IJMRT Volume 10 Number 2 July-December 2016: 89-99 QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION AND RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT: A CASE STUDY OF NEW DELHI Fatema Khatun * and Nasruddin ** Abstract: Residential mobility relates with the urbanization process especially the physical aspects of it as expressed under the built environment. Residential mobility is mainly caused by certain push and pull factors. Push factors are like high densities of population with congestion, crowding, lack of amenities, environmental deterioration, increase of pollution levels etc. Pull factor are quality of neighborhood in terms of planned colonies, better infrastructure, nearness to workplace/ educational institutes, social security, social bonds etc. Residential mobility for the present study has been linked with quality of environment and residents neighborhood satisfaction with socio-economic causes. Both residential mobility and quality of environment are cause of concern for sustainable urban development especially in the major cities. The relationship between residential mobility and quality of environment needs an in-depth analysis. Therefore, this problem is studied for New Delhi in the present research work. However, considering the nature of urban development in the surveyed localities of New Delhi, the study focuses upon the factors influencing the of quality of environment and neighborhood satisfaction and the residential mobility process. Keywords: Quality of Environment, Neighborhood, Residential Mobility, Urban, Congestion, Overcrowding, Levels of Satisfaction, New Delhi STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Residential mobility is a characteristic to varying degree of all urban neighborhoods. Indeed, it is this mobility that is largely responsible for the changing socio-economic structure of neighborhood and is generally associated with the deterioration and decline of environmental quality of parts of cities. There are a number of potential reasons for increasing or declining residential mobility in a region within city. Perhaps the most significant regularity in terms of mobility patterns is that households seem to move between areas of similar socio-economic status generally. There is an interrelationship between mobility rates and other features of the urban environment, such as socioeconomic, demographic, and housing characteristics of any neighborhood. The general or overall pattern of residential mobility in any given city is characterized by individual decisions to move and the associated quality of environment. It is largely determined by the motives and the attributes of the people how they move and also by the various processes that create and constrain the availability of opportunities for the choice of neighborhood. Patterns of residential * Deptt. of Geography, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi ** Assistant Director, RCUES, Lucknow
90 Fatema Khatun and Nasruddin mobility both create and reflect the social structure of residential neighborhoods and the associated quality of life there in. Residential mobility is associated with assimilation and social mobility processes. Spatial assimilation, rooted in the work of Park and Burgess (1921) and Wirth (1928), suggests that immigrants tend to live in ethnic enclaves (usually less desirable places with high concentration of immigrants) due to financial, social and cultural capital constraints but are motivated to move to better neighborhoods as they become more integrated to standard life and economically successful. Hence, as families increase their level of socio-economic standing, they are also more likely to move to less ethnically concentrated and economically impoverished neighborhoods. As a household s economic situation improves, so does their capacity to afford a better location and dwelling. In addition, it allows the transition from housing as an item of consumption (when they were renting or sharing a dwelling) into a capital asset as they participate in either the formal or the informal housing market. Securing their own dwelling also allows them to invest in it, both improving conditions and increasing its economic value. Fundamentally, people move in the expectation of achieving a better living environment. The aspect of residential mobility is mainly attempted in western world where residential mobility is studied in context with housing stock and market. Turner (1976) has considered housing simultaneously as a product (from an individual housing unit to the housing stock in a neighborhood) as well as a process by referring to the provision and maintenance of all kinds of residential building. He has examined a multiple interrelations between housing conditions and human processes in a particular neighborhood. Michelson (1977) has examined that the housing demand is usually considered in terms of the availability and affordability of a combination of characteristics of housing unit, the residential building and its site, and the features of the neighborhood. Van Viet (1998) has investigated that the overall pattern of residential mobility in any given city is composed of individual decisions to move and their associated spatial flows, affected by physical, economical, behavioral and environmental parameters. Ioannides (2002) has worked upon residential neighborhood effects, effect of social interactions within residential neighborhoods, dwelling unit characteristics. Hur and Morrow-jones (2008) found that homeowners satisfaction with their neighborhoods is a major factor associated with a strong sense of community. There are neighborhood factors that influence