Fieldy study report final -by er. amit pokhrel

A report -Study of Neighborhood Structure Buddhanagar

Master of Science in Urban Design and Conservation

Purbanchal University, Khwopa Engineering College

1

Statuary Publication

This document is the sole publication of the Author. Any misuse

and the mis-interpretation of this document by anyone, author does

not take the responsibility for the same.

Er. Amit Pokhrel

M.Sc. Urban Design and Conservation, 3rd semester student

Khwopa Engineering College




2

CHAPTER 1:

BACKGROUND

Neighbourhood is the place where people like to to stay. Although these places are

routinely defined according to administrative boundaries on the basis of statistical criteria,

it is important to carefully consider the way they are circumscribed as they can create

spatial analysis problems and produce misleading information. A new approach to

defining Neighbourhood units which is based on the integration of elements stemming

from the socioeconomic situation of the area, its history, and how it is perceived by local

key actors.

In 1915, Park described these groupings as the results of the competition for land use

between various businesses and groups of populations existing without formal

organization.

A Neighbourhood is often considered to be a living area as well as a place of work and a

family environment. One will find people interacting for utility (grocery stores, medical

clinics, schools, recreational parks, etc.), support or mutual aid (exchanges of services), or

for -pure socialization (the need to create bonds between individuals).

It is a space we learn to recognize by moving throughout it while carrying social and

economic activities such as visiting friends and shopping. The built environment and its

social organization can become familiar and could contribute to one's identity.

A Neighbourhood can thus become a reflection of oneself, one's values, aspirations and

socioeconomic conditions. It can also be freely selected or determined by these same

socioeconomic conditions. In short, a Neighbourhood is a place characterized by a

specific collection of spatially based features that can be found at a specific geographic

scale.




3

The three spatial levels of the concept of Neighbourhood which are intrinsically

connected inside the same area: the home area, the locality and the urban district. The

home area refers to belonging and family, where the psycho-social purposes of

Neighbourhood tend to be strongest and it is typically defined by the area within a 5–10

minute walk around someone's residence.

The locality refers to the wider area where residential activities are still highly

predictable, familiar, and is visited frequently. The urban district refers to an even larger

landscape of social and economic opportunities which might vary considerably from one

individual to another. In this way, Neighbourhoods can be seen as overlapping areas in

relation to one's needs, the whole being centered on the residence. Moreover, the scale of

a Neighbourhood shall be very different between urban and rural areas, where notions like

distance or local are different.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To identify the walkability and school services.

To identify the services to make a safe neighborhood.

To identify the problems of dwelling units.

To identify the clusters of housing with community facilities.

To explore several relevant methodological issues related to the definition of

Neighbourhood units.

To find the three spatial levels of the concept of Neighbourhood which are

intrinsically connected inside the same area: the home area, the locality and the

urban district.




4

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Elements of a Great Neighborhood

Certainly, there are other more particular day-to-day concerns facing the neighborhood,

and they need to be addressed. Before we address these concerns, however, it will be

most helpful if we begin first to think broadly about--to imagine--what qualities good

urban neighborhoods should have, what a neighborhood might be and should be, and how

it can be the best possible neighborhood for those who live in it.

1. Walk to Shop

A great neighborhood has everyday stores and services within

an easy walk from home. It has stores and shops that satisfy

everyday needs within an easy walk from home. Everyday

shops and services include corner groceries, day care, cafes

and restaurants, banks, dry cleaners, bakeries and the like. An

easy walk is about five to ten minutes.

2. Safe Streets

A great neighborhood has safe and friendly streets. It has

safe and friendly streets. In a great neighborhood people can

walk without fear of crime, being threatened by traffic, or

being disturbed by excessive noise. People feel like they

"belong" on neighborhood streets. Residential streets feel

public, and more like open space than traffic ways. Streets

are a pleasant part of the neighborhood.

3. Get Around Easily

A great neighborhood has many ways to get around. It has

many choices for moving to, from, and within it. Great

neighborhoods make it easy to move about on foot, by

bicycle, transit, and auto. They accommodate the car, but

allow people to live easily without one.




5

4. Housing Choices

A great neighborhood has a variety of housing types. It has

a variety of housing types. A variety of houses; flats and

apartments of various size to meet different needs and

preferences.

