doi 10.4067/S0718-83582010000300002

Resettling a vulnerable habitat: Theory against practice

Anne-Catherine Chardon¹

1 French. Ph.D. in Geography, Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France. Academic, National University of Colombia.

Abstract

Given the vulnerability of urban populations exposed to natural threats, Colombian city councils must find solutions through resettlement processes, so that vulnerable communities, from a physical-natural perspective, can acquire new or “used” land in a safe place. By analyzing projects developed up to now, there is a wrong and biased institutional idea of vulnerability, leading to resettlement policies that do not take the whole concept of habitat into consideration, nor are they oriented towards the improvement quality of life of dwellers. Therefore, this article puts forward a reflection on the critical concepts of this kind of processes before presenting and analyzing resettlement experiences that are taking place in Manizales, Colombia.

KEYWORDS: HABITAT; VULNERABILIT; RESETTLEMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE

Introduction²

Habitat, vulnerability and resettlement are three complex concepts that, from a Latin American urban perspective, represent an interesting object of reflection, since it is not common to consider one term without taking the other two into account. This view should also be heightened by adding the concepts of poverty, quality of life and development.

Indeed, when it comes to analyzing the vulnerability of a human settlement against a threat, it is the vulnerable human habitat that should be systematically studied. In this context, if poverty and quality of life represent vulnerability, then it will be necessary to qualify that situation, as vulnerable urban settlements are rich in a series of aspects.

This comprehensive view should not be modified when planning risk reduction processes, as it enables addressing the problem as a whole, as well as dealing with the shortcomings and fragility of a community. One of the initiatives for risk reduction is the program for population resettlement; in the Colombian case, this policy illustrates this theoretical approach.

By analyzing vulnerability reduction policies against natural threats, in a Latin American urban context, there are shortcomings in the initiatives, which are oriented towards physical-natural or physical-spatial spheres, leaving aside essential factors of vulnerability related to social, cultural, economic and financial aspects. Additionally, these initiatives are not characterized by their effectiveness; they are only limited to basic actions aimed at preserving the life and goods of vulnerable settlements. This situation is related to a wrong and biased institutional idea of vulnerability, as well as to a lack of knowledge of the vulnerable object. As a result, it is important to think of these concepts to project and implement plans that reflect reality.

Concentrating on the concept of vulnerability involves first defining the vulnerable object. At urban scale, if the vulnerable object is regarded as Habitat (urban human habitat) -a concept that enables addressing the proposed subject matter- then carrying out an analysis in this field is a methodologically achievable process. In effect, when it comes to the vulnerability of a community and its possible resettlement, what is at stake is the habitat built by its dwellers; therefore, the relocating process should not only involve the community, but the resettlement (and improvement) of the habitat as well.

The present research identifies human habitat as a spatial unit; it starts with the “house” object, then with the “housing” object, and finally, it regards housing and its environment as a multidimensional context, a life system³.

Initially, it is important to point out that habitat should make inhabiting possible, a complex expression of “being” in the land that will be analyzed before exploring the concept of habitat.

Since the dynamic process of inhabiting is the result of the convergence of natural, social, economic, cultural, emotional and physical-spatial spheres; inhabiting means more than using, occupying, settling and finding protection. When inhabiting a determined space, humans express they are building their places, their territories and their life systems in order to feel identified with them; to feel they possess them and to feel they belong to those creations; to settle and project themselves. Consequently, inhabiting does not have a spatial meaning, but a multidimensional one, since the concept involves that the dweller forges connections with all the elements that surround him; he uses them, transforms them and as a consequence, he inhabits at different scales, since he feels he belongs there and takes part in the transformation and development of each of those units.

Inhabiting is linked to the whole concept of building, it goes beyond engineering, it is the construction of a context, a life environment that reflects the behavior and aspirations of its builders. According to Heidegger “Inhabiting is the purpose of building. Building is not only the means and the path for inhabiting, building is inhabiting in itself. (…) We do not inhabit because we build, but we build as long as we inhabit.”⁴ 

This relationship between inhabiting and building has a double meaning, since in the process of inhabiting there are transformations and constructions; and building occurs because inhabiting is needed. In this sense, human beings, in the inhabiting process, in the creation of an environment that adapts to their behavior and needs, devote themselves to building; as they live the spaces, they construct the physical dwelling that meet their requirements. Similarly, they build social networks, establishing relationships with their peers. This process of playing a role in society is executed by mobility, enabling contact with major spatial scales (the neighborhood, the city); land uses other than residential (recreation, trade, health amenities, education); work activities; etc. As Santos points out, “Inhabiting the world ‘in abstract’ is not possible without some kind of anchorage in space and time.”⁵

By analyzing the relationship between building and inhabiting, it is clear that the second concept determines the first one, as building is intended for inhabiting, “(…) physical form on its own is not the determining factor of human satisfaction.”⁶ However, this statement is not always considered; according to Yori “architecture and land planning, which have traditionally been focused on “making” (in the sense of producing-building), do not take the living of man into consideration, who is supposed to live in the spaces created by these disciplines.”⁷ That is why building implies thinking about who is going to inhabit a place, where they want to inhabit and how they want to inhabit, not only considering physical-spatial aspects, but also social, labor-economic and recreational aspects, as well as those related to amenities. Then, how can inhabiting be possible if someone lives under overcrowded conditions, is out of work, has no access to education and health, and has problems to move to other areas?

