Just Sustainability in the Global South: A Case Study of the Megacity of Dhaka

Abstract

Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, accommodates 18 million people and is one of the largest megacities in the world. A large share of its population is poor and lives in informal settlements which can be called slums. In addition to precarious and unhealthy living conditions, these slum dwellers lack formal land tenure rights and therefore are subject to government-supported evictions. Slum evictions due to various urban development pressures may bring short-term benefits to the urban real estate market but have adverse long-term effects on sustainability and livelihoods of the city’s poor residents. Using the conceptual lens of just sustainability (JS)—which facilitates an investigation of the normative and practical challenges of sustainability and environmental justice—the authors argue that urban development in Dhaka needs to ensure social justice and sustainability. While the geographic focus of this article is Dhaka, this study has direct relevance—in terms of policy and planning implications—for other cities in the Global South.

Keywords

Dhaka slum evictions just sustainability equity urbanization

Introduction

The world population is increasingly becoming more urban as more people end up living in large cities than at any other time in human history. In 1905, only 10 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas (Liotta & Miskel, 2012). The world’s largest city in 1900 was London. It was a city with 6.5 million people, and it would not qualify as a megacity by today’s standards (Lewis, 2007). Fifty years later, two megacities emerged with a population of 10 million or more. In 1990, 10 such megacities—with 10 million inhabitants or more—became the home of some 153 million people. By 2014, 28 megacities had emerged providing a home for a total of 453 million people. Among these megacities, 16 are located in Asia, 4 in Latin America, 3 each in Africa and Europe, and 2 in North America (UN DESA, 2014).

One of the distinctive features of this process of mega-urbanization is that it is increasingly taking place in the developing countries widely known as the Global South (Davis, 2006; Liotta & Miskel, 2012). Unfortunately, these cities (e.g., Jakarta, Delhi, Mexico City, and Dhaka) are growing faster than their capacity to support their increasing number of residents (Sekkat, 2017). In fact, this process of mega-urbanization often cannot be controlled spatially, demographically, or structurally (Stratmann, 2011). In many cities of the Global South, inadequate or low-quality physical, social, and economic infrastructures and a failure to provide basic services for the rapidly growing urban population are some of the most visible developmental challenges (Raju, Kim, Nguyen, & Govindaraj, 2017). Income inequality and poverty are also among the dominant features of this process of contemporary urbanization (Hossain, 2011).

In the Global South, the rapid growth of cities—along with economic crises, currency devaluations, and shortening national expenditures—have contributed to the marginalization of large populations and the mass production of informal settlements, known as slums, favelas, or bastes (Davis, 2006). An urban settlement can be defined as a slum if it lacks access to clean water, adequate sanitation, sufficient living space, durable housing, and secure tenure (UN Habitat, 2016). A slum is also usually densely populated, has poor public amenities, and is a spatial manifestation of various forms of social and economic exclusion (Atuesta & Soares, 2018; Obeng-Odoom, 2011). Slums tend to be characterized as uncontrolled or spontaneous settlements with a poor quality of physical environment (Peattie & Aldrete-Haas, 1981). They can be the response and resistance to uncontrolled economic planning (Davis, 2006). Slums have become a prevalent and persistent feature in the urban landscapes of the cities of the Global South, as a result of poor public planning, regulation, and investment in basic services (Raju et al., 2016). They are “…made of impurity, ambivalence, and in a state of constant metamorphosis” (Boano, Lamarca, & Hunter, 2011, p. 305) and often treated as one of the major global urban development challenges today (Davis, 2006). Currently, most of the megacities in the Global South have become immense urban agglomerations without any clear spatial demarcations, and they comprise areas with rural features, suburbs, gated communities for the wealthier urban classes, glamorous business centers and shopping malls, along with their more gloomy urban and peri-urban slums and homeless populations (Demissie, 2011, p. 223). Some rough estimates suggest that one quarter of the urban populations in general now live in some form of slum-like environment (UN Habitat, 2014).

As already mentioned, this article focuses on Dhaka—a South Asian megacity. In South Asia, almost 1.7 billion people are crammed into densely populated megacities. The five great South Asian historic cities—Karachi, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Dhaka—contain more than 15,000 slum communities (Davis, 2004). South Asia is one of the most unequal regions in the world (Rama, Béteille, Li, Mitra, & Newman, 2015). Contemporary urban development practices in this region mostly favor the privileged upper classes, and they limit the social and economic opportunities and interests of the low-income working class and homeless people. Nevertheless, every year millions of people migrate temporarily or permanently to these major urban centers to find employment and other livelihood opportunities in order to overcome the distressing living conditions in the rural areas (Saunders, 2011). In addition, various weather and climate anomalies are driving people to leave their rural livelihoods and forcing them to migrate to these large urban centers (GoB, 2009; RAJUK, 2016). These factors contribute to the population growth of the slums and other forms of informal settlements, as well as to the growth of the urban population in general (Raju et al., 2017).

The post-migration reality in urban areas, unfortunately, is not always very promising, particularly for migrants with low educational or technical skills, limited financial resources, or social capital. A large share of this population are poor and have very limited and unprivileged access to basic urban services or other economic, social, and political opportunities. In some cases, governments in low-income developing countries have created a poor record in designing, financing, managing, and implementing policies, rules and regulations, and in providing services, which has resulted in outcomes that are often socially and economically inefficient and inequitable (Liotta & Miskel, 2012; UN Habitat, 2016).