residents satisfaction and that these factors differ between satisfactory and unsatisfactory areas in a city. For instance, safety and social problems were much more significant influences than physical factors in neighborhood satisfaction in unsatisfactory areas. The term residential mobility means frequent change of residence, either in the same city or town or between cities, states or communities. Residential mobility is mainly caused by certain push and pull factors. Push factors are like high densities of population with congestion, crowding, lack of amenities, environmental deterioration, increase of pollution levels etc. Pull Factor are planned colonies, better infrastructure, nearness to workplace/ educational institutes, social security, social bonds etc. Both residential mobility and quality of environment are cause of concern for sustainable
Quality of Environment, Neighborhood Satisfaction and Residential Mobility... 91 urban development especially in the major cities. The relationship between residential mobility and quality of environment needs an in-depth analysis. Therefore, this problem is studied for New Delhi in the present research work.residential mobility for the present study has been linked with quality of environment and residents neighborhood satisfaction with socio-economic causes in the urban space. However, considering the nature of urban development in the surveyed localities of New Delhi, the study focuses upon the factors and extent of residential mobility and to assess role of quality of environment and neighborhood satisfaction associated with the residential mobility process. Thus, for the present study, an attempt is made to analyze the primary data collected from the selected localities of New Delhi. Therefore, to conduct the survey on parameters related to residential mobility and quality of environment in New Delhi, the localities of Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar, Dwarka, Abul Fazal Enclave, Zakir Nagar, Welcome Colony, Bihari Colony Extension and Sanjay Enclave are selected as per the methodology. All the localities are authorized except some parts of Zakir Nagar and AbulFazal Enclave. Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar and Dwarka are the planned localities whereas the other five localities are unplanned with mixed land uses. However, New Delhi is newer part of Delhi, so it represents modernity and progress. Wide roads, sky-rocketing buildings, stunning infrastructures and great flyovers, shopping centers are some of the important features of New Delhi. It is also the centre of all administrative, commercial, educational and recreational activities. Thus, it attracts the potential migrants here from different parts of the country.
92 Fatema Khatun and Nasruddin AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1. To find out the quality of environmentin the surveyed localities of New Delhi 2. To find out the durations of stay, reasons for locational preferences for a particular locality andpatterns of social mobility as practiced by the residents with reference to specific income groups. 3. To find out the level of satisfactions within the target group practicing residential mobility and decisions to change residence in future if any and why. DATA BASE AND METHODOLOGY The present study is based on both primary data and related secondary data collected from various sources. The primary data has been collected from field survey based on selected indicators of residential mobility and urban built environment through a selfstructured questionnaire. To conduct the field survey, the area for sampling is selected from New Delhi on the basis of population density and growth rates so as to bring out the variations in patterns of residential mobility and the quality of environment. In all, eight localities of Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar, Dwarka, Abul Fazal Enclave, Zakir Nagar, Welcome Colony, Bihari Colony Extension and Sanjay Enclave are selected as per the methodology. For calculating the sample size from the on line random sample calculator is used. Thus, out of 5811 households in the study area, a sample size of 291 households is calculated which proved to be significant at 95% confidence level. The data is first crossed classified on the basis of income levels and tabulated for various localities falling within New Delhi. After calculating simple percentages, the data is put to application of relevant statistical calculation. The data is tested to study the impact of income on various parameter used for quality of environment, neighborhood satisfaction and residential mobility, the correlation coefficient r is calculated. RESEARCH FINDINGS The present study has been carried out to understand and analyze the process of residential mobility associated with the quality of environment and neighborhood satisfaction in the study area. Considering the nature of urban development in New Delhi, the study aims to find out the factors influencing neighborhood satisfaction in terms of quality of environment in the process of residential mobility. Thus, the study mainly focuses upon the quality of environment associated with the neighborhood satisfaction. The study also focuses upon the income levels of the households and their levels of satisfaction in practicing residential mobility. 1. Quality of Environment/ Neighborhood: For the present study, the quality of environment of urban population has been analyzed in terms of outdoor living environment of the locality or neighborhood. Since the features of outdoor living environment in urban spaces and morphology affect the quality of life of urban population in a particular neighborhood. The purpose of this study is to analyze the residential mobility parameters related to the modification of the urban environment and resident s quality of life. The parameters include nature of lane, status of sewer,
