Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

112

Dwellers Satisfaction on Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; SRS and its
Affecting Factors in Mumbai, India

Alam Sayeda Saika Binte Alam* and Mihoko Matsuyuki**

Abstract
Mumbai is the most populous city in India and 4th largest in the world. Within last two decade,Mumbai’s population become double and led to serious housing problem of those who don’t
have formal housing. Currently, 41.3% from the total 20.7 million, people are living in slums ingreater Mumbai. Meanwhile, Indian government with the collaboration of private developer at
Mumbai introduced a scheme named, “Slum Rehabilitation Scheme”; SRS in the year of 1995
to solve the serious housing crisis at Mumbai slum area. From the day of launching SRS to till
today SRS continuing its construction progress where slum tenements are provided to dwellers
at zero cost. Mumbai city has some basic criteria that are influencing SRS projects to success.
First; the city has serious land scarcity, second, city already has extended a lot therefore afurther extension is not possible and third, due to high land-price, compactness of city is not
avoidable. This study conducted a questionnaire survey with SRS dwellers at three different
areas considered the judgment of land-price, distance from the city center and high-dense slumarea as well as interviewed with some private developing companies who have the experience todeal SRS projects at the different area in Mumbai. The goal of the questionnaire survey is to
identify the level of satisfaction in living at SRS projects by its dwellers and affecting factors on
their satisfaction. In spite of having some in-house criticism by slum researchers and NGOs,
overwhelmingly SRS dwellers are satisfy living at SRS projects, and unlike their satisfaction inliving at SRS projects, the maximum has an intention to living here in future. The study
interviewed with those private developer companies who had been constructed SRS projects
within the study’s targeted area where a questionnaire survey conducted with the SRS dwellers.
Structural Equation Modeling; SEM has been used to find the key factor or factors that affecting
dwellers satisfaction in living at SRS apartments.

Keywords: Mumbai, Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, Satisfaction, Structural Equation Model;
SEM

Faculty of Urban Innovation, Yokohama National University, E-Mail: saika15alam@gmail.com** Associate professor, Institute of Urban Innovation, Yokohama National University, E-Mail:
Mihoko@ynu.ac.jp

Pre 1995 Policies

Rent Control Act, 1947
Slum Area (Improvement,
Clearance) Act 1971

Program and scheme
applied in Mumbai
Slum Upgradation Program
1985
Prime Minister’s Grand
Projects, 1985
Slum Redevelopment
Scheme 1991

Slum Area (Improvement,
Clearance andRedevelopment) Act 1971

Slum Redevelopment
Scheme 1991

Maharashtra Vacant Land
(Prohibition of Unauthorized
and Summary Eviction) Act
1975

Recent Initiatives
1. Rajiv Awas Yojana, 2013
2. Cluster Redevelopment,
2014

Figure 1: Chronological Evaluation of Act, Policies and Scheme for slum
dwellers in Mumbai, India (Ronita, Sayantani, Arnab, Nagendra; 2015)

Post 1985 Projects and Scheme

Policy and act applied in
Mumbai

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

1. Introduction:
1.1 BackgroundMumbai is the state capital of Maharashtra, located at the coast of Arabian Sea on the west
coast of India. The city can be called as the financial hub of India as the major force to pull
migrants in industrial sectors. The pulling phenomenon plays a crucial role to increase
population growth though a huge industrialization mainly concentrate on cotton industries (JanNijman, 2008). As a result of industrial and commercial supremacy, the city becoming one ofworld’s “mega cities” The population of Mumbai is about 18.41 million in 2011(Srivastava;2004). From then till now, a large number of people facing housing problem with poverty andmany of them are living at the slum and squatter illegally (P. K. Das; 2003). After independence
many act policies and scheme have been applied to overcome the housing problem. Tenure in
Mumbai represents a direct relation between affordability and subsequent access to adequate
land and secure housing tenure relationship has a historical background about its tenancy, suchas: regular tenancy and lease hold because a large part of the population cannot afford a piece ofland here (Michael Barke; 1998, Ronita, Sayantani, Arnab, Nagendra; 2015, Amita Bhide; 2016).
Figure 1 is the chronological evaluation of act, policies, and scheme for slum and squatter
dwellers in Mumbai, India. Figure 1 shows that the latest initiatives of slum rehabilitation are(a) Rajiv Awas Yojana, (b) Cluster Redevelopment. However, these two projects do not start theapplication yet. For this reason, the research targeted Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; SRS in
Mumbai India as SRS is the latest scheme that still continuing its progress. SRS is a Scheme
where government handover the illegally formed slum areas to the private developing company
for the construction of low-cost apartments for slum dwellers. The government gives someattracting benefits to the developer only for constricting SRS apartments such as (1) extra FSI(Floor Area Index), (2) TDR (Transfer Development Right) and (3) the land price is free of cost.
Therefore private developing companies show their interest to construct SRS apartments.
The study is focusing the scheme because SRS is a scheme where the government does not needto pay any cost for rehabilitation.

