this active participation were asked. Otherwise a certain change of active participation measured between 1997 and 2010 could also be due to the difference in questions asked. Therefore a lot of questions could not be included in this variable. This is unfortunate, since the variable could have been more complete with more questions included. This is something to keep in mind during the further analysis of this variable. The only questions that could be included are the questions concerning the participation in a street committee and the participation in a water committee. There was also a question asked about the participation in a park committee that

Improve-me nt of the house (min=-2 max=2) Change of possesion of luxury goods (min=-1 max=2) Change of employmen t (min=-1 max=1) Social mobility (min=-1 max=1) Household's consolidatio n (min=-5 max=6)

(21)

21 was alike in both years, but this one could also not be included due to the large amount of missing data.

Both questions about the participation in street committees and water committees had initially a lot of missing data. This was partly due to another question that was asked before this question, namely if the inhabitants knew if there were any committees present in their neighborhood. The people that answered ‘no’ or ‘do not know’ to that question consequently did not have to answer the question whether they participate in a committee or not, since it is logical that people do not participate in a committee if they state that there do not exist of do not know if there exist any committees in the neighborhood. Though, the answers of these people at the question whether they participate or not was seen as missing data, while these answers could be seen as a ‘no’ at the question whether they participate or not. Therefore, the answers that were missing at the question whether they participate or not, was transformed into a ‘no’ when they stated before that there did not exist any committees or did not know if there exist any committees. This way more valid answered were obtained. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that some missing data could be converted into a ‘no’ but that such thing could not have been done for all the other missing data, in which probably some positive answers are hidden.

After this recode of a part of the missing values had been done the variable of active participation was composed by the sum of the two outcomes of the participation in the street committee and the participation in the water committee. The households scored a 0 if they did not participate in any committee, a 1 if they participated in one committee and a 2 if they participated in both committees. This is done for both 1997 and 2010 and the two were subtracted. Consequently the change of active participation could vary from a -2 if the households participated in both committees in 1997 and none in 2010 to a 2 if they did not participate in any committee in 1997 and participated in both in 2010. The following graph gives an overview about the way the indicator of active participation in neighborhood committees is composed.

Figure 4: Variable of active participation (Source: Self-made) Change of participation in street committees (min=-1 max=1) Change of participation in water committees (min=-1 max=1) Active participation in neighborhood committees (min= -2 max=2)

(22)

22

3.3.3. Social cohesion

The variable of the change of social cohesion consist of four indicators. These are mutual help of neighbors, the presence of neighborhood committees, the organizations of neighborhood parties and if the people know the leader of the neighborhood council. These indicators will be measured at the level of the household. This means that the variable of social cohesion indicates the way the household experiences the social cohesion in the neighborhood.

In order to measure the indicator of mutual help between neighbors the question was asked if neighbors help each other. The following answers could be given 1) Yes, and always 2) Before did, but not anymore 3) Before did not, but do now 4) Never did. By analyzing the mutual help of neighbors only the situation at the moment itself was taken into account in order to make a good comparison between 1997 and 2010. Therefore answers 1 and 3 resulted in a positive score of 1 and the answers 2 and 4 in negative score of 0. This has been done for both years and afterward the two scores were subtracted. A -1 consequently indicates a decrease of mutual help a 0 indicates no change, and a 1 indicates a increase of mutual help of neighbors between 1997 and 2010.

The second indicator for social cohesion is the celebration of certain parties in the neighborhood. The survey asked about five different parties between 1997 and 2010 and thereby included the option of ‘other parties’ in 2010. This option of ‘other parties’ is not included in this indicator because the households could not have answered this question in 1997 while they might have done so if they would have had the opportunity. The five parties that are included in the indicator are yunzas/cortamontes, which are parties comparable with carnival, other traditional parties, religious parties, the anniversary of the neighborhood and parrilladas/polladas which are barbecues. The households scored a 1 for each party if they stated that it was celebrated in their neighborhood. Afterward the scores were divided by 5 so the minimum a household could score is a 0 and the maximum a 1. This has been done for both 1997 and 2010 after which the both scores were subtracted so the maximum score is a 1 if the household experienced the maximum decrease of parties celebrated and the minimum a -1 if the households stated that all the five parties were celebrated before but not anymore in 2010.