Quality of Environment, Neighborhood Satisfaction and Residential Mobility... 93 availability of garbage dumping site, adjacency to sources of pollution, urban space and traffic and other influencing factors which are desired to consider for rigorous analysis. These factors play a key role on the adaptation of quality of environment and responsively affect the dwellers attitude and behavior in the process of mobility. Regarding the status of lane it is noticed that on an average, in the surveyed localities 52.36% of the lanes have a width of >12 feet and only 8.26% of the lanes have width <8 feet in front of the surveyed households. Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar and Dwarka have 100% lanes of >12 feet while Sanjay Enclave, Bihari Colony and Welcome Colony have maximum percentage under 8-12 feet width of lane. Unpaved lanes are also a common phenomenon in Zakir Nagar, Sanjay Enclave and Abul Fazal Enclave. Analysis of Correlation Co-efficient has shown a strong negative relationship between the levels of income and percentages of population residing in houses located in narrow lanes which is shown by r = -0.91. It can be observed that within 40,000 income group, the percentage of households lying within this category is around 50% while above 40,000 income group, the percentage suddenly declines to 25% to 12% in case of income group above 60,000. Thus, the effect of income for better living environment is noticeable in the localities of New Delhi where the outdoor living environment is better like Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar and Dwarka. These localities have got legal electric supply along with sewer line connection. However, open sewer lines are also common which is mostly noticed in AbulFazal Enclave, Zakir Nagar, Welcome Colony and Sanjay Enclave. There is almost an absence of garbage dumping site in the planned localities of kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar and Dwarka while more than 80% of the households in Sanjay Enclave, Bihari Colony Extension and Welcome Colony have garbage dumping site as outside house on road or on open plots. Every household in the surveyed localities have got MCD/ DJB water supply except Zakir Nagar and AbulFazal Enclave. However, households in these two localities have got boring done in their houses for getting water supply. Considering the location of the households, around 73% are living along the road/ lanes in which Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar and Dwarka have 100% households located along the road/ lane while AbulFazal Enclave, Welcome Colony, Bihari Colony Extention have also maximum percentage under along the road/ lane. Households having interior location are maximum in Zakir Nagar characterized by congestion and overcrowding. Besides, Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar, Abul Fazal Enclave, Zakir Nagar and Sanjay Enclave are located on the flood prone areas. Considering the parameter of sources of pollution, it is found that almost 25% of the surveyed households have mainly complaints of heavy street traffic and noise from workshops in which AbulFazal Enclave and Zakir Nagar record the maximum percentage. Overhead utility lines are also a problem mainly in AbulFazal Enclave and Zakir Nagar. Correlation Co-efficient analysis has shown a weak negative relationship between the levels of income and percentages of households living close to sources of pollution which is shown r = -0.24. It is noticed that within all income groups, the percentages of
94 Fatema Khatun and Nasruddin households living within this category is around 12%-18% except above 60,000 income groups where the percentage is very low that is only 6%. Hence, the effect of income for better living environment is noticed in the surveyed localities of New Delhi and it is even far better for the households belonging to above 60,000 income groups in the localities like Kalindi Colony, SaritaVihar and Dwarka since these are planned residential localities but the effect of income is not seen in the localities like AbulFazal Enclave and Zakir Nagar which record highest percentages of households located near the sources of pollution. 2. Average Income of the Households: The average income is a proxy variable for the socio-economic condition of the population. A change in the income of households plays an important role in affecting residential mobility. Considering the average income of the family, it is noticed that almost one third of the population in the study area belongs to very high income groups (above 60,000) while only 13.5% population belong to very low income group (<15000). Figure However, locality wise figure reveals thatkalindi Colony has almost 100% population belonging to very high income category and it is followed by Dwarka (77.77%) and SaritaVihar (63.33%). Welcome Colony records the highest percentage (56.52%) under low income category, followed by Bihari Colony Extention (55.55%). Medium income category is found highest in Zakir Nagar (25.55%) and AbulFazal Enclave (24%). And Sanjay Enclave records highest percentage (32.14%) under very low income category.therefore, it is seen that, very high income categories are found mainly in Kalindi Colony, Dwarka and SaritaVihar, whereas very low income categories are found mainly in Sanjay Enclave and Welcome Colony and medium income groups are highest in Zakir Nagar and AbulFazal Enclave.
