SUSTAINABLY SMART PUNE STUDY - Survey Analysis IV

In continuation to the series on survey data, housing is discussed in this part. Housing is analyzed with respect to structure condition, building typology, housing tenure and size.  

Survey Area

7) HOUSING – STRUCTURE CONDITION

Of the surveyed Slum population, 58% has semi pucca houses and 30% kaccha houses. Less than 20% slum has pucca houses. In slums, most of the houses are erected by the family members themselves with temporary/ semi permanent materials.  On the contrary, LIG group shows a good trend with almost 80% living in pucca houses.

8) BUILDING TYPOLOGY

Building typology shows an increasing trend towards apartment house culture compared to individual houses as a result of scarce land and rising real estate costs.

9) HOUSING TENURE

Housing tenure shows more than 68% residents of all categories own houses. People with rented housing are migrants to city, either new arrivals or are here for a short stay. For most of LIG and slums, rented housing is mostly temporary and in many cases illegal settlements.

10) SIZE OF THE HOUSE

32% households surveyed live in less than 300 sqft house area. A large portion of this number comes from slums, where people live in small one room houses (69%). For HIG, maximum people live in 1000-1500 sqft houses. For MIG, the maximum is for 600-1000 sqft two or one bedroom apartments and for LIG it is 300-600 sqft  apartments.

The above summarises the data related to housing that we obtained from surveys, but there were also some general observations. For example, while slum houses are not very well-built and congested, many of them are equipped with fairly modern amenities inside. The main complaint from the slum and LIG populations is lack of options for housing within affordable budget range, and in the neighbourhood where they are currently located. 

A look at advertisements from construction companies, and general observation of the type of constructions ongoing in and around Pune also justifies this complaint. Housing complexes being constructed in the so-called 'prime' locations (close to city centre, main business areas, etc) are targeted at the HIG and to some extent MIG families. The low income families are increasingly being forced to move to the periphery or even outside the municipal limits if they wish to look for better housing that is in line with their lifestyle and budget. Housing finance options available to these groups are also extremely limited. This, coupled with the poor public transport systems, adds to the hardships faced by these families. 

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Anu Kuncheria

SUSTAINABLY SMART PUNE STUDY - Survey Analysis III

This is part 3 of an ongoing series on Sustainably Smart Pune project Survey Data.  Check out part 1 and 2 of the series.

Expenditure pattern of Ghole Road ward residents of Pune is analysed in this part. Expenditure is analyzed for 2 categories: a) Expenditure on housing (Rent/ Loan) b) Expenditure on transportation. This  is done to understand the affordability of shelter and movement for the different economic classes. Expenses are expressed as a percentage of the household(HH) income. 

6. HOUSING EXPENDITURE

Among the surveyed population, more than 55% of all categories do not have any expenditure on housing. For HIG and MIG, this translates to  more than 50% house ownership. For most of LIG and slums, no housing expenditure is mostly due to temporary/illegal settlements, housing provided by employer or unauthorized colonies. The slums and LIG families who own houses, have temporary or dilapidated structures.

In HIG and MIG categories, almost 40%  people spend 10-30% of their income on housing as rent or housing loan. For LIG and slums, 25% spend 10-20% of their income on housing. It is also noteworthy that a comparatively larger proportion of people in LIG and slums are spending 50% or more of their incomes on housing! 

As real estate prices are soaring in the city, it is increasingly becoming unrealistic for people to own houses, especially for the migrants. Pradhan Mantri Awas Yogna , the affordable housing scheme launched in 2015 has Pune in its list of implementation cities. In addition to it, government has also announced tax subsidies for housing loans upto 9 lakhs and 12 lakhs. Even then, the increasing land prices in city has made it difficult for affordable housing projects. Most of the constructions that is taking place is targeted at HIG and to some extent MIG, whereas the real need is affordable housing at accessible locations for LIG and slum dwellers. 

In the ArthaYantra Buy or Rent report 2017, Pune has become more unaffordable than Bangalore. It is advisable for household with annual income upto 14 lakhs, to rent a house in Pune than to buy it. 

7. TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE

For monthly travel, HIG and MIG spend up to 10% of their income on an average. This includes petrol expenses, public transport, taxi expenses etc. For LIG and Slum, the travel expenses are less than 5% as their daily mode of commute is either cycling or walking. More than 20% households of LIG and slums spend nothing on transport.  

The World Bank report on 'Affordability of public transport in developing countries', says: Affordability refers to the extent to which the financial cost of journeys put an individual or household in the position of having to make sacrifices to travel or the extent to which they can afford to travel when they want to. While a family on a low income might be able to afford the necessary journeys to work for the income owners of the family, they might not be able to afford trips to school for their teenage children, or for their children to visit a grandparent in hospital. There is a widely held belief that potential low income passengers are forced to curtail the number of trips that they make, use modes of transport that do not incur a direct cost, such as walking or cycling, or to live in locations that minimize their transport costs.

This is true in Pune’s case as many LIG and Slum households complained of poor service and expensive public buses as a major reason for their reduced commute.  More than 60% of the trips of LIG and slums is by walking. 

It needs to be noted that even though the graph shows percentage travel expenses for the different income groups as almost same, the actual amount is hugely different.

For any queries or comments, do contact us. 