The next indicator is the existence of neighborhood committees. The households scored a 1 if they stated that there exited neighborhood committees and a 0 if they stated that there did not exist any neighborhood committees or did not know if there existed any. This has been done for both the data in 1997 and 2010 and both scores were subtracted again. This results in a maximum score of 1 if the household stated that there did not exist –or did not know if there exist– any neighborhood committee before and stated in 2010 that there do. The minimum score is a -1 if the household stated that there did not exit–or did not know if there exist–any neighborhood committee while they stated in 1997 that there did exist. A 0 indicates no change between 1997 and 2010.

The last indicator for social cohesion is whether the households know the name of the leader of the neighborhood council or not. If they did know the name of the leader of the neighborhood council the households scored a 1, if they did not a 0. Though, there was also

(23)

23 the option that the households knew another leader within the neighborhood. If households chose for this option they scored a 0.5 since they did not know the name of the actual leader of the neighborhood council, but on the other hand had at least some knowledge about the social order in the neighborhood. These scores of 1997 and 2010 were subtracted which result in a maximum score of 1 in case they did not know the name of leader in 1997 and did know the leader in 2010 and a minimum score of -1 if they did know the leader in 1997 and did not know the name of the leader in 2010.

All these four indicators of social cohesion have been taken together in order to form the variable of social cohesion. The maximum a household could score for this variable is a 4.00 and the minimum a -4.00. Figure 3 gives an overview about the way the indicator of neighborhood consolidation is composed.

Figure 5: Variable of social cohesion (Source: Self-made)

Change of mutual help of neighbors (min=-1 max=1) Change of knowing the leader of the council (min=-1 max=1) Change of existence of committees (min=-1 max=1) Change of parties celebrating (min=-1 max=1) Social cohesion (min=-4 max=4)

(24)

24

4. Neighborhood consolidation

In this chapter the consolidation of the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan between 1997 and 2010 is investigated. One of the aspects of neighborhood consolidation mentioned by Baken et al (1991) is an increasing level of services and infrastructure, and improvement of the physical quality of the housing stock. In this chapter the focus will be on this particular aspect. The surveys taken in 1997 and 2010 will be used in order to analyze the change of this aspect. One of the questions asked during these surveys was about the problems the inhabitants experienced in their neighborhood. Some of these problems concerned the infrastructure and the physical quality of the housing stock. Therefore first the physical changes of the neighborhood will be described, with the problems concerning these physical change included and subsequently the other problems investigated will be explored. Because the sum of individual improvement in a neighborhood can be seen as neighborhood improvement, the change of the living conditions at an household level will be explored as last.

4.1 Physical changes

The neighborhood Pampas de San Juan experienced some physical changes between 1997 and 2010. A number of these changes are described in this section. At first the way the inhabitants experienced certain problems concerning the physical aspects of the neighborhood has changed. Figure 6 shows to what extent the inhabitants of the neighborhood experienced the problems of inadequate housing, a lack of paved roads and a lack of green areas in both 1997 and 2010.