People living in these slums—despite various livelihood plights—play an important role for the vibrant urban informal economy as well as service sectors (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014; Obeng-Odoom, 2011). Regardless of the limited opportunities they are offered, slum dwellers also play critical roles in shaping local politics by being used as vote banks (Banks, Roy, & Hulme, 2011). A vote bank consists of a group of loyal voters who usually vote for specific candidates or political parties in every election. Politicians create and maintain vote banks through divisive policies and dolling out temporary incentives.

In this urban conundrum, social justice, political power, human rights, environmental priorities, and economic interests conflict with each other, and government-supported evictions are a frequent phenomenon (Bhan, 2009; Doshi, 2013; Weinstein, 2014). Many cities in the Global South frequently engage in slum evictions as one of their urban development measures (Doshi, 2013; Weinstein, 2014). Many poor and marginalized people live in informal settlements situated on government-owned or unauthorized lands. Therefore, they live in precarious and vulnerable situations of tenure and are subject to frequent evictions prompted by urban development efforts. Eviction is considered a violation of basic human rights according to the constitutional legal order in some countries, including Bangladesh. It is also considered undemocratic and unethical, since it causes suffering for large numbers of evicted poor people (Hossain & Hackenbroch, 2012).

It is a major challenge for urban authorities and policymakers to adopt or apply the concept of just sustainability (JS) in order to maintain a proper balance between urban development and rights of the urban slum-dwellers. The concept of JS prioritizes justice and equity without disregarding the importance of the environment or the surrounding ecosystem(s). It can only be achieved by creating equitable social, economic, and political systems and opportunities at various levels. The JS concept emerges from the following definition of sustainability: “The need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems” (Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2003, p. 5). This conceptual and normative framework can help local urban authorities and policymakers protect human rights and make their policies and practices more socially and economically inclusive.

Racism, social inequalities, forms of discrimination, and injustice often get limited attention in the discussion of sustainability (Agyeman, 2008). Since poverty and inequality have a critical effect on urban livelihoods, they can play important roles in shaping local and regional sustainability (Agyeman, 2014). Even though environmental quality is directly linked to human equality, most cities practicing sustainability planning do not explicitly use the concept of social and environmental equity and/or social justice (Portney, 2003). The JS has the potential to improve the lives of larger segments of populations, since questions of social justice, equity, and human rights are at the core of this sustainability discourse (Global Platform for the Right to the City, 2015). In cities of the Global South, addressing these issues is critical, since a majority of the local population is often excluded from any mainstream development interventions or sustainability planning. Without meaningful partnership and engagement, development efforts cannot reach their full potential.

In this article, we suggest some strategic steps to ensure JS in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. But even though the focus of this article is on Dhaka, our study has relevance to other parts of the world with similar social, economic, and political conditions. This article provides a broad description of urbanization in Dhaka and then highlights the unjust conditions of the city’s poor slum dwellers. In the following section, we illustrate the livelihood impacts of slum eviction, followed by a discussion of the transition toward JS.

Urban Reality in the Megacity of Dhaka

Dhaka has experienced a phenomenal expansion in its population and size. During the period between 1950 and 2015, the population of Dhaka increased by more than 5,400 percent. If New York would have experienced this rate of growth, its population would be now a staggering 684 million people (Liotta & Miskel, 2012). The urban population in Dhaka has been growing at an estimated rate of 4 percent each year since 1971, while the national population growth has been 2.2 percent (The World Bank, 2007). Dhaka is now a leading megacity in the world, having approximately 18 million people (UN Habitat, 2016). The city, which was ranked as the 24th largest megacity in the world in 1990, is currently holding the 11th spot, and is expected to be the 6th largest by 2030 with a 27.37 million population (RAJUK, 2016).

About 84 percent of Dhaka residents were rural–urban migrants at some point in their lives (Rahman, 2011). Between 1961 and 2001, in each of the four decades, 73, 77, 73, and 57 percent, respectively, of the total population growth of Dhaka was a result of a large-scale in-migration (RAJUK, 2016). During 2001–2011, the city’s population growth became 3.96 percent per annum—with a 1.47 percent natural growth rate and a 2.49 percent migration rate (RAJUK, 2016). This suggests that approximately 63 percent of the total growth of Dhaka’s population is due to in-migration, and only 37 percent comes from natural increase. Currently, on average 300,000–400,000 people migrate to Dhaka permanently every year from all corners of the country (Rashid, 2009).

Several factors have contributed to Dhaka’s phenomenal population growth: the reclassification of rural areas into urban areas, natural urban population growth, and rural to urban migration. The large rural–urban population flows have been the key driver of the process of rapid urbaniza-tion of this city (RAJUK, 2016). The high rate of rural–urban migration is caused by several factors. Prior to 1971, Dhaka was the provincial capital of undivided Pakistan, and after 1971 Dhaka became the capital of a sovereign country. This political transition contributed to driving millions of people from all corners of the country in search of opportunities and better living in Dhaka. Located in a strategically central geographical position, Dhaka became the social, cultural, economic, and political capital of Bangladesh (Corner & Dewan, 2014) and the home of approximately over 10 percent of the nation’s population (Rahman, Hasssan, Bahauddin, Ratul, & Bhuiyan, 2017). The city is also the most progressive industrial hub and accommodates the largest number of garment and knitwear factories, which are now the largest source of the nation’s foreign currency earnings (Ahmed, Nahiduzzaman, & Hasab, 2018).