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

1.2 Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; SRS:In the year of 1995, Maharashtra state government with the collaboration of central
government provided a scheme named Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; SRS. A separate body ofgovernment called Slum Rehabilitation Authority; SRA was formed to handle SRS. This scheme
is the first policy that involves internal private developing companies to develop the slum withhaving some exclusive benefits such as extra FSI (Floor Area Index) and provision of TDR(Transfer Developing Right) as well. This scheme is the initiation of public and private
partnership in slum rehabilitation issues in Mumbai through involving private developer
companies. The scheme has a threefold category such as: first, the shift from government
intervention to reliance on the free market; second, the shift of responsibility from government
to civil society; and, third, the rescaling of government from central to local levels. From 1995,
till now, the scheme is continuing its progress with some rule upgradations and modification(SRA; 2016). The size of the tenements has been increased to 225 sq. feet (20.9 sq. m) torecently to 269 sq. feet (24.99 sq. m) (SRA; 2017). The tenements usually make free of cost forthe slum dwellers and government also not need to pay for construction (SRA; 2017). The
private developers were provided incentives in the form of free sale component of 7.5 sq. feetfor every 10 sq. feet free rehabilitation construction (SRA; 2017). Tenement constructed in salecomponent is allowed to be sold in open Market (SRA; 2017). The developer was also
generating Transferable Development Rights; TDR even from one area to another, SRS at
Chandivali is one of the examples that used TDR. SRS changes its regulations as per dwellers
requirement and to meet the criticism from the civil society. Till now, approximate 1.5800,000
SRS apartments have been constructed, and 300,000 tenements are under constructed (SRA;
2017).
1.3 Aftermath criticism of SRS:
Many researchers indicated that the scheme concentrates only towards the interests on
private developers therefore to some extend poor slum dwellers are ignored. According to someresearchers, poor building design is another weak point for SRS apartments. The impact also
varies with the variation in the local property prices and the developers will be more interested
in areas where the sale component can raise higher prices (Ronita, Sayantani, Arnab, Nagendra;
2015). Though the SRS scheme seems to be very lucrative, the true statistics fail to establish it
as a real success (Das, 2003; Nijman, 2008, Nakamura S; 2015).
Thus SRS has both criticism and applause by academia. Here we have questions, ‘Are
dwellers in SRS apartments satisfied with the SRS apartments?’ and ‘How to improve SRS
apartments to increase their satisfaction?’. Therefore, our research tries to identify dwellers’satisfaction toward SRS apartments and to find the factor that influence in overall satisfaction inliving at the SRS apartments.
Figure 2 depicts the hypothetical causal relationship with the satisfaction in living at SRS
and some factors, where each components of the hypothesis have been selected from theliterature review and interview with some researchers. Satisfaction in overall living at SRS
depends on some hypothesis or factors such as; Social environment, physical environment ,distance of the workplace from SRS, relation with neighbor and maintenance. Each of the
hypotheses has several parameters which would effects on satisfaction.

