![]() | Assessment of Experience with the Project Approach to Shelter Delivery for the Poor (HABITAT, 1991, 52 p.) |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Foreword |
![]() | ![]() | Introduction |
![]() | ![]() | I. Recent trends in shelter projects |
![]() | ![]() | II. Financial and economic impact of shelter projects |
![]() | ![]() | 2.1 Mobilization of household savings |
![]() | ![]() | 2.2 Affordability, subsidy and cost recovery |
![]() | ![]() | 2.3 Institutional framework and financial management |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 2.3.1 Institutional culture of public-sector agencies |
![]() | ![]() | 2.3.2 Role of local government agencies |
![]() | ![]() | 2.3.3 Relationship with local community groups |
![]() | ![]() | 2.4 Comparison with non-project shelter standards and costs |
![]() | ![]() | III. Social impact of shelter projects |
![]() | ![]() | 3.1 Social impact at the local level |
![]() | ![]() | 3.2 Contribution to residential stability |
![]() | ![]() | 3.3 Proximity of projects to employment locations |
![]() | ![]() | 3.4 Job creation at the local level |
![]() | ![]() | 3.5 Impact of projects on the development of community based and non-governmental organizations |
![]() | ![]() | 3.6 Acceptability of project components to project beneficiaries |
![]() | ![]() | IV. Impact of the project approach on total shelter demand |
![]() | ![]() | 4.1 Shelter demand and levels of supply by projects |
![]() | ![]() | 4.2 Replicability of housing projects |
![]() | ![]() | V. Shelter projects and national policies |
![]() | ![]() | 5.1 Impact of projects on policy, and consistency of project and policy objectives |
![]() | ![]() | 5.2 Consistency with the objectives of the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 |
![]() | ![]() | VI. Achieving a multiplier effect through shelter projects |
![]() | ![]() | 6.1 Impact on institutional capabilities and public-sector roles in the shelter-delivery process |
![]() | ![]() | 6.2 Impact on urbanization, urban growth, spatial planning and infrastructure provision |
![]() | ![]() | 6.3 Addressing constraints in land and housing markets |
![]() | ![]() | 6.4 Impact on building and planning codes, regulations and standards |
![]() | ![]() | 6.5 Development of the construction industry and construction techniques |
![]() | ![]() | VII. Conclusions and recommendations |
![]() | ![]() | 7.1 General criticism of the project approach |
![]() | ![]() | 7.2 Projects in the context of national shelter strategies |
![]() | ![]() | 7.3 Future emphasis and priorities in housing projects |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 7.3.1 Projects to provide new shelter |
![]() | ![]() | 7.3.2 Upgrading projects |
![]() | ![]() | 7.4 A framework for assessing the efficiency of project components |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | 7.4.1 Elements provided by projects |
![]() | ![]() | 7.4.2 Provision of other elements |
![]() | ![]() | 7.4.3 Guidelines for preparing and assessing future shelter projects |
![]() | ![]() | 7.5 The role of projects in the development and implementation of national shelter policies and the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 |
![]() | ![]() | List of references |
Many countries now accept the need to adopt an enabling strategy towards shelter provision. This is reflected in the recent national shelter policies of India, Pakistan and several other countries. Yet, few countries have succeeded in translating such objectives into operational programmes, or relating existing project approaches to them. Since projects represent a major component of public-sector intervention in most countries, and are likely to remain so for some years to come, they provide an important starting point for the implementation of enabling strategies. If the recommendations outlined above were to be implemented at national, provincial and local levels, the range of shelter options available in practice to the urban poor would increase significantly within a short time.
It is highly unlikely, of course, that progress will be achieved on all elements simultaneously, or that delivery systems could respond efficiently to rapid change on all fronts. The primary concern should therefore be to identify and address local priorities, or bottlenecks that restrict the efficiency of existing urban land and shelter delivery systems and their ability to meet the needs of low-income groups. Projects can then be designed specifically to address these constraints and widen options for future development. Creating such an iterative approach in the shelter sector, while integrating projects as parts of programmes focusing on the promotion of enabling shelter strategies, will more than justify the retention of the project approach. In this context shelter projects will function as instruments of the shelter provision process whereby the capabilities of all actors in the shelter sector can be utilized.