Various natural hazards resulting from climate change—such as floods and riverbank erosion in the north and northwest Bangladesh, cyclones, sea level rise, and salinity intrusion in the south and southwest coastal region—contribute to immense property loss and damage rural livelihoods. These natural hazards also contribute to temporary and permanent migration from these regions (O’Donnell & Wodon, 2015).

Dhaka is home for 37 percent of the total national urban population (RAJUK, 2016), which conforms to the classic case of a “primate city.” Under the condition of a primate city, the population of the largest city is more than the three next largest cities of the country combined (Islam, 2015). Currently, Dhaka’s population is higher than the combined population of Chittagong, Khulna, and Rajshahi—the three next largest cities in the country (RAJUK, 2016). From the early writings of Taylor (1840), Geddes (1917), and Abrams (1964), it is quite evident that the phenomenon of slums or other forms of informal settlements in Dhaka are as old as the city itself. Despite the poor quality of life, the number of slum populations in recent decades has increased (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: BBS (2015).

Dhaka’s urban development and planning efforts almost never considered the rural–urban migration and the reasons behind that process. Currently, Dhaka is experiencing the consequences of unplanned laissez faire urbanization (The World Bank, 2007) and offering livelihood opportunities to its millions of populations at the same time (Ahmed et al., 2018). Due to unpleasant urban experiences with inadequate services and opportunities, people in the city are increasingly vulnerable to various forms of social tensions and potential conflicts (Jahan, 2012; Ullah, 2004).

Figure 2a.

Source: Jewel, A.A. (2018).

Figure 2b.

Source: Jewel, A.A. (2018).

The spatial locations of slums are very heterogeneous in nature. They are usually located in available government lands in a highly dense situation and are made of low-cost local construction materials such as mud, bamboo, and corrugated iron sheets (BBS, 2015; Mahmood, 2012). Evidence suggests that slums are located in almost every corner of the city (RAJUK, 2016), but most slums are usually developed in peripheral and suburban areas due to land price differences between core and peripheral areas (Centre for Urban Studies [CUS], 2006; Hossain, 2011). Their spatial location could be also near to the city center because of the easier access to various informal employments and livelihood opportunities (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014). Figures 2a and 2b show aerial and street-level views of typical slum environments in Dhaka.

Quality of Life in Slums: A Trap of Un just Urban Livelihoods

Many slums find themselves at the core of a challenging and highly contested debate over the future of the city (Boano et al., 2011) and its sustainability (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014). Dhaka is now experiencing the poor urban environmental quality that many other cities experienced during their initial phase of industrialization and urbanization (Haque, Tsutsumi, & Capon, 2014). Poor and marginalized residents—many of those living in slums in vulnerable locations—are the major victims of poor urban living conditions and other urban stresses. Slums have severe lacking of basic amenities and other urban services (Davis, 2006). To understand this situation within a global context, one in six people live in cities with unhealthy air quality, one in fifteen has inadequate sanitation services, and one in thirty has no access to safe drinking water (Liotta & Miskel, 2012).

Slums in Dhaka are the physical and spatial manifestation of urban poverty (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014). Currently slums occupy 5.1 percent of Dhaka’s total land area and accommodate 37.4 percent of the total city population (RAJUK, 2016). The overall condition is the same as the regimen of congestion (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014), which is characterized by the new mercantile cities of the sixteenth century where too many people began competing for too few dwellings and rooms (Mumford, 1961). Even though Dhaka is one of the densest megacities in the world, density of populations in slum areas is far higher than the rest of the city—30,000 people per square kilometer versus a shocking 220,000 people per square kilometer (BRAC, 2012).

Quality of life in slums is vulnerable to all aspects of sustainability: economy, environment, and equity. Most rural–urban migrants end up in Dhaka living in various over-crowded slums without security of tenure, access to safe water, or adequate sanitation (Garau, 2005; Islam, Farukuzzaman, & Islam, 2014; Nahar & Rahman 2013; The World Bank, 2007). Since most slum dwellers work in informal sectors with less capital and often without any government permission, their job securities are usually low and do not own any tenure (BBS, 2015). Urban services in slum areas—if any—are substantially of low quality in nature. As examples, water supply is insufficient and sanitary systems are inadequate than other urban dwellers (Saunders, 2011). Slum dwellers always experienced higher rates of morbidity and disease outbreaks (Craster, 1944; Kumar, 2016). Women and children in slum conditions often suffer life-threatening health challenges (Obeng-Odoom, 2011). In addition, fire, arson attack, extortion, and sexual harassments all have become constant companions in the slums of Dhaka (Arman & Mahmud, 2017).

Land tenure, the right to live in slums, and evictions are major challenges slum dwellers face in Dhaka and are related to all other challenges mentioned above. Due to the massive rural–urban migration, Dhaka has always experienced massive shortages of adequate housing for middle and low-income working class people. Bangladesh government initiated affordable housing for low-income people; however, they were limited in supply compared to the demand (Seraj & Islam, 2013). Land speculators—who seek continuous profits—built most of the low-cost housing (The World Bank, 2007). This was, however, largely possible due to the limited government control and poor governance (UN, 2003) undermining quality of life and environment of low-income working class residents. In addition, some of the initiatives did not consider people’s accessibility to employment centers or other services. Poor accessibility caused higher unemployment rates as well as lower household income (Jin & Paulsen, 2018).