Quality of Environment, Neighborhood Satisfaction and Residential Mobility... 95 3. Residents Neighbourhood Satisfction: Patterns of mobility in New Delhi reveal that only 23% of the population is living in the study area since their birth. Whereas almost 77% of the households are found as in-migrant population living in New Delhi in which above 30,000 income groups dominates and most of them are living in Delhi for 10-20 years in which Zakir Nagar (31%), Abul Fazal Enclave (18%) and Dwarka (13%) have the highest concentration of around 62% of the total population of the surveyed localities of New Delhi. Thus, New Delhi is dominated by the in-migrant population from various states other than Delhi. Residential satisfaction is not only an important component of individual quality of life but also determines the way they respond to residential environment. An understanding to the factors that facilitate a satisfied or dissatisfied response can play a critical part in making residential mobility. The study investigates the effects of housing, neighbourhood and households characteristics on individual levels of satisfaction which plays an important role in intra city residential mobility. However, residents neighbourhood satisfaction can be analysed in terms ofduration of stay and locational preferences for a particular locality/ neighbourhood and patterns of social mobilty. Considering the duration of stay in the present neighbourhood/ locality it is found that around 42% of the households in the surveyed localities are living in the present locality for 10-19 years and 40% for <10 years, whereas, only 6% are living for >30 years. However, income wise data analysis reveals that 45,000-59,999 income group (60%) and >60,000 income group (45%) record highest proportion of households under 10-19 years of duration of stay. Whereas, <10 years duration of stay category is found highest in 30,000-44,999 income group (53%) and <15,000 income group (46.5%). >30 years duration of stay category is more noticeable in 15,000-29,999 income groups. Thus, it is found that in all income groups major proportions of households in the surveyed localities of New Delhi are living for 10-19 years and for <10 years. And 10-19 years duration of stay is noticed highest in 45,000-59,999 income groups. Locational preferences in the process of residential mobility can be seen as a product of housing opportunities, new and vacant dwellings resulting from sub urban expansion, quality of environment which are themselves a product of income, family size, life style, open space needs, family circumstances etc. Given sufficient amount of mobility, the residential structure of the city will be substantially altered resulting in changes both to objective social ecology and the associated neighborhood images which help to attract or deter further potential moves. Brown and Homes (1971) noted that changes in residential location within the urban area play an important role in altering the structure of urban environment. However, considering the income wise variation within the surveyed localities, it is seen that the most important reason is found for preference as living in better locality which is highest in >60,000 income group and 45,000-59,999 income group. The next important noticed securing better accommodation/ quality of life is also found highest in >60,000 income group and 45,000-59,999 income group. Then, nearness to workplace/ school/ college seems to be dominant reason is found highest in 15,000-29,999 income group followed by 45,000-59,999 income group, 30,000-44,999 income group and <15,000
96 Fatema Khatun and Nasruddin income group. Whereas, community belongingness and social security are noticed highest in15,000-29,999 income group and 30,000-44,999 income group. Social mobility is considered as an important aspect of residential environment or neighborhood especially from the point of view of housewives and children to whom friendly neighbors provide much needed company, thus giving a feeling of happiness and security. However, patterns of social mobility are discussed as neighborhood interactions and intimacy.on an average, 45% of the population in the study area has interactions with their neighbors very well while 52% have not so well.however, the income wise variation shows that very well interaction is found highest in 15,000-29,999 income group (53%) followed by 45,000-59,999 income group (52.5%), <15,000 income group (46.5%) and 30,000-44,999 income group (42%). Interaction not so well is found