5. Gathering Places

A great neighborhood has places for people to meet and

talk. It has places for people to meet, talk and be neighborly. Public gathering places

include parks, plazas, sidewalks, and shops.

6. City Services

A great neighborhood has a full range of public services for

residents. It has a full range of public services for residents.

Public services include parks, schools, police and fire

stations, libraries and other amenities.

7. Special Character

A great neighborhood has its own special character. They

are shaped by their physical setting, streets, buildings,

open spaces, history, culture and the people who live in

them. In great neighborhoods these attributes combine in

unique and memorable ways.

Great neighborhoods make great cities.

Great neighborhoods make great Cities. Great

neighborhoods stand out on their own, yet are connected

to the City. They can be a refuge for their residents, but

also a part of the city's wider community.




6

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS

• Utilities and Servicing

• Major public service uses

• Land use ratios: Industrial/Residential & Commercial

• Servicing and Transportation

• Water supply, Sewage disposal and Drainage System

• Emergency services: Police/Hospitals/Fire brigade

• Land use demands: Residential/Commercial/Industrial

• Open space/Natural areas

Figure1: General components of Neighborhood




7

NEIGHBORHOOD MODULE

Traditional neighborhood module

Nani is one of the clan settlement units. It is formed by the combination of dwelling

cluster types. Orientation of each Nani is toward the center or court.

Figure2: Nani structure in Traditional Settlement

Nani & the Town

The Hierarchical Relationship

Nani A + Nani B + … Tole A

Nani A + Nani B + … Mandalika A

Mandalika A + Mandalika B

Town




8

Modern Neighbourhood module

A sound area for living

Adequate school and parks within a 5min/10 min walk.

Major street around rather than through the neighbourhood

Separate residential and non residential districts or commercial centres

Population large enough to support an elementary school, usually 2,000 to 8,000

people

Some neighbours stores and services

Facilities of water supply, drainage, utilities, minimum a hospital, with safety

security and minimum a green environment

Hierarchy neighborhood in a residential town settlement

Residential Cluster + Residential Cluster = Neighbourhood Quarter

Neighbourhood Quarter + Neighbourhood Quarter = Residential District

Residential District + Residential District = Town Settlement

(Settlement cluster with respect to the house forms within nani clusters, nani as the unit

of analysis for development)




9

CHAPTER 3:

CASE STUDY OF BUDDHANAGAR

Buddhanagar is located to the north-

east of the main road to the way of New

Baneswor from Babarmahal.

Previously, it was name as chuchol galli

but known as Buddhanagar due to

presence of statue of Buddha and

Buddhist community.

Buddhanagar is one of the blooming

areas for the residential neighborhood

plan that has grown and changed over time. Figure3: Google map of Buddhanagar,

New Baneshwor

Figure4: Map of Buddhanagar, highlighted study Area




10

The total area of Buddhanagar covers around 982 ropanies (49 hectare). The study area

covers about 25% (12.25 hectare) of total area which are divided into five quarters. In

these quarters, various features are analyzed to observe the various socio‑cultural

activities at different times.

Quarter A belongs to bungalow type and rest of quarters is flat system houses (mixed

uses).

Figure 5: General information of the study area




11

HIERARCHY DIVISION OF SPACE

The study area consists of the different hierarchal distribution of area like the area which

is near by the road side is captured by commercial use also and the area that is little inner

side from the road is purely residential area. Mainly the primary streets are used as a

missed used purpose that is containing shops on the ground floor.

Residences inside this area are in different variation in height like one storey to 5th

storey

also and are bungalow type as well as flat system on rent etc.




12

Housing type

Figure7: commercial area on the road side Figure6: Residential area inside the study area




13

BASIC NEIGHBORHOOD ELEMENTS INSIDE THE STUDY AREA

Walk to shop

This neighborhood has easy access to satisfy everyday needs within the accepted walking

distance (5-10 minutes).

Safe streets:

Since the streets have mixed use, street seems lively and safer. People can walk without

any fear of crime. Streets feel like public and more open space than traffic ways. Footpath

is lacking.

The road network divides:

Primary road

Secondary road

Tertiary road

Cul de sac

The road is nearly designed for the concept of pedestrian friendly since there is only flow

of public vehicles.