Parameters:
1. Living duration
2. Habitation status of thedwellers
3. Gross family income

Parameters:
1. Maintenance fee/ month
2. Cleanliness of the corridor
3. Satisfaction about

Satisfaction in Overall
Living at SRS
Apartments

maintenanceSocialEnvironment
Parameters:
1. Room size issuitable for family/
furniture use
2. Electric light/ fanuse in room
3. Corridor
wideness

MaintenancePhysicalEnvironment

Distance of theworkplace

Relation withneighbor

Parameters:
1. Commuting require or not
2. Total time to workplace
3. Total cost to work place

Parameters:
1. Chatting
frequency withneighbor/ week
2. Chatting places
3. Event / festival
participation

Figure 2: Proposed Hypothetical Casual Model

2. Methodology:
There are many research that intendent to find out the level of satisfaction, using Structural
Equation Modeling; SEM (Kennon M Sheldon & Andrew J. Elliot; 1999, Stefan Gaertner; 2000,
Konstantinos Kafetsios & Leonidas Zampetakis; 2007, Pei-Chen Sun, Ray J. Tsai, Glenn Finger,
Yueh-Yang Chen; 2008, Yooshik Yoon, Jin-Soo-Lee, Choong-Ki-Lee; 2010,). In this study, we
use SEM model to verify the main hypothesis or factor that effect in satisfaction. We used
AMOS 23 here to calculate SEM. As this study targets to identify the satisfaction in living at the
SRS apartment, which is relatively new study for slum habitation therefore, the study reviewed
some literature those are discussing about the satisfaction in other sectors such as; consumer
satisfaction, customer satisfaction and so an (Yooshik. Muzaffer; 2003, Jamshid E Amoli,
Farhoomand; 1996, Pardis Mohajerani; 2013).
2.1 Statement of the Questionnaire Survey:
Before discussing questionnaire survey, the paragraph written below is discussing the study
sites those are chosen for the sampling because of some particular characteristic.
a) Case Study area:
The Brihan Mumbai Metropolitan is divided into two major districts namely Mumbai andMumbai suburb (Srivastava; 2004). Therefore the study targeted to cover both city center andsuburb. Three areas have been selected for the questionnaire survey from all over Mumbai,
within these three areas two are located at the main city and one is located nearly close tosuburb. Fig.1 shows the map of Mumbai where pointed three areas, (a) Dharavi, (b) Lower Pareland (c) Chandivali, which was the targeted area for questionnaire survey (Figure 3). Before themain questionnaire survey, a pre-survey was conducted to verify the location and test thequestionnaire whether the questionnaire is satisfactory for the SRS dwellers or not.

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

Hypothetical Casual Model:

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

Chandivali

Dharavi

Lower Parel

Figure 3: Map of Mumbai (showing the location ofquestionnaire survey; 2015)
Source of Map: www.mapsofworld.comb) Reason of Area Selection:
As mentioned previously that threeareas were targeted however each of thesites were not only selected for SRS
apartment availability but also fordifferent criteria. For example, [1] Dharavi
has been chosen for (a) the area contains
world’s largest slum area (b) high dense
population and (c) there are many pocket
SRS apartments development. [2] Lower
Parel was selected because (a) it’s acommercial area (b) land price is very
high here and (c) housing complex SRS
apartment developed. [3] Finally, we hadchosen Chandivali because (a) this area isa little bit offset from city center (b)relocation housing complex of SRS havedeveloped for the people who lived before
at the “Sanjay Gandhi National Park.”
Table 1 shows the general characteristicsof the case study area of the survey at
Mumbai. As Dharavi contains many slums
therefore from Dharavi, a questionnaire
was conducted from four locations andLower Parel and Chandivali only in one
area the survey had been conducted.

Table1: General Characteristics of the selected area at Mumbai:
No

Area

SRS is located1

Dharavi

2
3

Lower Parel
Chandivali

Mukund Nagar
90 Feet Road
Muslim Nagar
R. P Nagar
Gomata Nagar
Sangrash Nagar

Total no of SRS
apartment been surveyed
1
3
1
1
5
4

Total no of Apartments
65
4

2.2. Questionnaire Design and Research Variables:
In order to identify the overall satisfaction in living SRS apartments, the questionnaire
design is focusing some hypothesis or factors that are effecting on the degree of satisfaction of
the dwellers. In this study, degree of satisfaction is the main objective factor, other factors are
selected through literature review and interview with some researchers who involves with slum
dwellers rehabilitation.