highest in very high income group >60,000.Thus, neighborhood interaction is found very well in low and medium income groups and it is not so well in very high income group. Regarding visiting neighbors, Around 21% of the households in the surveyed localities visit their neighbors once a week and 17% visit once a week, while 60% visit their neighbor occasionally.however, the income wise figure shows that visiting neighbors more than once a week is found higher in 15,000-29,999 and <15,000 income groups. Visiting neighbor once a week is noticed highest in <15,000 income group. Occasional visit is found maximum in very high, high and medium income groups. Considering the parameter allowing children to mix and play with neighbours, locality wise varition is noticeable as it is almost 100% in Sarita Vihar nad Dwarka and lowest in Bihari colony Extyention (61%), Zakir Nagar (72%) and welcome Colony (73%). This is mainly because people in Sarita Vihar and Dwarka live in the planned localities, having a society life, they feel safe to allow their children to mix and play with neighbours in comparison to other unplanned localities. Regarding the parameterhelping each-other in need, it is found that around 95% of the households in the surveyed localities help eachother in need in which >60,000 income group and 45,000-59,999 income group record 100% whereas <15,000 income group record 88% of households. Considering the levesl of satisfaction, it is noticed that almost 40% of the households in the surveyed localities are found as satisfied and 27% are found as moderately satisfied while only 8% are found as dissatisfied.however, income wise analysis reveals that 15,000-29,999 income group and <15,000 income group record highest proportion under satisfied category. Highly satisfied category is noticed highest in >60,000 income group and 45,000-59,000 income group. Moderately satisfied category is dominant <15,000 income group and 15,000-29,999 income groupwhile 45,000-59,999 income group and 30,000-44,999 income group are more noticeable under dissatisfied category. Analysis of Correlation Co-efficient has shown a strong negative relationship is seen between the levels of income and percentages of population satisfied living in the present locality which is shown by r = -0.78. It is noticed that below 40,000 income groups, the percentages of households lying within this category is around 45%-55% while above 40,000 income group, percentage is around 35%. Therefore, the impact of income at the level of satisfaction of the households in living in their present environment is noticeable in New Delhi.
Quality of Environment, Neighborhood Satisfaction and Residential Mobility... 97 Figure 4. Residential Mobility: Since almost one third of the total population mainly in unplanned localities are not satisfied with their quality of neighborhood, 34% of the population would like to change their residences in near future in which not much variation is found income wise. The households in the surveyed locality stated the main reasons in context of future residential mobility are as 27% people want to buy their own houses, 26.5% want to go to better/ planned localities/ neighborhood, 15% for congestion/ no open space. However, the income wise variation reveals that 15,000-29,999 and <15,000 income groups record highest proportion of households under the category of buying own house. Next important reason emerging from the data nalysis is want to go to better/planned localities/ neighbourhoods found highest in 45,000-59,999 income group followed by 30,000-44,999 and >60,000 income groups. Another important reason seems to be dominant for future residential mobility as congestion/ no open space which is more noticeable in 45,000-59,000 and 30,000-44,999 income groups, whereas, more space need is noticed highest in 45,000-59,000 income group, >60,000 income group and 30,000-44,999 income group.the reasons like owner wants to be vacated, house is in need of repair and staying with relatives also play important role for future residential mobility in the surveyed localities and these reasons are noticeable in <15,000 income group mainly. CONCLUSION From the above analysis it can be summarized that population in New Delhi is mobile since the patterns of residential mobility in the surveyed localitiesreveal that only 23% of the population are living in the study area since their birth. Whereas almost 77% of the households are found as in-migrant population living in New Delhi in which above 30,000 income groups dominates and most of them are living in Delhi for 10-20 yearsin