This characteristic of living, coexisting relating to the environment leads to the concept of Human Habitat, which is, supposedly, the inhabited object. Despite being a thoroughly explored concept, Habitat is still an object of analysis, debate and contribution. The term Habitat was initially coined in the field of ecology to refer to the physical-spatial space where animal or vegetal species developed; and there are still disciplines and authors that apply that concept to human habitat, adding the notion of place. Human habitat is defined as a spatial unit that was controlled by Man, in the words of Jaramillo, “Human habitat: Diagrammatic construction of an emotional part of the landscape used by a group of people. It should be referred to as the human use of material space.”⁸

Different to the previous statement, the view of Arias Vilas makes a transition from a physical-natural approach to the biased concept of human habitat -common in Europe-based on the constructions and their spatial distribution; the author (wrongly) regards that switch as geographic: “Habitat offers two possibilities: one referred to life conditions, to the global environment in which man lives; it is a meaning that may be considered as ecologic. It is more interesting (…) the sense that refers to the use of land, to the geographic distribution of human settlements, to the human settling determined or influenced by environmental elements such as geography, climate or topography.”⁹ This limited view of urban habitat is also found in France. Laborde, in his work “Dynamique de l’habitat”, addresses the built or planned residential patrimony¹⁰; likewise, the doctoral thesis of Rabinovich Behrend¹¹ refers to urban habitat when addressing the Swiss case of habitat groupé.

In this extension process of the approach given to the concept, there are views in which the role of human beings is becoming important. This does not alter the notion of habitat as the means that societies use to interact, to leave imprints and to transform elements for development purposes. This perspective deals with human territory and territoriality; the latter meaning refers to dynamic acts of appropriation, transformation, “culturalization” and anthropomorphization of space, turning it into territory; that it to say, a space with actors, owners, defenders and mourners with a sense of belonging to the spatial unit they recognize and feel identified with because they take part in its construction and development. García identifies territory as “a socialized and cultured space (…) with a sense of exclusivity.”¹² At the same time, subjectivity and affectivity come into play, since territory is also the result of a particular way to live and feel the environment. The relationships and emotions between human beings and their environment, as expression of how they live and spatialize their way of life, represent the topophilia described by Yori¹³.

In this sense, territoriality is determined by the uses, customs, symbols, affection, quests and interests of its actors. As a result, the concept of habitat takes shape as an independent topic because it belongs to its dwellers, creators and builders. Habitat is the product of habits; it also generates them. This anthropological aspect is essential, since Human Habitat is, above all, the expression of a determined culture; it is an identifying factor at individual and communal scale

These reflections and specifications are critical for developing the problem of this article, as resettlement processes, taking the original habitat into consideration, should enable territoriality in order to reconstruct habitat without causing trauma.

It seems evident that habitat does not exist as such; it is built around the vital space of human beings and it is characterized by its anthropomorphic scale¹⁴. Naturally, by introducing the concept of belonging, the housing object appears; it is the closest receptacle of goods and intangible patrimony. Then, habitat is not only limited to housing; however, housing is an essential element of habitat. Giraldo Isaza says that “Habitat comprises the house itself, the surroundings (the area outside the house, the neighborhood) and the limits (the city). (…) Therefore, habitat is the combination of housing and surroundings.”¹⁵ This is how housing is an important referent from which inhabitants interact with their surroundings and build their environment, their habitat. These concerns cannot be understood without comprehending that housing is not limited to the house; it refers to the space beyond the house itself, the surroundings for public use that are necessary for an acceptable daily life. For that reason, it is clear that housing, beyond its material value, is a critical element of habitat, mainly due to the experiences that take place at private and public levels. Everything goes and returns, this oscillating movement is the expression of the relationships that human beings establish with their environment before returning to their respective places. The networks and communication are essential elements in the creation and development of habitat, which originates, evolves and gets structured from those components.

Despite not having developed the whole concept of habitat, this article presented some views that are useful to understand that habitat is the result of the convergence of physical-natural; physical-spatial; socio-anthropological; economic-financial; and political-institutional aspects. Taken altogether, these spheres compose the environmental dimension in its wider sense; it is then required an insight into this aspect that is particular but common, as it is the life context, system and projection of each dweller. In this sense, Chardon regards habitat, from an urban perspective, as “the bio-physical-eco-socio-spatialsystem, that is to say, a system whose components are the urban space, its dwellers (characterized by context; social, economic, historical and cultural processes; movements and forms of communication), the physical-spatial context representing the natural environment, the political-institutional context and relationships representing the links among these elements.”¹⁶ Additionally, it is worth noting that Habitat is the expression of dynamics, links and networks that human beings establish with their environment (a human environment, covered by a safe, strong and stable social fabric). That is why habitat should involve living in a meaningful territory, where dwellers, beyond inhabiting, would be able to live freely. It is understood, then, that habitat, due to affection, perceptions and symbols of each dweller and community, has elements of subjectivity. In addition, habitat should offer proper conditions for inhabiting; it means more than using, dwelling, transforming and taking possession of a place and adapting its life environment in order to improve its condition and standards of living in a legal, safe and sustainable context.

This multidimensional view of Habitat suggests that, when analyzing its vulnerability, the approach to the research should be comprehensive as well, with the purpose of reflecting reality.

In relation to the proposed subject matter, it is indispensable to reflect on the concept of vulnerability, as resettlement processes are thought to reduce it. Therefore, if the goal is to solve a critical situation, it is important to know each of its scales and effects well to act on them. The vulnerability of urban societies exposed to natural threats belongs today to a group of complex topics, as it is a system of multidisciplinary factors that makes the formulation and solution of the subject matter difficult. The problem gets even more complex in developing countries, where non structural and difficult to quantify factors are the main agents involved in the creation of a vulnerable situation. Such view is the result of the evolution of ways to address the subject matter, from the approaches in the field of social sciences made by Quarantelli¹⁷ and Drabeck¹⁸, who began to associate perception with disaster; the global oriented research of Anderson and Woodrow¹⁹ and Cannon²⁰; to the contribution of Ratick, who theorizes about the role of exposition, resistance, resilience, recovery, learning and adaptation in the creation of vulnerability²¹, or the “pressure and release” model proposed by Blaikie et al²².