Fig.8: walk able distance




14

Get around easily:

It has many choices for moving to, from and within it. But some of the streets end with

the building where people have to walk a lot more to reach the destination. In this case

permeability factor is low. It consumes more time and less efficiency.

Housing choices: the study area of this neighborhood consists of mainly two types of

hosing choices i.e. bungalow type

and flat system rented building in

which mostly the ground floor

used as the commercial purpose.

The houses which are near by the

road are mainly mixed type

(Commercial Residential). And the

houses found on the inner area are

mainly bungalow type.

Fig.9: Street Networking

Fig.10: House Ownership Chart




15

Gathering places:

The people can gather in banquet hall, school’s

playground to meet, talk and be neighborly.

They also form their own organization known

as "Buddhanagar development committee"

which performs their different public activity in

the open spaces of the school.

The study area also consists of the one newly made banquet hall in which people gather to

perform their parties and other activities.

City services:

It has full range of public services for residents. These include school, police post,

hospitals, commercial, road networking, etc. small shops used for the daily purpose are

also found in the community.

1. Police post

The police post is situated on the west peripheral site. This police post serves 24 hours

services for the safety and security inside the community, which can be also consider as

the integral part of the complete neighborhood.

Fig.11: Columbus School




16

2. Elementary school

The study areas contain elementary school: Columbus School, Kavya School, South point

school under which 40-55% of the student belongs to the Buddhanagar community.

Schools/College in Buddhanagar

1. Columbus School (inside the study area)

2. Kavya School (Primary+ Secondary) (inside the study area)

3. Northpoint School (Primary School)

4. Southpoint School (Primary School) (inside the study area)

5. National Academy (Primary School)

6. Buddha public School (inside the study area)

7. KITS Nursing College

8. Alfa-beta Institute (inside the study area)

South point school contains 40% students from the Buddhanagar among them around

27% of the students come from our study area and remaining 13% comes outward from

the study area but they belongs from the Buddhanagar. Similarly another school contains

53% of the students from the Buddhanagar among which 28.5% from the study area and

remaining from the outside of study area but from Buddhanagar. And the remaining 47%

from the other parts like Bhaktapur, Shankhamul, Old Baneswor, Babarmahal etc

• Class: play group to V class

• Number of student around the territory=56

• Walking student=55

• From van A , the student comes from: Pulchowk-Imadol-Kharibot-Koteswor-

Shankhamul-Buddhanagar=12 students

• From van A again-Newroad-Mahankal-Bir hospital side=4 student

• From van B, the student comes from: Maitidevi-Shantinagar-Mid Baneswor-

Guheswor-Babarmahal-Thapagaun-Buddhanagar= 15 student

• From van B again: Koteswoe-Jadibuti-Gathaghar-Balkot-Nyatapole-

Suryabinayak-Baneswor-Buddhanagar=20 students

• From different pockets of Buddhanagar, Swet binayak marga= 7/8 students




17

Fig.12: Distribution of students in South Point School

Fig.13: Distribution of students in Columbus School




18

3. Open space

The study area consists of the private open space as a vacant land rather than a public

open space. One triangular public open space is situated on the east side of the study area

which function as children’s playing as well as the parking space in the present time.

Furthermore the other open or vacant open land use as vegetation. And some of the

vacant lands are used by the children as a playground.

Fig.16: Public open space used for

Parking and Playing

Fig.15: private vacant land used as a

basketball court at present

Fig.14: open spaces (private and public)




19

4. Services and facilities:

They start their day by going temples (Ganesh

temple, Durga temple) indicated by triangular

shape. Elementary schools are indicated as circular

shape. Dhobi khola and Bagmati River are also

shown connected with Shankhamul road. Hams

hospital is also distinctly shown in the plan for

emergency health services.

5. Transportation and parking

Vehicular access is limited in Buddhanagar. Public vehicles are available only to the

border of Shankhamul and from Araniko highway. Inside this area, it is served by the

street loop road system.

The southern part of Buddhanagar has good access from all directions, Street providing

direct east-west connections to buddhanagar and Krishna tower and north-south

connection to babarmahal-koteswor road network.

Since the area was planned and developed as an auto-oriented, low density commercial-

industrial area, there is adequate parking in the area.

Figure19: Parking near by the House

Figure 18: Public Transportation Area

Figure17: Dhurga Temple




20

6. Utilities

The area is well serviced by utilities, like water, sewer, drainage and electricity services.