Figure 6: Problems concerning the physical aspects of the neighborhood (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, calculated by Author) 25.9 90.2 77.2 20.2 57.2 86.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Inadequate housing Lack of paved roads Lack of green areas

P e rcent ag e of p e op le w h o e xp e ri e n ce t h e p re sence of t h e se p rob le m s

Problems concerning physical aspects

1997 2010

(25)

25 One of the problems that decreased is the problem of inadequate housing. Between 1997 and 2010 the percentage of people mentioning this as a problem declined from 25.9 percent to 20.2 percent. This indicates an increase of the quality of the housing stock, which will be explored some more later on. Besides this improvement the households also experienced a negative change concerning the lack of green areas. More households considered this lack of green areas as a problem in 2010, with 86.1 percent, compared to 1997 (77.2 percent). However, the biggest change in problems concerning the physical aspects of the neighborhood has been the change in the lack of paved roads. It can be concluded that this was a big problem in 1997, since 90.2 percent of the households considered the lack of paved roads as problematic. In 2010 this lack of paved roads was much less experienced as a problem by the inhabitants, though the majority of the inhabitants still mentioned the existence of this problem in 2010, namely 57.2 percent. Nevertheless, 44.6 percent of the inhabitants saw the construction of roads and stairs as a the biggest positive change in the neighborhood between 1997 and 2010. These conclusions about the improvement of the roads is also reflected in Figure 7, which shows that the amount of asphalted roads changed strongly between 1996 and 2000.

(26)

26 Another way the neighborhood have changed physically is through the quality of the housing stock. This is partly discussed before through analyzing the problems concerning inadequate housing. In addition observations have been done by the interviewer concerning the physical condition of the houses in both 1997 and 2010. With this observations a distinction was made between six different categories, namely 1) houses made of straw, 2) houses made of wood, 3) houses made of concrete with one floor without a roof, 4) houses made of concrete with one floor and a roof, 5) houses made of concrete with two floors without a roof and 6) houses made of concrete with two or more floors and a roof. Houses made of brick fit in the same category as the houses made of concrete. Figure 8 shows the change in the physical conditions of the housing stock between 1997 and 2010. It can be seen that in 1997 the majority of the houses was made of concrete with one floor and without a roof, namely 35.5 percent. In addition a big percentage of the housing stock consisted of houses made of wood, namely is 27.3 percent. This situation was changed dramatically in 2010 where the majority of the housing stock, 26.7 percent, was made of concrete and had two or more floors with a roof, while this category contained just 0.5 percent of the housing stock in 1997. The figure also shows that all the shares until the two last categories with the highest quality decrease between 1997 and 2010 and made place for a huge increase of these last two categories.

Figure 8: Material of the houses (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, Calculated by author)

Beside the changes of problems concerning the physical quality of the neighborhood, which is described before, more problems changed in importance between 1997 and 2010. Table 2 shows all the other problems investigated through the surveys. The three aspects concerning the basic needs of the inhabitants, which are bad water quality, water scarcity and a lack of sewerage were declined all to a very low percentage in 2010. Especially the problem of water scarcity made a spectacular decrease from 75.9 percent to 5.8 percent in 2010. Thereby, 23.7

6.4 27.3 35.5 23.2 7.3 0.5 0.5 8.3 16.1 22.6 25.8 26.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Straw Wood Concrete, 1 floor, no roof Concrete, 1 floor, with roof Concrete, 2 floors, no roof Concrete, 2 or more floors, with roof P e rcent ag e s Materials/phyisical condition

Material of the houses 1997 and 2010

1997 2010

(27)

27 percent of the inhabitants considered the accessibility of basic services as the biggest positive change between 1997 and 2010. It can be concluded that the problems concerning the basic needs of the inhabitants had almost been solved between 1997 and 2010. Other problems that have declined according to the inhabitants of the neighborhood, are the problems of dust, air pollution, waste and rodents.