Slum Eviction Practices

“The slum must go!” This is how Charles V. Craster expressed his opinion in his 1944 article, “Slum Clearance,” which was published in the American Journal of Public Health. He depicted slums as “…areas of depressed living conditions … poverty, crime, and disease” (Craster, 1944, p. 935). More than seven decades later, city development authorities in many parts of the world think more or less in the same way. In urban Ghana, the images of forced eviction is depicted as “…The roar of bulldozers, the clutter of the hammer, the rant of armed policemen, the screams of women, the wails of men, and the tears of children” (Obeng-Odoom, 2011, p. 355). According to the United Nations estimate, the practice was so widespread in the 1970s that more low-income housing was destroyed than built annually (Hauser, Gardner, Laquiem, & El-Shakh, 1982).

The problems related to informal settlements in Dhaka are usually conspicuous, sometimes intractable, and often controversial (Peattie & Aldrete-Haas, 1981) and linked to various other social, economic, and political issues. Between 1975 and 2004, there were 135 incidents in Dhaka city, wherein the local authority evicted those people largely inspired by various urban modernization efforts (e.g., environmental clean-up, building shopping complexes, and land grabbing for large infrastructure development). The large-scale eviction in Agargaon affected an estimated 40,000 slum dwellers (Mohit, 2012). From January 2004 to June 2005, 27,055 people were evicted in 17 incidents—13 initiated by the government and 4 by private groups (Wakely, 2007). Between 2006 and 2008, more than 60,000 people were evicted in Dhaka from various low-income informal settlements (Anas, 2015). The practice of slum eviction—causing sufferings of thousands of people—continues in recent years. In 2012, Dhaka district administration removed 2,000 illegal structures (e.g., slum housings and small local shops) and reclaimed 170 acres of public lands in Mohakhali’s Korail slum. This incident forced hundreds of people, including women, children, and elderly residents, to live under the open sky without any provision for food and water supplies (Arman & Mahmud, 2017).

The practice of slum eviction in Dhaka is problematic and unjust—both in terms of its purpose and the way in which it is enacted. City governments in the Global South justify evictions in one of four ways: (a) to improve or beautify the city; (b) to clear dens of criminals; (c) for fear that health problems will spread from the slums; and (d) to clear land for development or to build public facilities (Wendt, 1997). These are consistent with what Craster mentioned in his 1944 article, “Slum Clearance.” The land reclaimed from slum evictions are often used for commercial purposes for higher economic returns, since the land value in Dhaka is high (Davis, 2006). On the contrary, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on adequate housing mentions “forced evictions intensify inequality, social conflict, segregation and ‘ghettoization’, and invariably affect the poorest, most socially and economically vulnerable and marginalized sectors of society, especially women, children, minorities and indigenous peoples” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2013, p. 25).

The typical methods applied to evict slums are unjust. In most cases, these evictions occur in a brutal manner and without any consultation of affected residents. The Government Building Ordinance 1970 in Bangladesh mentions that a 30-day notice is required for any legal eviction of unauthorized occupants. In reality, however, most of the times slum dwellers do not receive even a 24-hour notice to leave their shelters. Bulldozers and demolition crew play the lead role in the process of eviction, with the support of riot police (Hossain & Hackenbroch, 2012). As an example, the eviction in Korail Bastee (slum) in Dhaka—which occurred in April 4, 2012—was carried out by a Dhaka district magistrate with the support of two battalions of police forces and a large group of hired laborers. Two government bulldozers demolished all structures without considering whether their inhabitants were still inside or had managed to save their belongings (Hossain & Hackenbroch, 2012).

Consequences of Slum Evictions

Evictions put a large number of low-income people at serious humanitarian risks. In most cases after people are forcefully evicted, they move to other places and form new slums. Evictions are one of the most cruel urban development initiatives—humiliating and in breach of international human rights laws. Evictions result in people losing their possessions, social networks, access to work, and other available urban services (UNDP, 2013). If slum dwellers are detached from their homes without any resources, it is even more likely that they are trapped within the cycle of poverty, inequality, and social injustice. Broadly, eviction causes physical, economic, social, and psychological damages to affected people with both short- and long-term impacts (Mohit, 2012); this can be further classified into economic, social, and environmental categories.

Economic impacts: eviction places a substantial economic burden on an already vulnerable section of urban populations. Once evicted, people not only lose their place to live—and often their belongings—but also experience difficulty in commuting to work places which can directly affect their household income and their ability to purchase food or maintain a living (Jin & Paulsen, 2018). Slum eviction can cause job loss and disrupt access to supporting economic opportunities, as slums are usually built close to major employment centers or other working places (Davis, 2006). Similar to many other megacities, Dhaka has most of the informal job opportunities concentrated near its city center. When slum dwellers are evicted, they usually do not get support from the government to relocate and resettle. Sometimes they are relocated on the edge or even outside the city periphery—creating further challenges to maintain work in the city center. Dhaka does not have an extensive public transportation system; therefore, coming to the city center on a daily basis can be an additional financial burden for majority of the poor evicted people (Hossain & Hackenbroch, 2012). Inversely, it is also true that once informal labors are evicted from slums, city centers usually experience shortage of informal labor supply for various service sectors activities—affecting the city’s overall economy and quality of life (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014).

Social impacts: evictions often contribute to a deepening social and economic inequality in the city, since evicted people become poorer and experience further unpredictability of income and livelihood (Davis, 2006). Prior evidences suggest that slum evictions can cause enormous amount of mistrust and conflict among slum dwellers, the state, and state agencies (Ho, 2013; Johnen, 2011). In some situations, evicted people become vulnerable to become engaged in various illegal activities (e.g., drug dealing, smuggling, and prostitution). In addition, cultural enclaves become dispersed due to evictions, resulting in decreased social capital among low-income evicted people. Disrupted social networks and decreased social capital adversely impact people’s capacity to cope with any social, environmental, or economic crisis (Jones & Faas, 2017).