In this article, vulnerability is regarded as the probability of a subject or element exposed to a natural, technological, anthropic or socio-natural threat suffering damage, as well as human and material losses at the moment of impact of the phenomenon, considering also the difficulty of the recovery process in the short, mid and long term. This means that vulnerability is considered before, during and after the event. Then, vulnerability implies inappropriate prevention measures, the inflexibility of the exposed element, the incapacity to resist or absorb the impact (resistance) and the adaptation to any kind of changes in order to recover and reestablish the means of living (resilience)²³.

Vulnerability is the result of the functioning of a complex dynamic system generated by processes that act on vulnerability factors, which belong to physical-natural, ecological, social, economic, physical-spatial, territorial (use of land, planning and territorial policies), technological, cultural, educational, functional, political-institutional and administrative fields. It is understood that there are no vulnerability belonging to specific spheres, there is only one vulnerability; it depends on synergy among a series of factors.

In the case of resettlement processes, it is important to analyze the vulnerability factors that led to the implementation of this plan, so that these initiatives have influence on the sources of vulnerability and succeed in reducing them; otherwise, displacements may generate new conditions of vulnerability.

Resettlement, as a reduction mechanism of vulnerability, is not properly analyzed and its implementation is not taken seriously.

To debate on resettlement, it is important to reflect on the meaning of the verbs “to settle” and “settling” in a human context, which refer to occupying an area; however, this action has a special connotation that is related to security, strength, permanence and durability in time. This notion of permanence implies that settling is not a rash decision, but is the result of a physical-spatial, social, cultural, identity and economic process, as it involves the foundation of a place, a community, a settlement and finally, habitat with a sense of belonging.

From a practical perspective, resettlement is an object of reflection. That is why international institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have funded a series of eviction-displacement and resettlement projects in countries that are of the interest of these organizations. They attach conditions, suggesting that the processes should not be limited to physical aspects, but also to social, cultural and economic aspects in order to favor the sustained development of the affected community²⁴. At international level, the institutional view is more technical than conceptual; however, it is broadening its approach.

As an essential complement to this perspective, authors with reflection-oriented interests –that might be put into practice- give their opinion about resettlement; there are contributions ranging from the “simple” search for safety, to a complex and multidimensional view of the concept.

Duque Botero²⁵ regards resettlement as the most effective mechanism for both reducing vulnerability of vulnerable people against natural threats, and for solving the problems of affected communities. However, the initiative does not give details about its conditions and procedures. This view is similar to that of local authorities, who see resettling as a process aimed at “saving lives and goods.”

There are also approaches that consider the human aspects of resettlement, stressing the changes the process may produce, and pointing out that life quality –which is not only limited to the house object- is as important as protecting life. Robles Joya gives details about the human aspects to consider; “It is worth noting that resettlement processes should not only be aimed at reducing the physical condition of settlements, but also at improving the life condition of people and ensure their integration into the city. (…) Resettlement is also the revalorization of communal sense, human values, cultural ways of production, and, most important, life expectancy²⁶.” Beyond the revalorization of life expectancy, it may be possible to have expectations in life again.

These reflections deal with the discussion from a holistic perspective of what a resettlement process should be. However, the fundamental concept of habitat, unavoidably linked to resettlement, has not been addressed yet. This notion is mentioned by Hurtado Isaza: “[Resettlement is] … a life experience that involves the transformation of daily life, considering a definitive displacement outside the original area of permanence, which goal is the improvement of life quality and the construction of decent habitat²⁷.” Orozco Bermúdez and Guerrero Carvajal²⁸ think of the conditions of the original habitat and the need of reaching destination habitat, properly equipped and built by concerted action of dwellers.

Then, resettlement programs are the reproduction of habitat that involves a certain degree of distress. If these initiatives do not consider multisectoral approaches, they risk replacing a marginal situation by another, due to mismanagement of authorities.

This article, after putting forward these complementary opinions, proposes a conceptualization of resettlement based on the approach of Chardon²⁹.

From a conceptual perspective, the resettlement of urban populations exposed to natural threats corresponds to the displacement of people, to a spatial resettlement until new habitat is created within the framework of a city reorganization policy, being this restructuring exercise an interesting element, as it shows a systematic approach to the problem. In effect, resettling is, above all, a human process (an aspect that cannot be eluded) that, through modifications and transformations in a series of areas, should involve offering proper and sustainable individual and communal habitat conditions, as its goal to restore and improve daily life, the environment and life quality of the people this program is intended to help. First, resettlement should consider physical-natural elements and find safe spatial conditions; however, as the goal of the plan is to influence on the sustainable development of a community, the initiatives should also act on structural, as well as non structural aspects that may, or may not belong to the community, such as social, cultural, economic, financial, physical-spatial and legal aspects.

Resettling means building a new space for people (whose involvement in its conception, planning, design and development is essential), a place they should fell as their life territory, an inhabitable, restful and comfortable place they know and feel, a place where they can settle and become active protagonists. This subject matter represents a political dilemma, as there are groups of people and communities involved in the problem in order reach decisions and define policies. Even if the processes are involuntary and often undesired by dwellers, their active participation will increase acceptation and adaptation levels, therefore, the programs will reflect their way of life, habits and culture and not imposed models that do not match their needs and daily activities.

Additionally, a resettlement process should contemplate measures aimed at controlling and defining the use of the vulnerable land that will be uninhabited, with the purpose of avoiding the return of the former dwellers and the establishment of a new settlement.

It is understood, then, that resettlement projects should give a definitive and holistic answer to complex individual or communal situations; therefore, these solutions should mean more than finding a safe place to live in. These processes imply social, economic, cultural and political consequences, as well as physical-territorial impact on the original and destination habitat. This situation may interrupt or alter the daily life of dwellers; nevertheless, the challenge of a resettlement process is to predict the previously mentioned consequences and operate effectively so that the result is the sustainable development of the resettled community.