Hypothesis
Physicalenvironment2Socialenvironment

3Distance tothe workplacefrom house4

5

Relation with
the neighbor

Maintenance

Variable
Room size is suitable for family
memberRoom size is suitable for furnitureuseElectric light use in room/ day(hours)Electric fan use in room/ day during
summer (hours)
Corridor or common space wideness
Habitation Status of the residence
Total family Income ( rupees)
Need to change their job for SRS
apartment
Commuting require to the work placeor notWalking is the access mode ofcommutingPublic transport is the only access ofcommutingTime to work place/ day (both-way)(in minutes)
Cost to work place / day (both-way)(in rupees)
Chatting frequency/ week
Chatting place is at the corridor
Chatting place at their own room
Chatting place at the street of the
SRS building
Participation at the events arranges
by neighbor
Corridor or common spacecleanliness
Maintenance fee/ month (in rupees)
Satisfaction about management

Questionnaire Patterns for Respondents
1=too much small, 2=small, 3= moderate,
4= size is perfect, 5= size is good enough
1=too much small, 2=small, 3= moderate,
4= size is perfect, 5= size is good enoughTotal time (hours) count of light use/ day
Total time (hours) count of fan use/ day
1=too much small, 2=small, 3= moderate,
4= size is perfect, 5= size is good enough
0= Relocation, 1= In-situ
Total count of income (rupees)
0=No, 1=Yes
0=No, 1=Yes
0=No, 1=Yes
0=No, 1=Yes
Total count of time
(both way , in minutes)
Total count of money(both way, in rupees)
Total days count in week
0=No, 1=Yes
0=No, 1=Yes
0=No, 1=Yes
0=No, 1=Yes
1=too much small, 2=small, 3= moderate,
4= size is perfect, 5= size is good enoughTotal count of money/ month (rupees)
1=too much small, 2=small, 3= moderate,
4= size is perfect, 5= size is good enough

The table-2 below shows the targeted hypotheses and the variables that affected the
hypotheses as well as the questions that uses for response. In the questionnaire, the study used
several patterns that show in Table 2.
As mentioned in the table above that some response of the questionnaires was lower to higher
grade of the expression. For example; (1) satisfaction about maintenance (1= disappointed, 2=
unsatisfied, 3= moderate, 4= satisfied, 5= fully satisfied), (2) does the room size is suitable for
all family member? (1=too much small, 2=small, 3= moderate, 4= size is perfect, 5= size isgood enough) (3) Do you feel the corridor or common space is properly clean? (1=very dirty
and suffocated, 2= not clean, 3= moderate, 4= clean, 5= very clean).
2.3. Survey and Sampling Procedure:
The total survey is followed by 3 steps. Initially, in March 2016, we visited Mumbai to conduct

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

Table 2: The target hypotheses with variables and the questionnaire pattern of response:No1

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

some interview with government and some researchers who are evolving research with slumand its habitation. The government body who are dealing only slum rehabilitation and related
issues the body deal SRS named Slum Rehabilitation Authority; SRA. We also visited some
SRS apartments and had some idea about its social context. After getting information’s and theimage of the Mumbai slum dwellers and their attitude towards the outsider, the study decided to
conduct a pre-questionnaire survey or test survey in the area to identify, whether thequestionnaire is appropriated or not. In October 2016, the research conducted its firstquestionnaire survey at Dharavi and Chandivali. After testing the questionnaire, the mainquestionnaire has done.
3. General Characteristics of the Respondents:
Table 3 shows the overall characteristics of respondents. The questionnaire survey wastargeted to the household head or his/ her spouse. In the case of the spouse, several answers
were considering household head such as the distance of the workplace, family income and soon.
4. Analysis and Result:
The main goal of the research is to identify the satisfaction in living at SRS and find out the key
factor/ hypothesis as mentioned in the earlier chapter. The analysis follows the steps that written
below:
4-1 Satisfaction in Living at SRS Apartments and Desire to Stay in Future in Three
Different Locations in Mumbai:
As mentioned previously that the questionnaire survey was conducted in three different
areas in Mumbai that was considering some characteristics. Here, the degree of satisfaction willshow that how it varies in area wise. Figure 4 and 5 illustrates the level of satisfaction in living
at SRS and the desire to stay in future at SRS apartments by its dwellers. As figure 4 shows that
almost 179 SRS dwellers from 245 that are 73% are satisfied among these number 29
inhabitants, 12% are strongly satisfied. In the case of the desire to stay in future, 183 dwellers
that are 75% are interested in staying at SRS in future where 54 dwellers, 22% are very muchinterested to stay in future. From the figure 4 and 5, it can be seen that the maximum number ofslum dwellers in Chandivali SRS apartments are very much satisfied and also interested instaying at SRS in future
150

