Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Percentage of respondents by the type of housing unit_
| Apartment type | Observed frequencies and their percentages | Slum area | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damoc and Zahra | Al-karama | Aljihad | Eiza | |||
| House | Repetition | 310 | 176 | 52 | 12 | 550 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 56% | 32% | 10% | 2% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 89% | 72% | 61% | 57% | 79% | |
| Percentage of total | 44% | 25% | 7% | 2% | 79% | |
| Mud House | Repetition | 35 | 66 | 26 | 4 | 131 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 27% | 50% | 20% | 3% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 10% | 27% | 31% | 19% | 19% | |
| Percentage of total | 5% | 9% | 4% | 1% | 19% | |
| Metal Shanties | Repetition | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 19 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 16% | 21% | 37% | 26% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 1% | 2% | 8% | 24% | 3% | |
| Percentage of total | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 3% | |
| Total | Repetition | 348 | 246 | 85 | 21 | 700 |
| Ratio of residential unit type | 50% | 35% | 12% | 3% | 100% | |
| Ratio of random area | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| Percentage of total | 50% | 35% | 12% | 3% | 100% | |
| Coefficient of compatibility and its significance | CC = 0.336 | |||||
The social aspect_
| Very high | High | Medium | Minimum | No effect | Minimum negative impact | Medium negative impact | High negative impact | Very high negative impact | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Security of slums and city | 7 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 2 | Providing shelter for people | 2 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | Failure to reward transgressors and deter transgression | 30 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 4 | Legitimising services and improving social status | 25 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 5 | Social justice | 13 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
The environmental aspect_
| Very high | High | Medium | Minimum | No effect | Minimum negative | Medium negative | High negative | Very high negative | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Impact on natural environment | 13 | 11 | 12 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 2 | Impact on city’s environment | 15 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | Improved slum environment | 12 | 16 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | Depletion of agricultural land and distinctive sites in city | 14 | 16 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Do you think there are technical obstacles that prevent the implementation of the idea of exchange (land for time)?
| There are no technical obstacles | 38 | There are technical obstacles | 13 |
The economic aspect_
| Very high | High | Medium | Minimum | No effect | Minimum negative | Medium negative | High Negative | Very high negative | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Impact on city’s economic efficiency | 11 | 14 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2 | Maintaining value of real estate in city | 29 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | Preserving urban capital | 13 | 20 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 4 | Effect on transport movement in city | 2 | 4 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 5 | Processing policies expenses | 21 | 12 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Land-for-time policy effect on urban sustainability factors in the form (positive, neutral, negative)_
| Aspect | Influence | % positive | % neutral | % negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | Impact on natural environment | 72 | 26 | 2 |
| Impact on city’s environment | 74 | 24 | 2 | |
| Improved slum environment | 70 | 22 | 8 | |
| Depletion of agricultural land and distinctive sites in city | 78 | 16 | 6 | |
| Economic | Impact on city’s economic efficiency | 66 | 28 | 6 |
| Maintaining value of real estate in city | 86 | 10 | 4 | |
| Preserving urban capital | 80 | 18 | 2 | |
| Effect on transport movement in city | 50 | 44 | 6 | |
| Processing policies expenses | 84 | 12 | 4 | |
| Social | Security of slums and city | 60 | 38 | 2 |
| Providing shelter for people | 50 | 44 | 6 | |
| Failure to reward transgressors and deter transgression | 88 | 10 | 2 | |
| Legitimising services and improving social status | 86 | 12 | 2 | |
| Social justice | 68 | 22 | 10 |
Is the idea of exchange (land for time) practical and applicable?
| It can be applied easily | 23 | It can be applied with difficulty | 19 | It cannot be applied | 8 |
Do you think there are administrative obstacles that prevent the implementation of the idea of exchange (land for time)?
| There are no administrative obstacles | 35 | There are administrative obstacles | 15th |
Slums solutions compared with the use of the goal achievement matrix_
| Main objectives | Weight | Secondary goals | Weight | Current situation | Removal policy | Upgrading policy | Trade-off policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social aspect | 33 | Security of slums and city | 7 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Providing shelter for people | 7 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Failure to reward transgressors and deter transgression | 6 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Providing services and improving social status | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Social justice | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | ||
| Environmental aspect | 34 | Impact on natural environment | 10 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Impact on city’s environment | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | ||
| Improved slum environment | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | ||
| Depletion of agricultural land in city | 9 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 8 | ||
| Economic aspect | 33 | Impact on city’s economic efficiency | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| Maintaining value of real estate in city | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Preserving urban capital | 6 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | ||
| Effect on transport movement in city | 8 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 5 | ||
| Processing policies expenses | 6 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 100 | Total | 100 | 31 | 61 | 51 | 75 |