Beside these positive changes, there have also been some negative changes. In 2010 more people had a problem with the noise in the neighborhood, namely 35.0 percent compared to 29.0. Though this is just a small increase compared to the problem of violence. In 1997 65.9 percent of the inhabitants considered violence as a problem in the neighborhood. In 2010 this percentage increased strongly to 90.1 percent of the inhabitants. In addition, also 65.5 percent of the inhabitants considered violence as the first priority problem of the neighborhood, while just 18.4 percent saw violence as the first priority problem in 1997. Thereby, 84,5 percent had the problem of violence mentioned in their top three priority problems in 2010, against 39.0 in 1997. In the investigation of negative changes of the neighborhood the words (youth) gangs, delinquency, robbery and violence were mentioned very often, namely 102 of the 224 respondents, which is 45.5 percent, mentioned one of these words or a combination of them as the biggest negative change. Concluding there can be stated that the problem of violence in the neighborhood increased extremely and is a big issue in 2010. This is a disturbing change which might require some action by authorities. Some further investigation might be helpful to find out what caused this rapid increase of violence in the neighborhood, to be able to prevent this negative change in other

barriadas in the future.

Problems 1997 (%) 2010 (%) Bad water quality 10.7 3.1 Water scarcity 75.9 5.8 Lack of sewerage 51.8 4.0 Noise 29.0 35.0 Dust 80.8 61.9 Air pollution 68.3 61.0 Waste 81.3 62.8 Rodents 76.3 61.3 Violence 65.9 90.1

Table 2: Problems in 1997 and 2010 (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, Calculated by author)

4.2 Households’ consolidation

The consolidation of the neighborhood can also be seen as the sum of all improvement of the households of the neighborhood. Therefore also some characteristics concerning the consolidation on a household level are investigated now. At first the quality of their houses is discussed, then the employment of women and the possession of luxury goods is analyzed and last the social mobility will be investigated.

(28)

28

4.2.1 Quality of the houses

The analysis about the changes of the quality of the housing stock showed a big improvement of the physical quality of the housing stock between 1997 and 2010 in the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan. But does this mean that all the houses have improved their physical quality? Or are there also some houses that have experiences a decline in their quality? And how did the houses improved individually? In order to find that out another analysis have been done at an individual level. In this analysis the category of the physical quality of the houses in both 1997 and 2010 were subtracted. A positive outcome consequently means that there has been an improvement of the physical quality and a negative outcome indicates a decline of the physical quality. Thereby the number itself indicates the amount of categories a house has improved or deteriorated. Figure 9 shows the outcomes of this analysis. It can be calculated that the majority of the houses, 73.3 percent, scored positively and thus improved their physical quality. There is a small percentage that experienced a deterioration of the physical quality, namely 1.4 percent, which is only a deterioration of one category. Stronger deterioration did not occur. In addition, 25.4 percent of the housing stock did not change their quality. The majority of the houses, which is 29.1 percent, changed their physical quality with an increase of 2 categories positively.

Figure 9: Individual change of the quality of the houses (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, Calculated by author)

4.2.2 Employment

One of the aspects that is important in shaping the individual living conditions is employment. Whether people are employed or not can be seen as a measure of welfare. Hence, employment will be further investigated now. During the surveys taken in 1997 the head of the household (woman) was interviewed. Therefore only numbers about the employment of women in 1997 are available and the analysis will only concern the change in employment of women. Thereby only the cases with the same respondents interviewed in 1997 and 2010 will be taken into account to make sure the improvement was at an individual level and not due to migration. In the end the sample in 2010 has an amount of 154 respondents and the

1.4% 25.4% 25.4% 29.1% 12.2% 6.1% 0.5%

Individual change of the quality of the houses

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Change of the quality category

(29)

29 sample of 1997 156 respondents. In Figure 10 the division of employment and unemployment amongst women in 1997 and 2010 is shown. It can be concluded that the employment of women increased strongly, from 30.1 percent to 51.9 percent.

Figure 10: Employment of women (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, Calculated by author)

By means of these numbers it can be concluded that the overall situation regarding to employment improved between 1997 and 2010. But this does not automatically mean that there has not been experienced any losses at an individual level. Therefore a further analysis of the individual change of employment has been done. This analysis shows that 34.0 percent got employed and 10.3 percent got unemployed between 1997 and 2010 (Figure 11). For the majority, which is 55.8 percent, the situation was the same in both 1997 and 2010. So it can be concluded that a small group of women experienced a loss regarding to employment. Nevertheless, also the aspect of age should be taken into account, since it could be the case that some women did not lose their job but simply got retired. This can result in an unjust conclusion concerning their work situation. In total 18 women got unemployed between 1997 and 2010. Amongst them 3 had an age above 65, which could be an indicator for getting retired. If this was the real cause of their change of employment this would cause a little change of the percentages shown in Figure 11. Nevertheless, it is not sure that this was the real reason of their unemployment.