As a result, the aim of this kind of intervention is to act on each expression of poverty of a community, since poverty, as wealth, is not only related to economic or financial aspects, but to individual or collective needs that are not met at any scale (be it for the lack of resources or the incapacity to produce it); poverty may be considered as a relative and subjective life quality indicator, condition that should improve the resettlement process.

In the opinion of a non-expert, it is important to consider the perception of the dweller about his own poverty condition, about how he feels and experiences his needs.

This article, after presenting these reflections, fundamental to understand the conceptual context of resettling a vulnerable habitat, presents projects implemented in Manizales (Colombia), illustrating the contributions and mistakes of this kind of intervention.

In Colombia, resettlement is a mechanism for risk reduction used in situations where intervention is not possible because of the dangerousness of the area; the dweller, then, is free to choose between social housing programs in new, safe zones, or buy a pre-owned house that has been previously checked by authorities.

Despite not having policies for drawing up and implementing resettlement plans, the Colombian State has the Social Interest Housing (SIH), a project that share characteristics with resettlement initiatives; the goals and regulations of SIH can be consulted in Ceballos Ramos ed³⁰. The approach of the State to this problem is illustrated in the National Constitution³¹, namely, the protection of family (Art. 5); and the right to decent housing, that is to say, the access to material and spiritual conditions of existence that ensure living with quality and the space to the free development of personality (sent. C-575/92. Art. 51). However, if this theoretical view of national reference implies that the State cares for its citizens and enforces welfare laws, then its approach will be general and will not have methodological obligations (it will address the “what” and not the “how” of the problem). This situation may generate completely different, but legal, qualitative application. Additionally, although the constitutional framework suggests that resettlement in Colombia is the result of social and humanist concern which goal is improving the life quality of vulnerable population, as well as promoting their participation in resettlement processes, this is not always true, and there are many things to do about that.

Through a comparative analysis of the resettlement processes that have been taking place in Manizales since the eighties, this article contrasts a desired theory and an imposed practice. Likewise, three different forms of resettlement are compared, where the approach of the specialist is collated with the opinions of relocated dwellers –information collected after conducting 600 surveys in nine towns. Representing between 30 and 50% of the population, depending on the studied area, the survey was composed of 104 questions divided into topics such as the original habitat, the destination habitat, the scale of the neighborhood as a residential unit, the multidimensional aspects that compose human habitat, and the management of resettlement processes. The background of respondents (representative of the target population) -chosen at random- is as follows: adults (83%), housewives whose level of education ranged from incomplete primary education to secondary education (61%), minimum wage (250 USD) per household (54%), and less than minimum wage per household (28%).

Manizales is an intermediate Andean city (380,000 inhabitants); it has a rough topography and poorly compacted volcanic soil in a highly seismic area characterized by mountain tropical climate (2,500 to 3,000mm of yearly precipitation, characterized by its torrentiality and erosivity). This information is given to illustrate the frequent occurrence of highly destructive land movements.

In this context, the city council is finding solutions to reduce vulnerability through resettlement processes; these initiatives consist in acquiring a new or “pre-owned” house in a supposedly safe –from a physical-natural perspective- area. The main goal of these measures is to protect the life and goods of people. These plans are drawn up, as many of “Social” Interest Housing projects, considering the cost-benefit relation; they have a limited budget, as for most of the affected people, the main funding source are the housing subsidy given by the State (22 minimum wages, 5,200 USD) and the municipal subsidy (3,400 USD), covering 60-70% of the property value.

From a logistic-administrative perspective, the Popular Housing Fund (PHF) is -at local level- the governmental body responsible for the administrative, financial, architectural and urban management of SIH resettlement programs.

In Manizales, resettlement initiatives have offered five solutions: 1- people were provided with land so that they could rebuild their original habitat; later on, the city council built social housing that was improved and expanded by dwellers. (See picture 1); 2- people were provided with land so that they, through governmental subsidy and training on building standards conducted by the PHF and the National Service for Learning, could build basic housing (Altos de San Cayetano, 1990-1993); 3- the development of a comprehensive (social, economic, physical-natural and physical spatial) project, providing people with 55m2 housing. See picture 2; 4- people were provided with subsidized 30m2 housing. Pictures (See pictures 3, 4,5 y 6)3, 4, 5 and 6; 5- Pre-Owned Housing option, consisting in buying subsidized housing that meet building standards.

 1. PICTURE 1. El Paraíso neighborhood, 1987. Source: Zepelín Ltda.

PICTURE 2. Yarumales neighborhood, 1995. Source: Zepelín Ltda.

PICTURE 3. San Sebastián neighborhood 2002-2003 and Santa Ana neighborhood, 2005. Source: Zepelín Ltda.

PICTURE 4. Street at Santa Ana neighborhood. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 5. Portón del Guamo neighborhood 2005-2006. Source:Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 6. 29m2 basic housing, 2008. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

The Original Habitat

People who took part in resettlement processes in Manizales belong to the lowest socio-economic groups. They lived in steep, flood-prone areas near the downtown of the city. (See pictures 7 y 8). These low income, irregular and mostly large families (more than six members) lived in poor houses, as far as material, building system and hygiene and health conditions are concerned. In addition, these constructions, according to the number of people who lived in the same household, did not meet the ideal requirements of development; however, the inhabitable area of the houses these families were given was less spacious than the original one. (See pictures 9 y 10). The physical-spatial environment was characterized by its organic morphology, which, although the evident overcrowding conditions, showed cultivated green areas (subsistence crops) and pedestrian structures (roads and steps). See pictures 11 y 12. Regarding social amenities, there was access to all basic services. See Graphic 1.