Anu Kuncheria

anukuncheria@gmail.com

MUSINGS FROM PRIYADARSHINI KARVE: A perspective on cooking energy [Part 1]

As you know, at Samuchit Enviro Tech one of the primary activities we do is supply a number of renewable options to meet cooking energy needs. What does one want from their cooking energy source? The three most important things, from the perspective of a typical homemaker-cook are: versatility of performing all the typical operations that she wants to carry out, convenience and ease of operation, and affordability. If the homemaker is also conscious about sustainability issues, she will additionally (but not at the expense of the other features) desire the cooking energy source to be environmentally benign. 

The most popular cooking energy source of today is LPG, and it scores 10 on 10 as far as versatility and ease of operation are concerned. Its affordability however is perceived as questionable, and although it is very 'clean' in its use, as it is a fossil fuel, it cannot be considered environmentally totally benign. 

The government addresses the cost issue by providing subsidy on LPG for household use. The technologies Samuchit Enviro Tech offers try to come close to LPG on its benefits, try to address the cost issue too, AND environmentally are better options, without doubt. 

Since for us, LPG is a 'competing' technology, I have tried to do some comparative analyses, over the years, and would like to share some of my musings on this issue. 

Let's first address the issue of the perceived costliness of LPG. 

I am sure all of you have seen advertisements appealing people to forgo subsidy on household LPG cylinders. The implication here is that we are entitled to the subsidy on LPG, but we will do the poor people who cannot afford LPG a great service, by forgoing it. 

It is not however clear as to how this is supposed to help poor people. 

By forgoing the subsidy, the consumption of LPG is not going to reduce. The logic perhaps is that if people have to pay higher for LPG, they will practice economy and use it more efficiently. However, that will hold true if the higher price was imposed on the household. If I am voluntarily giving up subsidy, obviously I am able to afford the higher price, and therefore there is no motivation for me to reduce my LPG consumption! So no extra cylinders are going to be available for distribution, by people voluntarily giving up on subsidy. 

No plan has been announced to increase the subsidy (to make the gas cylinders affordable to more people) if a certain number of people voluntarily give up the present subsidy. 

So, I don't see what purpose will be served by this 'sacrifice'. 

A couple of years ago, when it was decided to limit the number of subsidised cylinders per connection to 6 cylinders per year, I felt it was a step in the right direction. It provided a positive incentive for using LPG more efficiently. However, a lot of hue and cry was raised about this measure, and the decision was relaxed to 12 cylinders per year, which is as good as the original status. 

The outcry about reducing the subsidy on LPG as well as the current appeal to 'voluntarily' give up LPG subsidy are both based on the same assumption - that people are entitled to get cooking gas at a subsidised price, because cooking with LPG is expensive. 

Let's look at some numbers to understand how much do we actually spend on cooking energy, with or without subsidy, and what would be the cost if we were to use some non-LPG fuels. 

Let's assume that a family uses 1 LPG cylinder per month. The weight of gas in a domestic LPG cylinder is 14.2 kg and its cost is INR 460 (in Pune), with subsidy. Thus, daily expense of cooking energy for this family would be INR 15. If they decided to forgo the subsidy, the cylinder will cost them INR 640, and their daily cooking energy expenditure would be marginally higher - INR 21. 

Actually even the so-called unsubsidised price for household LPG is in itself subsidised compared to the commercial price. If the family was to shift to LPG purchased at commercial rate, which is about INR 65 per kg at this point, they would spend about INR 30 per day on cooking energy. 

A number of people argue that the pricing of LPG is in itself flawed, and it should be available in the market at a much cheaper cost anyway. But for the present analysis, I am using the prices that are currently prevalent in the market, irrespective of the justification of the pricing. 

Let's compare the above costs with the cooking energy expenditure incurred by a family that does not use LPG. 

If the same amount of cooking was to be done on kerosene, 1 litre kerosene would be required every day. In the open market, cost of kerosene is INR 70 per litre! If the family is below poverty line, they are supposed to get subsidised kerosene through PDS system, but we all know how well that works! 

If the same amount of cooking is to be done on wood, about 3-5 kg of firewood would be required daily. If this is purchased, the cost will be about INR 30-50 per day. If it is to be collected, it may take at least half a day, so the cost would be the wage for half a day's work. Based on the daily wage rates prevalent in Maharashtra today, this cost amounts to as high as INR 100! Of course people can and do use a lot of agricultural residue from their own farms, etc., but there are other hidden costs in this approach, which we will not go into at this point. 

What does this mean? This means that those who cannot afford to shell out the lump sum cost of the LPG cylinder, are actually spending much more for their daily cooking energy need! Even the unsubsidised LPG user ends up spending less on a daily basis, compared to people not using LPG for cooking. On top of that, the LPG user, even when using the most basic LPG stove, faces much less safety and health hazards, and enjoys far greater user friendliness in the cooking operation, compared to the kerosene users or firewood users, using the traditional cooking technologies. 

So, if every citizen is entitled to clean and safe cooking energy, who is entitled to subsidies or any other government support, LPG users, or non-LPG users?

(to be continued...)

Priyadarshini Karve

Director

Samuchit Enviro Tech

#BeModernBeResponsibleBeRespectful

    Samuchit Enviro Tech.     samuchit@samuchit.com     www.samuchit.com