• Dr. Sneh Sangwan
• Prof. (Dr.)Randhir Singh Sangwan
• Virender Singh

“In 2011, 377 million people (31% of the Total group) in India lived in great towns, but of these, 65 million (27% of the of a town group) lived in far and away keep safe condition of being poor in areas called slums. This question is nothing like it to India, 863 million people around the world live in like Squatter settlements. India and China have the highest number of slum dwellers, with 50 million plus inhabitants living in serious keep safe condition of being poor. The United Nations able to keep going Development ends, purposes take in the able to keep going growth of future living-stages is limited by the meeting upon action-bound getting well in quality of living. The able to keep going Development ends, purposes be minded to get to one half the size of people living in slums within each country by 2030. Given the very nature of informality, surveying the number of family formed as slums is hard, but in India this suggests getting well quality of living of at least 6 million households. Yet, India has a more strongly desiring Target in mind; the government recently announced Housing for All agreement which try to give every person having rights in the nation way in to enough housing by 2022. It is put a value on that the current shortfall of houses is 19 million, with 95% of this need being in the low-income part (less than 2,00,000). This cannot be achieved by government coming between groups by oneself, for this reason the government has put in a given form its agreement of incentivizing the private part to take part in working well redevelopment of the complete very poor part group. The very poor part redevelopment part of this design proposes a good at producing an effect of answer: the government try to use land taken by Squatter Settlements as a useable materials to subsidize housing for of a town poor. This effectively gets answer to, way out of the problems of land not being enough while subsidizing the price of housing for of a town poor to as little as zero 3 in some cases. By getting mixed in trouble the private part and using real-estate as a putting money at hand apparatus for making or put right things, this component of the agreement marks a Stark moving away from the earlier policies which put at point at which rays come together on bit by bit up gradation efforts in slums (nation very poor part Development road-map of work) or used government machines to make come into existence poor quality public housing (basic Services to of a town Poor)”1. There have been a limited number of attempts to construct deprivation measures for slums in developing countries. For example, Gulyani and Bassett (2010) developed a “living conditions diamond” that measured housing deprivation in slums of Nairobi and Dakar along four dimensions including infrastructure, housing unit and neighborhood or location. However, their analysis only presented an aggregated percentage for each city along these four dimensions and thus lacked an intracity comparison between slums and non-slums. In a similar way, Martínez-Martin, Mboup, Sliuzas, and Stein (2008) compared slums in 188 developing world cities along five different dimensions. Weeks, Hill, Stow, Getis, and Fugate (2007) developed a slum index for Accra at the neighborhood level. This study aggregated data for each enumeration area in Accra and demonstrated the intra-city variability in what they referred to as “slumness”. Baud, Pfeffer, Sridharan, and Nainan (2009) and Mundu and Bhagat (2008) developed similar multiple deprivation indices aggregated at the ward level for Delhi and Mumbai respectively. However, any neighborhood level definition inevitably relies on the assumption that slums are identifiable because of a distinct set of socio-economic and demographic characteristics of its inhabitants that are homogenous within an area (Montgomery, 2009).It is important to recognize the socio-economic variability of individual households within a spatial unit since it is often mirrored in the physical aspects of the housing which defines a slum (Jankowska et al., 2011). The UN-Habitat (2002) definition recognizes such variability by identifying the type of housing deprivation for each household2,3.

SLUM DEVELOPMENT AS MAJOR PROBLEM IN GURUGRAM (HARYANA)

"SLUM DEVELOPMENT AS MAJOR PROBLEM IN GURUGRAM (HARYANA)", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 4, page no.613-620, April-2019, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1904389.pdf

"SLUM DEVELOPMENT AS MAJOR PROBLEM IN GURUGRAM (HARYANA)", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 4, page no. pp613-620, April-2019, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1904389.pdf