GRAPHIC 1. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 7. La Playita neighborhood fully resettled (more than 600 families) from 2007 to 2008. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 8. Galán neighborhood, northern hillside. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 9. “Lego-brick” housing mixing building and material systems, Bajo Andes area. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 10. Bajo Andes area, the size of the house is adapted to the needs and uses of dwellers. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 11. Ways for exclusive use of Bajo pedestrians, El Nevado and Los Andes neighborhoods, southern hillside. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 12. Bajo Andes area, subsistence crops surrounding the houses. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

With respect to the original habitat, the area was occupied either by the official owners or by tenants; the illegal access to basic services was a common practice.

As for employment, job activities were limited to small craft workshops and groceries; however, the proximity to the downtown meant that dwellers could take part in informal trade without allocating resources for transport.

Since families lived in the same neighborhood or house, respondents, when asked about recreational activities, regarded their original habitat as their “privileged” space. Additionally, people could count on neighborhood relationships, that is to say, the solidarity of the human environment.

According to the survey, respondents had mixed reactions about their relationship with the original habitat. Sixty one percent of them had positive opinions about their original zone of residence; they pointed out aspects such as the neighbors, private amenities, the proximity to the downtown of the city and the peacefulness of the area. In fact, the 82% of those polled said there were good relationships among neighbors; additionally, the 60% of respondents stated they had relatives living in the same neighborhood. Then, human relationships and the sense of feeling comfortable in the life environment are essential, they become constituent parts of habitat and represent a key element of welfare, ensuring a certain degree of emotional stability. Regarding the location of residence in relation to urban centrality, amenities and services, that is to say, to urban dynamics, its value may or may not consider proximity. In the case of Manizales, the downtown of the city concentrates trade, banking and tertiary activities; therefore, as far as the closeness to the downtown area is concerned, what matters the most to low and middle classes is the fact of not allocating resources for transport to develop daily activities (doing the groceries, paying services, doing paperwork in advance, etc.)

In addition, the satisfaction level of respondents regarding the original neighborhood is due to the quality of amenities, which, according to graphic 1 was higher in relation to basic services and the house itself. See Graphic 1

There was also criticism over the original neighborhood concerning insecurity, addiction to drugs and the fact of living in a vulnerable zone. Those polled mentioned these aspects in a greater or lesser degree, nevertheless, all of respondents reported those negative aspects. Additionally, inhabitants of certain zones mentioned the difficult access to those areas, either due to topographic conditions or to bad transport. Insecurity and addiction to drugs represented a serious problem in the original neighborhood, as the 36% of respondents had good comments about security. These statements suggest that insecurity, at all scales, is of utmost importance and is not only limited to natural threats.

At household level, the 61 percent of those that were surveyed liked their houses because they were spacious, comfortable, beautiful and cozy. As for the negative aspects, people said their houses were located in a vulnerable zone and the materials used for their construction were mediocre. In effect, despite missing certain aspects of their former houses, especially those related to spaciousness, dwellers know their lives were endangered and their houses had serious structural problems. This combination of events motivates them to take part in resettlement processes.

After discussing the aspects regarding the former habitat of resettled people, it is worth commenting three resettlement projects developed in different periods of time -using different procedures-, so that analyzing, from a comprehensive view of habitat, their benefits and mistakes.

Two resettlement processes illustrating qualitative opposites (El Paraíso and Yarumales), as well a third initiative, based on a model that is currently in use (Santa Ana) are examined.

The first large scale resettlement program implemented in Manizales led to the creation, in 1987, of El Paraíso neighborhood; this settlement was the result of the relocation of 425 families affected by landslides; groups of people from five different neighborhoods threatened by landslips were also considered. This resettlement initiative consisted in providing people with land, so that they could rebuild their original habitat; as the former houses were built with bamboo and salvage material, they were easily dismantled and taken to the new area. Later on, the city council built social housing (consisting of a multiple space, bathroom, roof, main door and an opening). (See pictures 13 y 14). From a physical-spatial perspective, these constructions were part of the evolution of the neighborhood. Afterwards, families expanded their houses by using bricks or cement blocks. Today, 20 years on the beginning of the resettlement process, the neighborhood is consolidated and there are no traces of its origin and the physical-spatial transformation of the area develops at the pace of each family, as a result, there is heterogeneity regarding the number of floors, facade patterns, materials, texture, colors, etc. (See pictures 15 y 16). As for public use, the neighborhood is equipped with basic amenities (schools, health facilities, multipurpose court, church, local shops); however, there are few green areas and despite being surrounded by a main road that facilitates the access to transport, the public space that separates the neighborhood from other zones is limited by this highway (picture 1).

PICTURE 13. Social housing given by the city council after. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 14. A large number of families are still living in social housing. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 16. Consolidation and heterogeneity. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

Regarding socio-economic aspects, the particular context of relocated families, an element that also created vulnerability, was not considered. Therefore, aspects such as education, health or communal life were not taken into account. This geological and technical approach generated a series of circumstances that meant the short and mid term failure of the process.

That is why an important number of families sold their new land and returned to their former habitat shortly after being relocated, as a result, the city council program was canceled. This action was motivated by the lack of governmental control over the process, as authorities thought that spatial resettlement was enough to solve the problems of vulnerable families. Likewise, due to unemployment and segregation, the social context of El Paraíso showed alarming signs of deterioration through drugs and arms trafficking, insecurity, prostitution, etc. Indeed, resettlement is not only material, as habits, customs and other ways of life are also relocated, be it good or bad...

Gradually, the community of El Paraíso began to grow by “self-destruction”, as well as by the intervention of NPOs and local universities until reaching its current stable state, with dwellers expressing satisfaction about life conditions; nevertheless, the life quality improvement process was slow.