Environmental impacts: evictions are often the cause of the spatial expansion of slums, outbreak of diseases, further vulnerable living conditions, and an increased urban poverty. Sometimes, it is less challenging to address public health issues in clustered situations (e.g., slums) than with dispersed populations (e.g., evicted populations from slum areas). During the process of demolition, it is also quite common that the low-quality materials catch fire and exude excessive dust and rubble in the area (Johnen, 2011; Prasad, 2017). This contributes to poor air and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and major health implications.

Just Sustainability with Relevance to Dhaka

Standard definitions of sustainable development stress the harmony among three equal factors: ecology (e.g., environmental protection), economy (e.g., income and employment opportunities), and social issues (e.g., equal opportunities). Social issues can further be unpacked into two additional dimensions, such as culture (e.g., promoting diversity), and politics (e.g., good governance) (Stratmann, 2011). In cities like Dhaka, where urban livelihoods are somewhat contested in nature, it is important to go beyond the existing framework of sustainable development. Therefore, Agyeman asks how urban planners should respond to increasing differences in our cities. In cities like Dhaka—which is socially and economically segregated—the concept of JS can help everyone recognize, understand, and engage differences and cultural heterogeneities in an inclusive, creative, and productive manner (Agyeman, 2013).

The government and urban development authorities need to include the priorities and needs of low-income slum dwellers in their urban development framework in order to ensure urban sustainability and a better quality of life for all, because often democratic practice can be undermined and the views of slums dwellers can be ignored in pursuits of defining what constitutes a “good city” (Sandercock, 2005). Urban sustainability largely depends on interactions and interdependence among various social, economic, political, and environmental factors. The connections between urbanization and sustainability are complex in any resource-constrained city like Dhaka. Competing priorities, such as environmental and economic factors, require immediate attention and are often resolved with short-sighted perspectives. Therefore, the government’s involvement and commitment are crucial.

The concept of JS can be the guiding principle in Dhaka’s pursuit toward sustainability. Transitioning to this concept, however, can be complex, due to two distinct challenges. First, a large share of the urban dwellers in Dhaka—living in slums—experiences an extremely poor quality of life. Second, the urban development authorities have limited capacity to provide basic services to most of the city dwellers. Poor governance and lack of transparency at the organizational and governmental levels contribute to these processes as well. Since a large share of the urban population live in slums or other forms of informal settlements, urban sustainability will not be achieved until current planning practices reorient their approach to include equity and social justice objectives (Ahmed et al., 2018). In addition, sometimes slum dwellers, who are mostly rural–urban migrants, face “unwelcoming” experiences in the city, because existing urban dwellers consider these migrants as the reason for further burdens and stresses on the existing economy and infrastructural facilities (Hackenbroch & Hossain, 2012), which is not always true. Some slum dwellers are very entrepreneurial and make substantial contributions to the urban economy through their active engagement in small businesses and many other formal and informal economic activities.

The slum challenge in Dhaka should be addressed with a holistic perspective. It should consider the needs, views, and inclusive design approaches that can engage people from various socio-economic backgrounds. Both long- and short-term strategies are critical to a successful transition toward JS. Short-term strategies and goals should address the basic and immediate needs and services of poor slum dwellers, while long-term strategies and goals should focus on achieving major national and international development targets, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

It is important to realize that JS cannot be achieved alone by planners, engineers, agronomists, economists, and biotechnicians but by engaging residents into the entire process of development (Marcus & Asmorowati, 2006, p. 161; Prugh, Constanza, & Daly, 2000). The denial of housing rights without any rehabilitation plans has prompted civic movements by slum dwellers and civil society organizations around the world (Ahmed, 2013; Bayat, 1997) (see the signage in Figure 3). Without meaningful residents’ engagements, achieving JS can be another utopian urban development thought. However, plurality of urban actors and their interests and demands can make the transitions toward JS more challenging. The theoretical framework of JS suggests the flexibility and contingency with the plurality of views, perspectives, knowledge, and skills, so that everyone is part of the development process. In Dhaka, the government should not overlook the importance of labor forces in informal sectors, since they play a critical role in the urban economy. In order to achieve JS, the government and other development partners need to work closely with these marginalized populations, identify their livelihood challenges, and address those challenges through programs partially developed and maintained by them, following the upper rungs in Arnstein’s citizen participation ladder (Arnstein, 1969).

Figure 3.

Source: Mahmud, M.S. (2014).

Without offering alternative provisions of employment and shelter, the process of eviction is nothing more than a city management collapse, causing thousands of people to be homeless, hopeless, and jobless (Ahmed & Rahaman, 2014). Evictions without alternative provision of livelihoods—which include both employment opportunities and shelters—cannot be justly labeled as urban development initiatives; rather they are the government-initiated and supported mass-poverty generation efforts. To operationalize the concept of JS, city authorities need to plan for slum upgrading, which is an effective mechanism of urban development in many parts of the world (Atuesta & Soares, 2018). Several decades ago, John F.C. Turner in his 1972 book, Freedom to Build, argued that the solution to slums is not to demolish them but to improve their environment. Turner and Fichter 1972, however, also argued that slum upgrading alone might not make meaningful impacts on poor slum dwellers, since ownership of property can be critical for the stability and sustainability of livelihoods. Property ownership can serve as the major motivator to engage slum dwellers in the development process. Since JS engages environmental protection and social justice, within the context of Dhaka, it requires the improvement of environmental quality of slums and the security of tenure.