30.1% 51.9% 69.9% 48.1% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1997 2010 P e rcent ag e Year

Employment of women

Employed Unemployed

(30)

30

Figure 11: Change of employment, women (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, Calculated by author)

4.2.3 Possession of luxury goods

Besides employment, also the possession of luxury goods can be seen as an indicator for the households’ consolidation level. Since the sum of all household improvement is here considered as neighborhood consolidation this is also relevant for this investigation. Table 3 shows how the possession of luxury goods changed between 1997 and 2010. The conclusion can be made that the possession of all luxury goods increased except for the black and white TV. Due to the rise of the color TV, which is a substitute for the black and white TV, many households got rid of their black and white TV. Consequently a decrease of the possession of a black and white TV does not automatically indicate a deterioration. A further analysis of the possession of TVs shows that 93 of the 216 valid respondents, which is 43.1 percent, got their black and white TV they possessed in 1997 changed for a color TV in 2010. In addition, the table shows the possession of some luxury goods that have not been measured in 1997 since they were either not used on a regular basis or used at all. Concluding it can be said that the possession of luxury goods have changed positively between 1997 and 2010.

Luxury Goods 1997 (%) 2010 (%)

Radio 80.8 -

Black/White TV 69.4 26.9

Color TV 32.1 88.4

Car 4.9 16.3

Video Home System

(VHS) 8.5 19.5 Sound System 9.8 62.1 Fridge 46.0 73.0 Landline 17.4 58.6 Mobile Phone - 81.4 Computer - 28.8 Internet - 18.3 Washing Machine - 30.2

Table 3: Possession of luxury goods (Source: Hordijk 1997/2010, Calculated by author) 10.3%

55.8% 34.0%

Change of employment (women)

Got unemployed No change Got employed

(31)

31

4.2.4 Social mobility

At last also the social mobility of the households is discussed. This is important because the social mobility reflects to what extent the children of a household have better future perspectives compared to their parents, and thus indicates an improvement of the socio-economical status. Figure 12 shows that 31.8 percent of the households experience social mobility. Though a bigger amount, namely 44.5 percent, does not experience this improvement. Thereby there is also a part of the households that experience a deterioration, namely 0.5 percent. For 23.2 percent of the households it is too early to tell whether they experience social mobility or not.

Figure 12: Social mobility of the family (Source: Hordijk, 2010, calculated by author)

4.3 Conclusion

Concluding it can be stated that the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan consolidated in many different ways. At first there has been a big improvement of the quality of the housing stock and the roads in the neighborhood. Thereby, the big majority of the problems that were present in the neighborhood in 1997 were considered less problematic by the households in 2010, including the problems concerning a lack of basic services. The second aspect of the process of neighborhood consolidation by Baken et al (1991)–an increasing level of services and infrastructure, and improvement of the physical quality of the housing stock–is thus reflected in the neighborhood Pampas de San Juan between 1997 and 2010. Besides these changes on a neighborhood level the inhabitants in the neighborhood also experienced a lot of improvement on the household level. For example, a big amount of the households improved their house between 1997 and 2010. Thereby, more women got employed, the possession of luxury goods increased and almost one-third of the households are

experiencing social mobility. Nevertheless, also some negative changes occurred. The most outstanding negative change is the increase of the problem of violence in the neighborhood, which increased strongly and turned into the major problem of the neighborhood in 2010.

31.8%

23.2% 44.5%

0.5%

Social mobility in the family (2010)

Yes

Too early to tell No