In the following decade, the Yarumales settlement, contrary to El Paraíso, was planned in a holistic way and it should be considered as a pattern to follow (See picture 2). In 1993, the PHF and the God’s Minute organization developed a comprehensive resettlement process that lasted two years. In effect, the initiative was not only about relocating 36 families, but working along the community on socio-economic-cultural aspects; dwellers had to attend compulsory weekly workshops on dressmaking, shoemaking and bakery so that all families could generate income to pay daily expenditures and house installments. In addition, God’s Minute was aware of the importance of establishing a new community, since relocated families came from different neighborhoods and they had to know each other.

It was clear that this project addressed not only technical or physical-spatial aspects of vulnerability, but also social, cultural and economic factors at private and communal levels with a proper approach to habitat.

As for physical-natural and physical-spatial spheres, the initiative had a broad view that escaped from the “poor project for poor people” stereotype. The land chosen to develop the program was located in a consolidated and traditional area of the city; it had all basic services and infrastructure. From a town-planning perspective, free areas were composed of front yards, pedestrian traffics, a little playground, a multipurpose court and a parking area; all of these elements are in excellent state, as a proof of the sense of belonging of the community See picture 17.

In relation to the urban-architectural design of the project, it was developed by a group of architecture students and professors. The result suggests a real search for design and a 55m2 built-up area distributed in two inhabitable floors. See picture 18.

PICTURE 17. Welcoming urban environment. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 18. Decent inhabitable project. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

In 1995, families moved to Yarumales neighborhood, and, 15 years after being handed-over to their owners, only the 10% of houses were remodelled or expanded, suggesting that dwellers feel comfortable with the initial project.

So far, the Yarumales program is the only of its kind in Manizales, as resettlement processes implemented during the last decade (San Sebastián, Samaria, Portón del Guamo y Mirador de Monteleón) have a narrow and wrong view of habitat.

The Santa Ana neighborhood was the solution offered by authorities, through the PHF, to those families affected on March the 18th, 2003, when 144mm of precipitation were measured in three hours, wich produced many large landslides in several unstable areas of the city.

The area consists of 11 blocks, with each area containing 392 29m2 houses (not housing) built on a 35m2 plot; affected families inhabited this neighborhood in October, 2005.

PICTURE 19. Neighborhood oriented along the gradient, affecting life quality. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 20. The orientation of houses prevents from seeing the environment. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 21. Unfinished cession areas. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 22. Lack of urban connection with the environment. Source:Anne-Catherine Chardon.

At first, this zone was intended to respect contour lines, which is the recommended procedure for hillside land; however, in order to make traffic possible, and for profit-making reasons, the project is oriented along the gradient, presenting sloped ways and cession areas, stepped constructions and public spaces that, as well as lacking amenities, are difficult to use. See pictures 19,20,21 Additionally, the contracting firm developed only the inner perimeter of the neighborhood; as a consequence, there were no connections between Santa Ana and its proximities for several years. See picture 22.

From a town planning perspective, narrow stairs make the access to houses unpractical and for exclusive use of pedestrians See picture 23. From an architectural point of view, the neighborhood presents characteristics that do not meet habitat standards. As a result, the “housing” solution consists of a social space (18,8m2, including corridor), a bedroom (7,9m2), a courtyard (5,2m2) and a bathroom (3,25m2), which are intended for the “benefit” of generally large families See picture 6. This situation creates critical overcrowding conditions, being impossible to separate communal, family and private uses. As these three categories are developed in the same spaces, dwellers use curtains to divide them. See picture 24.

PICTURE 23. Difficult and pedestrian- oriented access. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 24. Due to the narrowness of the property, social spaces are divided. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 25. Every facade has its ladder. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 26. The bedroom is located in the living room. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 27. The multipurpose rooftop doubles the inhabitable space. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

PICTURE 28. Rooftop with humidity problems. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

In this way, social or service spaces turn into a private one, becoming a bedroom. See picture 26. Additionally, the narrowness of the construction turns the rooftop into a playground as well as a place for leisure, drying clothes and breeding domestic animals. (See pictures 25 y 27). Indeed, this neighborhood represents the multiscale transition phase of the resettled community. There is no distinction between urban and rural ways of life, as the ground floor has urban characteristics and the rooftop-terrace is a rural space for breeding purposes. As in similar situations, this lack of space leads to the appropriation of public areas such as front yards.

In this kind of settlement, the place of residence is a source of income that enables dwellers to pay for the house they have, as the project did not consider the economic sustainability of families. This is how small businesses such as stores, groceries and hairdressing salons are started up in these 29m2 spaces. Naturally, limited habitat conditions are not exclusive to the built-up area, as there are also problems regarding illumination (one opening), acoustic (a wall is shared with the neighboring house), ventilation and humidity (the rooftop-terrace causes water leakage) See picture 28.

Since dwellers were not considered in the design process of the neighborhood, and due to the fact that the concept of habitat was not fully applied in the construction of the area, inhabitants gave priority to the transformation of their environment, which is needed for the improvement of life quality, by expanding and painting their houses, as well as by making profit from it; it is demonstrated, then, that switching from house to housing is the wish of dwellers.

This is how inhabitants (without respecting standards) painted and added a second and third floors, large windows and balconies to their houses; all these processes implied the elimination of the courtyard.

The following table shows the differences among the three mentioned resettlement processes. See table 1.

Table 1: Multiscale Characteristics of Resettlement

Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon

By comparing these projects, it is possible to understand that resettlement policies depend on circumstances and do not consider the sustainable development of resettled communities. Most of programs concentrate on physical-natural problems and few of them take habitat into account.

These comments about the most important characteristics of resettlement are contrasted to the opinion of dwellers in order to link some aspects of the survey.