The sustainability in Dhaka also needs to focus on driving factors of mass-scale rural to urban migration. In most cases, people in general are not willing to migrate to urban centers and embrace uncertain futures. Often, they are forced to escape from rural areas as a response to various threatening social, economic, and environmental factors. The Census of Slum Areas and Floating Population 2014 finds that approximately 55 percent of slum dwellers in Dhaka have come to find employment opportunities, 28 percent are escaping from poverty, and 7 percent have come as a response to river erosion. Even though migration due to adverse weather and climate impacts are increasingly a common phenomenon, the 2014 slum census finds that so far only 0.8 percent rural people migrate to urban areas as a response to natural hazards other than river erosion (BBS, 2015). This suggests that majority of migrants are economic migrants. If the government plans to ensure sustainability for all residents, they need to consider strategies to slow-down the pace of rural–urban migration by providing meaningful assistance to rural communities.

McLaren has highlighted that “equity considerations are embedded in all conceptualizations of sustainable development but rarely unpacked” (McLaren, 2003, p. 19), and in this situation the arguments of JS provide avenues for megacities like Dhaka to adopt a development strategy that maintains a synergistic relationship between environmental justice and sustainability. It is important to understand Dhaka’s complex urbanization process from a broader perspective and then narrow down to smaller programs or activities. This can help the city and its residents act more effectively.

Conclusions

Like many parts of the Global South, the analytical understanding of rapid urbanization processes in Dhaka remains fragmented, and policy responses are often sporadic (Rahman, 2011). Cities like Dhaka face multiple forms of developmental stress, ranging from poverty and inequality to adverse climate effects. Globally, the processes of urbanization are heterogeneous and are affected by a range of social, economic, and political factors that eventually shape the extent of the growth patterns of urban landscapes (Choguill, 1994). The unequal share of opportunities and practices is a part of the larger development debate driven by market systems and the local governance. Despite being treated as vote banks, slum dwellers are usually not part of any development efforts. In this situation, it can be challenging to institute the JS approach with its aim of creating an equitable social, economic, and political system and opportunities at various levels for different population groups. In addition, Dhaka is increasingly exposed to various weather and climate related anomalies, which put poor marginalized low-income slum dwellers at further risk and vulnerability. In this situation, the need for new thinking on development and sustainability, which is innovative, integrated, and inclusive, is critical.

The JS efforts that focus on equality and shared prosperity should be at the center of all urban development efforts (Marcuse, 1998). The rate of urbanization in Bangladesh is relatively lower than many other comparable countries (CUS, 2006). Nevertheless, in the next couple of years, Dhaka will become one of the largest megacities in the world. This growth coupled with other social and environmental stresses can cause major chaos, which will not only affect the city’s social- economic-political fabric but also have damaging impacts at a regional scale. In this situation, urban planning in Dhaka should capture all these complexities by providing social-economic-political space for all its residents. Historically, the poor in Dhaka city have had almost no voice in any decision-making processes, largely because of the country’s colonial history. Many of its urban development practices still function influenced by the legacy of colonial practices. The JS efforts, therefore, can be inconvenient, unwelcomed, and undesired by a portion of the residents or government agencies involved at the beginning. In the long run, however, JS will not only minimize the plight of slum evictees but will also create opportunities for the people who have previously never been active participants in any development efforts. The JS will create opportunities for inclusiveness, diversity, equity, and equality in sustainable development efforts of the near and long-term future.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abrams

(1964). Housing in the modern world: Man’s struggle for shelter in urbanizing world. London, UK: Faber and Faber.

Ahmed

(2013). Civic environmentalism and the politics of marginalized people: A case study from megacity Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environmental Justice, 6(2), 56–61.

Ahmed

, & Rahaman

K. R.

(2014). Sustainability challenges and the spatial manifestation of poverty in megacities of the Global South: Focus on Dhaka, Bangladesh. In Holt

(Ed.), From sustainable to resilient cities: Global and urban efforts (Research in urban studies, pp. 143–166). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ahmed

, Nahiduzzaman

K. M.

, & Hasan

M. M. U.

(2018). Dhaka, Bangladesh: Unpacking challenges and reflecting on unjust transitions. Cities, 77, 142–157.

Agyeman

(2008). Toward a ‘just’ sustainability? Continuum—Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22(6), 751–757.

Agyeman

(2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice. London, UK and New York, NY: Zed Books.

Agyeman

(2014). Environmental justice and sustainability. In Atkinson

, Dietz

, Neumayer

& Agarwala

(Eds.), Handbook of sustainable development (2nd ed., pp. 188–205). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Agyeman

, Bullard

, & Evans

(2003) Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world. London, UK: Earthscan/MIT Press.

Anas

A. Z. M.

(2015). After a painful eviction, Bangladesh slum dwellers start over with a 99-year lease. Retrieved from http://citiscope.org/story/2015/after-painful-eviction-bangladesh-slum-dwellers-start-over-99-year-lease

10.

Arman

T. U.

, & Mahmud

A. H.

(2017, March 3). Rehabilitation of slum dwellers: Taking the right approach. Dhaka Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/dhaka/2017/03/03/rehabilitation-slum-dwellers-taking-right-approach/

11.