98 Fatema Khatun and Nasruddin which Zakir Nagar (31%), Abul Fazal Enclave (18%) and Dwarka (13%) have the highest concentration of around 62% of the total population of the surveyed localities of New Delhi. Thus, New Delhi is dominated by the in-migrant population from various states other than Delhi. Further the data analysis reveals that the quality of environment in the surveyed localities of New Delhi differs in terms of planned and unplanned localities. Overall the status of outdoor living environment is good in Dwarka, SaritaVihar and kalindi Colony since they are planned localities. Whereas the quality of outdoor living environment showing the problems of unpaved lanes and open sewer lines in the unplanned localities like Zakir Nagar, Abul Fazal Enclave and Sanjay Enclave. Besides the problems of congestion, overcrowdingand mixed land uses with a number of environmental problems like noise pollution from workshops and heavy street traffic is at maximum in Abul Fazal Enclave, Zakir Nagar and Welcome Colony. However, irrespective of pleasant or unpleasant quality of environment, peoplestill prefer to live in the surveyed localities of New Delhi but the preferences or reasons to stay in these localities are different for various income groups. Around 56% of the households in above 60,000 income group prefer to live in the surveyed localities mainly because of living in better accomodation in a better locality/ neighbourhood like in Dwarka, SaritaVihar and kalindi Colony since they are planned localities. While 15%- 20% households within all income groups prefer to live mainy because of their nearness to work places/ schools/ colleges. Thus, New Delhi is characterized by residential mobility where high income groups show preferences to stay mainly for living in better accommodation in better locality/ neighbourhood whereas low income groups are satisfied in their present neighbourhood because of nearness to workplace/ school/ college, cheaper rent, community belongingness and social security specially in Zakir Nagar, Abul Fazal Enclave, Welcome Colony, Sanjay Enclave. Therefore, residential mobility may be characterized by the changing household circumstances, such as employment or family composition, may make the current housing unit or location less satisfactory. In addition, deterioration in the current housing unit or the quality of neighbourhood may further trigger the desire to move. Besides, the household may also be attracted to other housing units or neighborhoods for various reasons that contribute to the decision to mobility.as families increase their level of socio-economic standard and exposure to wider sections of society, they are also more likely to move to better neighborhoods or localities. Thus, people move mainly in the expectation of achieving a better living environment keeping aside the traditional behavior of residing within the same locality for longer time. Bibliography/ References Albig, W., (1933), The Mobility of the Urban Population, Social Forces, Vol. 11, pp. 351-67. Auluck, S.V. (1980), Intracity Residential Mobility in an industrial City: A Case Study of Ludhiana, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi. Cadwalleder, M. (1981), Urban Geography, Prentice Hall, USA. Clark, W. A. V. (2005), Intervening in the residential mobility process: Neighborhood outcomes for low-income populations, PNAS, Vol. 102, No. 43, pp. 15307 15312.
Quality of Environment, Neighborhood Satisfaction and Residential Mobility... 99 Clark, W.A.V. and Cadwaller, M. (1973), Locational Stress and Residential Mobility, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 29-41. Hur, M. and Morrow-Jones, H. (2008), Factors That Influence Residents Satisfaction with Neighborhoods, Environment and Behavior, September 1, 2008, Vol. 40 pp. 619-635. Ioannides, Y. M. (2002), Residential Neighborhood Effects, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 145-165. Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential Satisfaction, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. Park, R.E., & Burgess, E.W. (1921), Introduction to the science of sociology, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Turner, J. (1976), Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environment, Pantheon Books, New York, USA. Van Vliet. W. (ed) (1998), The Encyclopedia of Housing, Sage Publications, Newbury CA, U.S.A. Wirth, L. (1928). The Ghetto, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.