The Destination Habitat… Comments of Dwellers

Eighty-one percent of respondents like the area where they live. Old neighborhoods concentrated the highest percentages, 95% in El Paraíso and 92% in Yarumales, as for new zones, the approval rate is 60%. Despite this high figure of satisfaction, 51% of those surveyed would have liked being relocated in another zone in order to live near the downtown, as well as in a healthier environment. Generally, good comments about the zone of residence are related to the presence of neighbors, tranquility/security and transport.

When asked about the negative aspects of the neighborhoods, respondents mentioned insecurity and addiction to drugs. These problems are the main concern of dwellers, as the 26% of those surveyed had positive comments about security and the 39% said security was good in their original neighborhood. In this way, the population expresses that these indicators are essential requirements for ensuring good quality of life, being more important than employment or health aspects. In addition, these figures show that, regarding security, the resettlement process worsened the original situation, which was already bad.

As for amenities, services and environment, the survey showed that, apart from transport, the destination zone has worse characteristics than the original neighborhood. See graphic 2.

GRAPHIC 2. Source: Anne-Catherine Chardon.

However, despite this lack of amenities, the 78% of respondents said their lives changed after being resettled; to most of them, this change was a positive one, mainly due to the fact of owning a house and living in a safe zone. It is worth commenting that there were also negative changes related to the remoteness of the area, job losses and the increase of expenses and insecurity.

Regarding housing, the fundamental element of habitat, 81% of dwellers like their current house. This figure drops to 67% in Santa Ana, where people are not satisfied with their 29m2 houses. In certain areas, as the features of the house itself do not ensure a favorable evaluation, its positive aspects are related either to intrinsic factors (space, beauty, materials), or extrinsic characteristics (it belongs to the dweller, location.) As for the negative aspects, criticism aims at the size of the house and humidity problems.

In relation to daily life, the semi-rural environment observed in the original habitat has almost disappeared, there are no animals and the presence of crops is inconsiderable.

Finally, so as to have the general impressions of dwellers about the process, the survey asked people if they felt benefited or affected by resettlement programs; 78% stated the access to housing and the fact of living in a safe house benefited them. Those who feel affected by the program, mainly people belonging to new neighborhoods, mentioned the increase of expenses and the limited space of the house.

According to the opinion of dwellers, it is inferred that the relative satisfaction about the house is mostly due to resignation, as they did not have another option to choose from, and also because they aim to fulfill the dream of Colombian low and middle classes, which is being the owner of a solid house in a safe zone, regardless of socio-cultural costs.

Conclusion

In the light of the examples presented in this article, it was observed that regarding resettlement, practical application is far from the theory that is considered valid. This may be due to a lack of political-administrative interest in areas other than preserving the life of dwellers, such as sustainable development, as in most of the aspects, the relationship between people and their habits and needs was higher before resettlement took place. This situation implies the forced adaptation of resettled families to their new place of “life”, where they gradually build welcoming habitat. In El Paraíso, it took two decades for people to adapt to their space.

This frustration is also observed in the expectations of people about resettlement programs, as the poll showed requirements such as a bigger, cozy and completed house that does not involve additional costs, within a framework in which dwellers take part in the phases of the process. The survey proved that, to both the community and the institutions in charge of resettlement programs, the house is the central element of this kind of initiatives.

At institutional level, through interviews with the heads of entities in charge of resettlement processes, the concept of vulnerability is limited, biased and caused by physical-natural and physical-spatial factors. Resettlement processes are not framed within the comprehensive concept of “habitat”; therefore, current projects may not only solve the vulnerability of the affected community but also generate conditions for its continuity or the emergence of new vulnerability factors. This means that resettlement processes should regard vulnerability not only as the starting point, but also as a possible situation that can be reached several times if the program is not properly implemented. By combining the interests of all participants and through a transversal talk (housing, neighborhood, city), it is important to construct an inhabitable city at local and polis levels.

Notes

²The second part of this article presents the results of research “Resettlement Processes of Vulnerable Urban Populations Exposed to Natural Threats: Analysis Models from Habitat, Development and Sustainability Complexities” conducted from 2007 to 2009 and funded by the National University of Colombia and COLCIENCIAS.
³Florián, 2002; Fadda & Jirón & Bilbao, 2000; Franco, 1996.
⁴Heidegger, 1994.
⁵Santos, 2000.
⁶Tarchópoulos Sierra & Ceballos Ramos, 2003.
⁷Yori, 2007.
⁸Moreno Jaramillo, 2002.
⁹Arias Vilas, 1987.
¹⁰Laborde, 1994.
¹¹Rabinovich Behrend, 1996.
¹²García, 1976.
¹³Yori, 2007.
¹⁴González Escobar, 2002.
¹⁵Giraldo Isaza, 1993.
¹⁶Chardon, 2008.
¹⁷Quarantelli, 1978.
¹⁸Drabeck, 1986.
¹⁹Anderson & Woodrow, 1989.
²⁰Cannon, 1991.
²¹Ratick, 1984.
²²Blaikie et al., 1996.
²³Chardon, 2002, 2008.
²⁴Partridge, 2000.
²⁵Duque Botero, 2006.
²⁶Robles Joya, 2008.
²⁷Hurtado Isaza, 2010.
²⁸Orozco Bermúdez & Guerrero Carvajal, 2008.
²⁹Chardon, 2010.
³⁰Ceballos Ramos ed., 2008.
³¹The Republic of Colombia, 1991.

Bibliografía

ANDERSON, M; WOODROW, P. Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Desaster. Boulder, Westview Press, 1989

ARIAS V., Felipe. Castros lucenses de época romana. Memorias de Historia Antigua, (8): 7-16, 1987.