Arnstein

S. R.

(1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

12.

Atuesta

L. H.

, & Soares

(2018). Urban upgrading in Rio de Janeiro: Evidence from the Favela-Bairro programme. Urban Studies, 55(1), 53–70.

13.

Banks

, Roy

, & Hulme

(2011). Neglecting the urban poor in Bangladesh: Research, policy and action in the context of climate change. Environment and Urbanization, 23(2), 487–502.

14.

Bayat

(1997). Un-civil society: The politics of the ‘informal people’. Third World Quarterly, 18(1), 53–72.

15.

BBS (2015). Census of slum areas and floating population 2014. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

16.

Bhan

(2009). ‘This is no longer the city I once knew’. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 127–142.

17.

Boano

, Lamarca

M. G.

, & Hunter

(2011). The frontlines of contested urbanism: Mega-projects and mega-resistances in Dharavi. Journal of Developing Societies, 27(3–4), 295–326.

18.

BRAC (2012). Building to last: Creating a platform to tackle urban poverty. Dhaka: BRAC’s Social Innovation Lab.

19.

Centre for Urban Studies (CUS) (2006). Slums of Urban Bangladesh: Mapping and census. Dhaka: CUS/MEASUREE/NIPORT/USAID.

20.

Choguill

C. L.

(1994). Crisis, chaos, crunch? Planning for urban growth in the developing world. Urban Studies, 31(6), 935–945.

21.

Corner

R. J.

, & Dewan

A. M.

(2014). Introduction. In Dewan

& Corner

(Eds.), Dhaka megacity: Geospatial perspectives on urbanization, environment and health (pp. 1–22). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, and London: Springer.

22.

Craster

C. V.

(1944). Slum clearance: The Newark plan. American Journal of Public Health, 34(9), 935–940.

23.

Davis

(2004). Planet der Slums. New Left Review, 26. Retrieved from http://www.materialien.org/planet/Planetofslums.pdf

24.

Davis

(2006). Planet of slums. London, UK: Verso.

25.

Demissie

(2011). Global cities of the South/Urban subjects. Journal of Developing Societies, 27(3–4), 217–228.

26.

Doshi

(2013). The politics of the evicted: Redevelopment, subjectivity, and difference in Mumbai’s slum frontier. Antipode, 45(4), 844–865.

27.

Garau

(2005). Improving the lives of slum dwellers. Retrieved from http://tcdc.undp.org/coopsouth/2005/5Pietro-Garau.pdf

28.

Geddes

(1917). Town planning report on Dhaka. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat.

29.

Global Platform for the Right to the City (2015). The right to the city: Building another possible world: Guidelines for its understanding and operationalization. Retrieved from http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/the%20right%20to%20the%20city%20(EN)%20GPR2C.pdf

30.

GoB (2009). Bangladesh climate change strategy and action plan. Dhaka: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

31.

Hackenbroch

, & Hossain

(2012). The voice of Korail on inhabitants’ sufferings and aspirations. Retrieved from http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2012/05/18/the-voice-of-korail-on-inhabitants%E2%80%99-sufferings-and-aspirations/

32.

Haque

S. E.

, Tsutsumi

, & Capon

(2014). Sick cities: A scenario for Dhaka. Retrieved from https://iigh.unu.edu/publications/articles/sick-cities-a-scenario-for-dhaka-city.html#info

33.

Hauser

P. M.

, Gardner

R. W.

, Laquiem

A. A.

, & El-Shakhs

(1982). Population and the urban future. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

34.

C. Y.

(2013). Exit, or evict: Re-grounding rights in needs in China’s urban housing demolition. Asian Anthropology, 12(2), 141–155.

35.

Hossain

(2011). Urban poverty in Bangladesh: Slum communities, migration and social integration. New York, NY: I. B.Tauris & Co Ltd.

36.

Hossain

& Hackenbroch

(2012). The senseless destruction of a vibrant part of Dhaka. Retrieved from http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2012/04/09/the-senseless-destruction-of-a-vibrant-part-of-dhaka/#more-3421

37.

Islam

M. S.

(2015, May 22). Dhaka’s primacy: Rome without empire? Opinions (politics). The Daily Star. Retrieved from http://www.thedailystar.net/op-ed/politics/dhakas-primacy-rome-without-empire-82096

38.

Islam

R. M.

, Farukuzzaman

, & Islam

M. A.

(2014). Situation of slum’s children in Dhaka City, Bangladesh: A sample survey. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 5(18), 27–33.

39.

Jahan

(2012). Impact of rural urban migration on physical and social environment: The case of Dhaka city. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 1(2), 186–194.

40.

Jin

, & Paulsen

(2018). Does accessibility matter? Understanding the effect of job accessibility on labor market outcomes. Urban Studies, 55(1), 91–115.

41.

Johnen

(2011). Slum fires in Manila: Evolving conflict between urban poor and private property owners. Observer: A Journal on threatened Human Rights Defenders in the Philippines, 3(1), 34–35.

42.

Jones

E. C.

, & Faas

A. J.

(2017). Social network analysis of disaster response, recovery, and adaptation. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

43.

Kumar

(2016). Dimensions and determinants of morbidity: Evidence from slums of Chandigarh. Journal of International Development, 28(6), 845–856.

44.

Lewis

(2007, July 2). Megacities of the future. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/megacities-population-urbanization-biz-cx_21cities_ml_0611megacities.html#3a6cb40318d8

45.

