Slum Rehabilitation in the Context of Urban Sustainability – A Case Study of Mumbai, India

Introduction

Mumbai, India’s financial capital, is a city of stark contrasts. While it boasts gleaming skyscrapers and a thriving economy, nearly 60% of its population lives in slums, occupying just 6-8% of the city’s land. These informal settlements face severe challenges—overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of basic services, and vulnerability to disasters. At the same time, Mumbai’s rapid urbanization and land scarcity make slum rehabilitation a critical yet complex issue.

This study examines Mumbai’s slum rehabilitation policies within the broader framework of urban sustainability, assessing whether current approaches balance social equity, economic viability, and environmental resilience.

Background: The Scale of Mumbai’s Slum Problem

Mumbai’s slums are a product of rural-urban migration, economic disparity, and failed housing policies. Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum, epitomizes this crisis—home to over a million people in cramped, makeshift structures with inadequate infrastructure.

Key challenges include:

• Land Scarcity: High real estate prices push low-income groups into informal settlements.

• Policy Failures: Past housing schemes have been insufficient or poorly implemented.

• Informal Economy: Many slum dwellers rely on precarious livelihoods, making relocation difficult.

The government has attempted various rehabilitation models, but sustainability—ensuring long-term social, economic, and environmental benefits—remains elusive.

Slum Rehabilitation Policies in Mumbai

The study evaluates three major policy approaches:

1. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Scheme (1995)

• Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Model: Developers get incentives (e.g., extra Floor Space Index) to build free housing for slum dwellers in exchange for commercial sale rights.

• Outcomes:

  • Successes: Some families moved to high-rises with better amenities.

  • Failures: Many projects stalled due to corruption, disputes, or developer disinterest. Some relocated residents face high maintenance costs or job inaccessibility.

2. Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) – A National Initiative

• Aimed at creating a “slum-free India” by providing property rights and basic services.

• Challenges: Bureaucratic delays, lack of funding, and resistance from slum dwellers fearing displacement.

3. In-Situ Rehabilitation vs. Relocation

• In-situ (on-site): Preferred for minimizing disruption but faces land ownership issues.

• Relocation: Often moves slum dwellers to city outskirts, cutting them off from jobs and social networks.

The study argues that in-situ, community-driven approaches are more sustainable but harder to implement due to political and economic constraiUrban Sustainability: Evaluating Mumbai’s Approach

Urban sustainability requires social inclusion, economic viability, and environmental protection. The study assesses Mumbai’s slum policies against these pillars:

1. Social Sustainability

• Housing Quality: While SRA apartments improve living conditions, many lack space, ventilation, or cultural suitability.

• Community Networks: Relocation disrupts informal support systems critical for survival.

• Tenure Security: Many slum dwellers remain ineligible for rehabilitation due to cut-off date rules (e.g., only pre-2000 settlers qualify).

2. Economic Sustainability

• Livelihood Access: Moving slum dwellers far from workplaces increases transport costs and unemployment.

• Funding Gaps: PPP models rely on market forces, often sidelining the poorest.

• Informal Economy: Rehabilitation rarely integrates street vendors or home-based workers.

3. Environmental Sustainability

• Density vs. Infrastructure: High-rises reduce sprawl but strain water and waste systems.

• Climate Vulnerability: Many slums are in flood-prone areas; relocation sites may face similar risks.

• Green Design: Few projects incorporate energy efficiency or green spaces.

The study finds that Mumbai’s policies prioritize short-term fixes over long-term sustainability, failing to integrate slum rehabilitation into broader urban planning.

Case Study: Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Dharavi’s proposed redevelopment—a $2.1 billion project—illustrates these tensions:

• Plan: Replace slums with mixed-use towers, reserving 350 sq. ft. units for residents.

• Controversies:

  • Exclusion: Many renters and informal businesses face eviction without compensation.

  • Gentrification: Fears that luxury developments will displace the poor.

  • Delays: Political disputes and lack of consensus have stalled progress for decades.

The study suggests that participatory planning, involving slum dwellers in decision-making, could improve outcomes.

Lessons from Global Best Practices

The paper compares Mumbai with successful models:

• Brazil’s Favela Bairro: Upgraded slums with infrastructure while preserving communities.

• Thailand’s Baan Mankong: Community-driven land-sharing and housing co-ops.

• Singapore’s Public Housing: High-quality, affordable housing with strict anti-speculation rules.

These examples highlight the need for:

• Strong government commitment (not just private-sector reliance).

• Community participation in planning.

• Holistic development (jobs, schools, healthcare alongside housing).

Key Recommendations for Sustainable Slum Rehabilitation

1. In-Situ Upgrading: Improve existing slums with better infrastructure rather than mass evictions.

2. Inclusive Policies: Extend eligibility to renters and late migrants.

3. Livelihood Integration: Link housing projects with skill development and local job opportunities.

4. Climate-Resilient Design: Flood-resistant buildings, rainwater harvesting, and waste management.

5. Transparent Governance: Reduce corruption via citizen oversight and digital tracking of projects.

6. Public Housing Expansion: Increase low-cost housing stock instead of relying on PPPs.

Conclusion: Toward a Sustainable Mumbai

Mumbai’s slum crisis reflects deeper issues of urban sustainability inequality and unsustainable growth. While rehabilitation schemes have had partial successes, they often neglect the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

A truly sustainable approach must:

• Treat slum dwellers as stakeholders, not beneficiaries.

• Integrate slum rehabilitation with larger urban planning (transport, environment, economy).

• Learn from global best practices while adapting to Mumbai’s unique challenges.

Without these shifts, Mumbai risks further fragmentation—luxury towers amid persistent informal settlements—undermining its future as a livable, equitable city.

Final Thoughts 

This study underscores that slum rehabilitation isn’t just about building houses—it’s about building an urban sustainability community. Mumbai’s journey offers lessons for rapidly urbanizing cities worldwide: top-down solutions fail without grassroots inclusion, and market-driven models often exclude the poorest. The path forward requires policy innovation, political will, and a commitment to equity—ensuring that the city’s growth benefits all, not just a privileged few.

Also Read: Housing policy in the Republic of Korea