29

Total

Dharavi 1

80

Chandivali

6 10

48

9

Lower Parel

Total

47

19

Chandivali

46 182

32

55

0%

50%

Fully satisfied

SatisfiedModerate

Unsatisfied

Fully unsatisfied

Figure 4: Satisfaction in Living at SRS

17 2
100%

54
26
16

Lower…
Dharavi

12912

38 204
35

11 20

39

2 61

55

0%
Strongly Interested
Moderate
Strongly Uninterested

25

12 3

50%
Interested
Uninterested

Figure 5: Desire to stay at SRS in Future

100%

1
2
3

Area located at
Mumbai
No of respondents
Gender4

Interviewer

5
6

Average age
Average living
duration
Habitation Status

7
8
9

10

Average family
memberParticipating at themeeting during
construction
Total family income /month

Dharavi

Lower Parel

Chandivali

107
Male: 58
Female: 49
Household Head: 67
Spouse: 40
44.2 years
13.6 years

64
Male: 41
Female: 23
Household Head: 47
Spouse: 1752.7 years
8 years74
Male: 29
Female: 45
Household Head: 36
Spouse: 38
47.8 years
8.4 years

In-situ: 105 persons
Relocation: 2 persons
5.6 persons

In-situ: 105 persons
Relocation: 2 persons
5.2 persons

In-situ: 0 person
Relocation: 74 persons
5.2 persons

Attended: 73.8%
Absent: 26.1%

Attended: 93.75%
Absent: 6.2%

Attended: 87.8%
Absent: 12.1%(0-5,000 Rs) = 2.8%
(5,000-10,000 Rs) = 16.8%(10,000-15,000 Rs) = 33.6%(15,000-20,000 Rs) = 24.2%(More than 20,000 Rs) = 22.4%(0-5,000 Rs) = 12.5%(5,000-10,000 Rs) = 15.6%(10,000-15,000 Rs) = 23.4%(15,000-20,000 Rs) = 21.8%(More than 20,000 Rs) = 26.5%(0-5,000 Rs) = 12.1%(5,000-10,000 Rs) = 29.7%(10,000-15,000 Rs) = 27.0%(15,000-20,000 Rs) = 16.2%(More than 20,000 Rs) = 14.8%

Employee = 67.1%
Unemployed= 35.9%
30.6 minute /day

Employee = 90.5%
Unemployed= 12.1%
83.4 minute /day

12.2 Rs/ day

34.6 Rs/ day

Room: 11.6 m2
Service area: 9.2 m2
9.35 hours / day

Room: 11.6m2
Service area: 2.2 m2
9 hours / day

17.3 hours / day

19.0 hours / day

175 mm190.2 mm

4.7 days/ week

4.8 days/ week

5.7 days/ week

Corridor: 58.8%
Own Room: 55.1%
Street: 0.9%
79.4% dwellers

Corridor: 89.0%
Own Room: 62.5%
Street: 0%87.5% dwellers

Corridor: 77.0%
Own Room: 48.6%
Street: 10.8%
93.2% dwellers

492.5 Rs/ month

575 Rs/month378.3 Rs/ month

Respondents Employment Characteristics:
1

Employment status

2

Employee = 94.3%
Unemployed= 5.60%
45.8 minute /dayAverage time toworkplace3
Average cost to
31.0 Rs/ day
workplaceSRS Design and Common Facilities:
1
Average room andRoom: 12.0 m2
service area size
Service area: 9.7 m2
2
Electric light use in
11.5 hours / dayroom/ day3
Electric fan use in
19.7 hours / dayroom/ day4
Average corridor size
171.1 mm
Relation with Neighbor:12

3Chatting frequency /week with neighbor inaverage
Chatting place withneighbor

Event participating
which arranges byneighbor
Management:
1
Management fee/month in average

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

Table 3: General Characteristics of the Respondents (Slum Dwellers):
Respondents Household Characteristics:

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

4-2 Correlation Analysis:
At first, the study was analyzing correlation analysis with all variables with the degree ofsatisfaction in living at SRS by its dwellers. The variables that show the stronger relationshipbetween satisfaction about living at SRS as well as having a statistically significant score of {p=0.001} and correlation coefficient score is more than {r = 0.2} have been chosen.
(a) Physical Environment:
The factor, physical environment analysis is showing in Table 4. The correlation analysis of thisfactor with satisfaction in overall living at SRS reveals that at least two variables have thesignificant statistical score; (1) room size is suitable for the family member and (2) wideness ofthe corridor.
Table 4: Correlation Coefficients of Physical Environment with Satisfaction in living at
SRS Apartments
No
1
2
3
4
5

Physical Characteristics or building design
Room size is suitable for family member
Room size is suitable for furniture use
Electric light use in room/ dayElectric fan use in room/ day
Wideness of the corridor or common space

Satisfaction in living SRS Apartments
r = 0.225 (p = .000)
r = 0.142 (p = .026)
r = 0.185 (p = .004)
r = 0.076 (p = .233)
r = 0.214 (p = .001)(b) Social Environment:
The study got some fundamental characteristics of social context such as the habitation
status in the SRS apartments and the family income or changing job for SRS apartments. Table
5, shows that one variable is significantly related to satisfaction in living at SRS, that is; (1)habitation status of SRS dwellers such as whether they are relocated of in-situ.
Table 5: Correlation analysis of social characteristics and satisfaction about SRS
Apartments
No
1
2
3

Social Characteristics
Habitant Status
Family Income
Job change for SRS

Satisfaction in living SRS Apartments
r = 0.309 (p = 0.000)
r = 0.084 (p = 0.191)
r = -0.027 (p = 0.669)

However other two variables named (2) family income and (3) job change for SRS hasn’t
statistical significant score therefore the study will not consider these two variables.
(c) Employment status:
To know the satisfaction whether related with the distance of the workplace of the current
job is affecting or not, we asked about their necessity of commuting to the workplace and thetotal time and cost for commuting. Table 6 shows that all variable in this factor has notstatistically significant at the level of {p = 0.01}. However commuting require to the workplace
has the significant at the level of p= 0.05 but this study will not consider those variables thathave the significant score at the level of {p = 0.05}. Therefore, the study will not consider any
variables from this factor.

No
1
2
3
4
5

Employment Status of Dwellers
Commuting require to workplace or not
Walking is the access mode of commuting
Public transport is the only access of commuting
Total time to work place / day
Total cost of the workplace /daySatisfaction in living SRS Apartments
r = 0.132 (p = 0.040)
r = 0.106 (p =0.098)
r = -0.031 (p = 0.632)
r = -0.099 (p = 0.121)
r = -0.015 (p = 0.821)(d) Relation with the Neighbor:
In this factor, the study considers few variables that might effect on the relation of the neighborof the SRS dwellers. Table 7 shows the relationship of the correlation coefficient of therelationship between the neighbor and the satisfaction in living at SRS. Two variables have thestatistical significance at the level of {p =0.01}, (1) chatting place at the corridor and (2)participating in the events arranges by neighbors. Even though these two variables have thesignificant score but the correlation coefficient score is below {r = 0.2}, therefore, the study will
not consider these two variables. As a whole, from this factor, the study will not consider any
variables.
Table 7: Correlation analysis of relation with neighbor and satisfaction about SRS
No
1
2
3
4
5

Relation with the Neighbor
Chatting frequency/ week
Chatting place is at the corridor
Chatting place at their own room
Chatting place at the street of the SRS building
Participation at the events arranges by neighbor

Satisfaction in living SRS Apartmentsr = -0.102 (p = 0.111)
r = -0.171 (p = 0.007)
r = -0.029 (p = 0.650)
r = -0.086 (p = 0.181)
r = -0.170 (p = 0.008)(e) Management and Maintenance:
This factor depends on the management and maintenance quality and satisfaction about it. Table
8 shows the relationship between the management and maintenance and the satisfaction ofliving at SRS. There are two variables; those have strong relationship with satisfaction in overallliving at SRS such as (1) Corridor or common space cleanliness (r = 0.445) and (2) satisfaction
with management and maintenance (r = 0.755). However, the maintenance fee/ month haven’t
any relationship with satisfaction in living at SRS. Therefore the study will consider thevariables that have significant value as well.
Table 8: Correlation analysis of the maintenance and satisfaction about living at SRS
No
1
2
3