Liotta

P. H.

, & Miskel

J. F.

(2012). Megacities, global security & the map of the future: The real population bomb. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.

46.

Mahmood

S. Z. A.

(2012, April 11). Dhaka slum dwellers live under threat of eviction. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/apr/11/dhaka-bangladesh-slum-dwellers-eviction

47.

Marcus

, & Asamorowati

(2006). Urban poverty and the rural development bias: Some notes from Indonesia. Journal of Developing Societies, 22(2), 145–168.

48.

Marcuse

(1998). Sustainability is not enough. Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 103–111.

49.

McLaren

(2003). Environmental space, equity and the ecological debt. In Agyeman

, Bullard

R. D.

, & Evans

(Eds.), Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world (pp. 19–37). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

50.

Mohit

M. A.

(2012). Bastee settlements of Dhaka City, Bangladesh: A review of policy approaches and challenges ahead. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 611–622.

51.

Mumford

(1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Inc. Publishers.

52.

Nahar

, & Rahman

M. M.

(2013). Factors influencing health and healthcare delivery system for the urban poor in Chittagong City, Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Management Research, 4(2), 288–296.

53.

O’Donnell

, & Wodon

(Eds.). (2015). Climate change adaptation and social resilience in the Sundarbans. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Obeng-Odoom

(2011). The informal sector in Ghana under siege. Journal of Developing Societies, 27(3–4), 355–392.

55.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2013). United Nations commentary and guidelines on eviction and resettlement. Retrieved from http://cambodia.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Softlaw/UN%20Commentary-A5-En_0.pdf

56.

Peattie

, & Aldrete-Haas

J. A.

(1981). ‘Marginal’ settlements in developing countries: Research, advocacy of policy, and evolution of programs. Annual Review of Sociology, 7(1), 157–175.

57.

Portney

K. E.

(2003). Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

58.

Prasad

(2017, October 28). Exclusive cops caused Bandra slum fire by demolition: Survivors. The Quint. Retrieved from https://www.thequint.com/news/india/police-caused-fire-at-behrampada-bandra-east-say-eyewitnesses

59.

Prugh

, Constanza

, & Daly

(2000). The local politics of global sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press.

60.

Rahman

H. Z.

(2011). Urban Bangladesh: Challenges of transition. Dhaka: Power and Participation Research Centre.

61.

Rahman

M. M.

, Hassan

M. S.

, Bahauddin

K. M.

, Ratul

A. K.

, & Bhuiyan

M. A. H.

(2017). Exploring the impact of rural-urban migration on urban land use and land cover: A case of Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Migration and Development, 7(2), 222–239.

62.

Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha (RAJUK) (2016). Dhaka structure plan (2016–2035). Dhaka: Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha.

63.

Raju

, Kim

K. Y.

, Nguyen

Q. T.

, & Govindaraj

(2017). Cities, slums, and early child growth: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh (Policy Research Working Paper 8094). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

64.

Rama

, Béteille

, Li

, Mitra

P. K.

, & Newman

J. L.

(2015). Addressing inequality in South Asia (South Asia Development Forum). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

65.

Rashid

S. F.

(2009). Strategies to reduce exclusion among populations living in urban slum settlements in Bangladesh. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition, 27(4), 574–586.

66.

Sandercock

(2005). Cosmopolis II: Mandrel cities in the 21st century. London, UK: Continuum.

67.

Saunders

(2011). Arriving city: The final migration and our next world. Toronto: Vintage Canada.

68.

Sekkat

(2017). Urban concentration and poverty in developing countries. Growth and Change, 48(3), 435–458.

69.

Seraj

T. M.

, & Islam

M. A.

(2013). Detailed areas plan: Proposals to meet housing demand in Dhaka. In Jahan

& Kalam

A. K. M. A.

(Eds.), Dhaka metropolitan development area and its planning problems, issues, and policies (pp. 22–32). Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Planners.

70.

Stratmann

(2011). Megacities: Globalization, metropolization, and sustainability. Journal of Developing Societies, 27(3–4), 229–259.

71.

Taylor

(1840). Sketch of the topography and statistics of Dacca. Calcutta: Military Orphan Press.

72.

The World Bank (2007). Dhaka: Improving living conditions for urban poor (Bangladesh Development Series, Paper No. 17). Dhaka: The World Bank Office.

73.

Ullah

A. K. M. A.

(2004). Bright city lights and slums of Dhaka city: Determinants of rural-urban migration in Bangladesh. Migration Letters, 1(1), 26–41.

74.

UN (2003). Challenges of slums: Global report on human settlements. New York, NY: The United Nations.

75.

UN DESA (2014). Population facts: A world of cities (No. 2014/2). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/popfacts/PopFacts_2014-2.pdf

76.

UN Habitat (2014). October 6 World Habitat Day: Voices of slums (Background Paper). Retrieved from http://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/WHD-2014-Background-Paper.pdf

77.

UN Habitat (2016). World cities report 2016—Urbanization and development: Emerging futures. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

78.

UNDP (2013). The Gopalganj housing model: A way forward for community driven affordable urban housing. Dhaka: United Nations Development Program.

79.

Wakely

(2007). Quick guide on approaches to low-income housing. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

80.

Weinstein

(2014). The durable slum: Dharavi and the right to stay put in globalizing Mumbai. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

81.

Wendt

(1997). Slum and squatter settlements in Dhaka: A study of consolidation processes in Dhaka’s low income settlement areas (PhD dissertation). Roskilde University, Denmark.