BLAIKIE, P., CANNON T., DAVIS I., WISNER, B. Vulnerabilidad. El entorno social, político y económico de los desastres. Bogotá, LA RED/ITDG, 1996

CANNON, T. A Hazard need not a Disaster Make: Rural Vulnerability, and the causes of 'Natural' Disaster", Paper presented at the IBG, Developing Areas Group Conference on Disasters, London, 1991

CEBALLOS R., Olga Lucía Editora Académica. Vivienda Social en Colombia. Una mirada desde su legislación 1918-2005. Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. 2008. 277 p. ISBN 978-958-716-184-7

CHARDON, Anne-Catherine. Reasentar…, más allá de cuatro muros. Un análisis desde la teoría y la praxis del hábitat sostenible. Revista Bitácora Urbano-Territorial, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. 2010, en vía de publicación

------ Amenaza, vulnerabilidad y sociedades urbanas. Una visión desde la dimensión institucional. Revista Gestión y Ambiente, 11(2): 123-136, 2008. ISSN 0124-177X.

------ Un enfoque geográfico de la vulnerabilidad en zonas urbanas expuestas a amenazas naturales. El ejemplo andino de la ciudad de Manizales, Colombia. Manizales, Editorial Centro de Publicaciones Universidad Nacional de Colombia,. 2002. 174 p. ISBN 958-9322-72-7

DRABECK, T. Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York, Springer Verlag, 1986

DUQUE B., Juan David. El reasentamiento poblacional: fenómeno social, político y de progreso. Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, 8(1): 145-165, enero-julio, 2006. Bogotá, Universidad del Rosario. ISSN 0124-0579

FADDA, Giulietta; JIRÓN, Paola; BILBAO, María de los Angeles. Evaluación de la calidad de vida desde la perspectiva bifocal de 'medio ambiente género'. El caso de un barrio de Santiago. Boletín INVI, 15(39): 121-131, mayo 2000. ISSN 0716-5668.

FLORIÁN B., Alejandro. Algunas reflexiones sobre el derecho a un lugar para vivir y para evolucionar de habitantes a ciudadanos. Bogotá D.C., Colombia, FEDEVIVIENDA. 2002

FRANCO Silva Francisco Javier. Cuerpo, Lugar de vida y Cosmología: Las Dimensiones Culturales del Espacio. BARRIO Taller. La Casa conceptos de Espacio y Vida, Bogotá. 1996. p. 7-30. ISBN 958-9577-717

GARCÍA, José Luís. Antropología del territorio. Madrid, Taller Edición JB. 1976. 349 p. ISBN 978-84-7330-043-8

GIRALDO I., Fabio. Hacia una nueva concepción de la vivienda y el desarrollo urbano. Síntesis del trabajo Necesidades Habitacionales, Informe para el Gerente General del INURBE presentado por el CENAC Bogotá. 1993

GONZÁLES E., Luís Fernando. La concepción tecnológica del hábitat. En: Miradas al hábitat. Serie de ensayos FORHUM 19. 2002. pp. 21-32 ISBN 958-9126-26-4

HEIDEGGER, Martin. Construir, Habitar, Pensar. En: Conferencias y artículos. Traducción de Eustaquio Barjau. Barcelona, Serbal. 1994. ISBN 8476281439.

HURTADO I., Juan Gabriel. Reasentamiento y habitabilidad. De los asentamientos autogestionados a las soluciones institucionales masivas de vivienda. Estudio de caso, barrio Altos de Santa Ana, comuna Ciudadela del Norte, Manizales. Tesis de Maestría en Hábitat, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Manizales. 2010. 190 p.

LABORDE, Pierre. Les espaces urbains dans le monde, Nathan Université, 1994, 240 p.

MORENO J., Cecilia Inés et al. Criterios ambientales para la vivienda y el hábitat en el valle de Aburrá. Escuela de Hábitat CEHAP, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín, Centro de Publicaciones. 2005. 171 p. ISBN 9589126294.

OROZCO B., Paula Andrea & GUERRERO Carvajal Saira Inés. De la informalidad a la formalidad del hábitat. Proceso de reubicación del barrio La Playita. Trabajo de Grado, Escuela de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Manizales. 2008. 93 p.

PARTRIDGE, William (editor). Reasentamiento en Colombia. Banco Mundial-Red de Solidaridad Social-ACNUR-Corporación Antioquia Presente, Tercer Mundo Editores. 2000. 338 p.

QUARANTELLI, E.L. Disaster: Theory and Research. Sage Studies in International Sociology, (13) Beverly Hills, California, 1978

RABINOVICH B., Adriana, Participation et architecture : mythes et réalités. Quelques cas d'habitats groupés en Suisse, Thèse doctorale, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausane, 1996, 267 p.

RATICK, S. Coping with Climate Change: Vulnerability and Response to Sea level Rise and Severe Storms, Center for Technology, Environment and Development, Clark University, 1994

REPÚBLICA de Colombia. Constitución Nacional. 1991

ROBLES J., Solanyi. Impactos del reasentamiento por vulnerabilidad en áreas de alto riesgo. Bogotá 1991-2005. Tesis de Maestría en Hábitat, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Bogotá. 2008. 175 p.

SANTOS, Milton. La naturaleza del espacio. Técnica y tiempo. Razón y emoción. Barcelona, Ariel Geografía. 2000. 348 p. ISBN 84-344-3460-1

TARCHOPOULOS S., Doris; Ceballos Ramos Olga Lucía. Calidad de la vivienda dirigida a los sectores de bajos ingresos en Bogotá. Bogotá, CEJA Centro Editorial Javeriano. 2003. 126 p. ISBN 958-683-546-4

YORI, Carlos Mario. Topofilia o la dimensión poética del habitar. Segunda edición ampliada, Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. 2007. 387 p. ISBN 978-958-683-112-4

------ Del espacio ocupado al lugar habitado: una aproximación al concepto de topofilia. 2005. 32 p.

Received: 18.06.10
Accepted: 15.10.10