Management and MaintenanceCorridor or common space cleanliness
Maintenance fee/ month
Satisfaction about management

Satisfaction in living SRS Apartments
r = 0.445 (p = 0.000)
r = -0.004 (p = 0.954)
r = 0.755 (p = 0.000)(f) Summary of correlation analysis:Table 9 shows the variables that have significant relationship with satisfaction in living at
SRS apartments. All these variables don’t contain any dummy variables during data input. From
the three categories of hypothesis, it can be seen physical characteristics provide the variables
which are significant score however the value of r is low.

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

Table 6: Correlation analysis of employment status and satisfaction about SRS
Apartments

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

Table 9: The variables that has significant correlation with satisfaction in living at SRS
No

Hypothesis/ Factor

Related Variables

Correlation Coefficient1

Physical Environment

Room size is suitable for familyr = 0.225

memberWideness of the corridor

r = 0.214

2

Social Environment

Cleanliness of the corridor orcommon spacer = 0.304

3

MaintenanceHabitation Status of the dwellers

r = 0.445

Satisfaction about management andmaintenancer = 0.755

4-3 Structural Equitation Modeling; SEM Analysis:
In order to confirm the finding of the hypothesis/ factor that affected the overall satisfaction inliving at SRS, the study further analyzing structure equation modeling; SEM. The analysis hasdone using SPSS and then AMOS 23. Figure 6, shows the path analysis model that indicates therelationship between hypothesis/ factor and the overall satisfaction in living at SRS. The final
Structural Equation Model; SEM for dwellers satisfaction in living at SRS is shown in Figure 6.
Latent variables are expressed as ellipses; casual relations are shown by single headed arrows
and the standardized correlation between two variables uses double headed arrows. GFI and
AGFI of this model are 0.991, 0.968 respectively. Furthermore, NFI and CFI of the model are
0.981 and 0.998 correspondingly. Therefore, the model proved a good integral fit model.
The standardized path coefficient of the latent variable of social environment is composed ofthree variables (1) the satisfaction about maintenance (2) the habitation status and (3) the
cleanliness of the corridor. The standard path coefficient shows a positive significant on (1)satisfaction about the maintenance of 0.93 and (2) habitation status of 0.39. That means thesetwo variables have the significant correlation with the social environment. Furthermore, theobjective of the study, satisfaction in living at SRS and the latent variable, social environmentshows a positive standardized significant of 0.73. It means more maintenance of the SRS
apartments follows more satisfaction in living at SRS apartments by the SRS dwellers.
.15eHabitant Statuse

Maintenance.39***.87e.30
Corridor Cleanliness.93***

SocialEnvironmee.73***.55

Satisfaction inliving at SRS bydwellers

.50
.18
e

.18
Wideness of Corridor

.42*

.18
e

Room Size for Family.67

PhysicalEnvironme.42

Figure 6: The Model with Slandered Solution
X2 =6.8, df = 6, RMSEA = 0.023*** = 1%; ** = 5%; * = 10%.16

5. Discussion and Conclusion:
The study aims to identify the level of satisfaction in living at SRS at Mumbai by the dwellers
of SRS and also find the hypothesis/ factor that affect most on it. Initially there are fivehypotheses/ factors; however, the correlation coefficient analysis showed that two hypotheses do
not have strong relationships with satisfaction they are (1) distance to the workplace from houseand (2) relationship with the neighbor. Still, there are three hypotheses those might have achance to show the stronger relationship. In this case, we decided to avoid the hypothesis named“maintenance” and connected it with the social environment for producing a reasonable andlogical SEM model. In fact, social environment is relatively close to society maintenance;
therefore the study evaluated the relationship between satisfaction in living at SRS and two
primary hypotheses, (1) social environment and (2) physical environment. Then, we areconducting SEM model to find out the hypothesis/ factor that affects most. Figure 8, the pathanalysis model shows that the stronger and positive relationship between satisfaction in living at
SRS apartments and the social environment. The social environment contains three variables;(1) habitation status that is the resettlement in situ or by relocation, (2) satisfaction aboutmaintenance, and (3) cleanliness of corridor/ shared space. Among these three variables,
satisfaction about maintenance has the stronger relationship. Furthermore, the model also showsthat the variable, corridor/ common area cleanliness is related with the wideness of the corridor/
common space. It is natural that the wideness and cleanliness of the corridor/ common spaceshould be associated many reasons like the more wide corridor make a space for social
gathering and it influences to clean the common space regularly.
At the first chapter, of the article, we discussed that the intention to find out the level ofsatisfaction and the factor that influence satisfaction which was determining some literature
review and information from the researcher. Some researcher and authors argued that building
design is the key reason for dissatisfaction by its dwellers; however, the analysis shows that themost important factor for satisfaction in living at SRS apartments is satisfaction about society
maintenance. This means that the SRS building has proper maintenance and decent relation withsociety makes dwellers more satisfied in living at SRS apartment. Finally, it could be said that
the SRS apartments at Mumbai could provide livable rehabilitation if the society produces
proper consideration in maintenance.

Reference:
1. Anjali Srivastava (August 2004) Source apportionment of ambient VOCS in Mumbai city;
Elsevier Science Inc.
2. Amita Bhide 2016, Center for Urban Policy and Governance, School of habitat Studies,

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

On the other hand, another latent variable physical environment composed of two variables
such as (1) wideness of the corridor and the room size is suitable for the family member. The
path coefficient of the wideness of the corridor is 0.42. However, the variable, room size issuitable for the family has no significant correlation. And the standardized path coefficient
between latent variable ‘physical environment’ and satisfaction in living at SRS is not
significant.
According to the SEM model, only social environment plays the key role in satisfaction inliving at SRS apartments by the slum dwellers.

Proceedings of 2017 International Conference of Asian-Pacific Planning Societies

3.

Das, P. K. (2003). Slums: the continuing struggle for housing. Bombay and Mumbai: The
City in Transition Eds S Patel S, J Masselos (Oxford University Press, New Delhi) pp,
207-234.
4. Jan Nijman, (March 2008) Against the odds: Slum rehabilitation in neoliberal Mumbai,
2008 Elsevier Ltd.
5. Jamshid Etezadi- AMoli, Ali F. Farhoomand (1996), A Structural Model of End User
Computing Satisfaction and User Performance; 1996 Elsevier Ltd.
6. Kennon. M. Sheldo and Andrew J. Elliot, (1990) Goal Striving Need Satisfaction andLongitudinal Well-being, the Self-concordance Model; American Psychological
Association.
7. Konstantinos Kafetsios, Leonidas A. Zampetakis (Nov. 2007); Emotional intelligence andjob satisfaction: Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work, 2007
Elsevier Ltd.
8. Mumbai Population 2017, http://worldpopulationreview.com, 26th, Oct, 2016.web. 3rd
April, 2017
9. Michael Barke; (1998) A review of slum housing policies in Mumbai, Elsevier Science Ltd.
10. Nakamura, S. (2015). Revealing invisible rules in slums: The nexus between perceived
tenure security and housing investment, Habitat International
11. Pei-Chen Sun, Ray J. Tsai, Glenn Finger, Yueh-Yang Chen; (2008) What drives a
successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner
satisfaction
12. Pardis Mohajerani (June 2013) Customer Satisfaction: A Structural Equation Modeling
Analysis, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research
13. Ronita Bardhan, Sayantani Sarkar, Arnab Jana, Nagendra R. Velaga (July, 2015) Mumbai
slums since independence: Evaluating the policy outcomes, Habitat International.
14. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, http://www.sra.gov.in, web. 3rd April, 2017.
15. Stefan Gaertner; (2000) Structural Determinants of the Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment in Turnover Model; Elsevier Science Inc.
16. Yoo-Shik Yoon, Jin-Soo Lee, Choong-Ki Lee; (2010), Measuring festival quality and value
affecting visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach; Elsevier Ltd.
17. Yooshik Yoona, Muzaffer Uysal (August 2003), An examination of the effects ofmotivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model; 2003 Elsevier Ltd.