Drinking water is available through government line and through boring, well etc. solid

waste disposal is carried out through the government and through club. There is a major

overhead electrical power transmission line passing through the western edge of the area.

From a redevelopment and

aesthetics perspective, this

transmission line is a major

constraint for the

development opportunities in

this area. Existing overhead

secondary distribution power

lines through Buddhanagar

will need to be shifted where

they are impacted by the new

public roadway construction.

Figure20: Overhead Electrical Line

Figure21: Utility Chart




21

7. Small shops

The study area contains the small shops for the daily needs. The ground floors of the

buildings near by the road contains different type of shops like groceries, barber shop,

jeweler shops, café, restaurants etc. these shops make the street alive by the flow of

people for the search of their needs.

Groceries 46 • Jwellary shop 4

Stationery 11 • Fruit shop 4

Cafe & Tea shop 15 • Pharmacy 2

Tailoring 13 • Tv repairing 3

Cosmetic & beauty parlor 14 • Hardware 3

Fast food 11 • Gas depo 6

Clothing store 9 • Garage 4

Barber shop 6 • Office including NGO’S 6

Dairy product=3 3 • Finance 2

Electric appliances=6 6 • Cyber 3

Figure22: Shops Chart




22

Socio-economic aspect:

The town form, street patterns and open space hierarchy including building components

have different layers of socio-religious meanings, developed in different time period,

which forms the collective memory and shared values of communities.

According to a socioeconomic perspective, economic is mainly associated with

education, employment and income whereas society refers primarily to parenting, marital

status, age and living alone.

The result of this approach offers a portrait of the population's material and social

conditions' internal diversity. It allows locating places with similar levels of deprivation

into five groups, from most privileged to most deprived, and the evaluation of the level of

adjacency for each of the five groups which was in site of Buddhanagar.

Gradual development phase of Buddhanagar

The timeline of Buddhanagar shows the gradual development of infrastructure and the

population size. These pictures show the improvement of services with the compactness

of living due to opportunity in the capital city Kathmandu valley. In the same way, there

is gradual decrement of quality of services due to rapid increment of population.

The Aerial map of 2003 show that there are many land still not used for developments and

it clearly defines that there is a natural environment within the built environment.




23

The overall map indicates that in the core and outer area, there are still many unused or

green or open land to be there with no change in it. The figure directly explains that there

is many vacant land within Buddhanagar which representing its natural aspects within the

area.

Similary the Aerial map of 2007 indicates that the earlier open lands or vacant space was

filled up by built environment in many places within Buddhanagar. As we see in this map

that the core and outer area was filled up by built environment and very few land was left

to change in built environment; which directly shows that the rise in population density is

the main reason to occupy by built environment.

Similary the map of 2010 clearly shows now that there is a limited land within the area

and most part are used by built for development of commercialized and for private

residences, due to increase number of population, which supports for a Neighbourhood

point of view too. and the latest data available from 2013 Aerial map shows that, there is

few countable land only and whole area was covered by concrete jungles leaving no

spaces for greenary and natural environment which is the biggest threat for cultivating the

grains to live a life in sustainable manner.

Timeline Situation of Buddhanagar

Aerial map of 2003

Greenary or open or vacant land are mostly presence in this map, which

shows that the open or vacant land are used for grainary means or for

agriculture means to sustain life and the other parts are surrounded by

built environment

Aerial map of 2007

The situation comes to be changed while travelling time from 2003 to

2007. The spaces which was mostly vacant is now filled up by many built

concrete and fewer lands are yet to be filled due to rise in population due

to opportunity in capital as well as due to country under threat due to

maoist revolution from the past year.




24

Aerial map of 2010

Within the 3 years time from 2007 to 2010, the left portion of vacant land

was occupied by houses and many built structures within this area. Now

only few land were left there and we can count it, this situation was due

to increase in population from around the country to stay in capital city as

welll as due to centralization.

Aerial map of 2013

The passage of time shows that the place like Buddhanagar was to be

empty during ealier years but now a days it seems that the most part of

this area is covered by concrete jungles and this situation is due to the

countries internal problem including maoist revolution which disturbed

much to the citizens of Nepal, which created population density to be

increased in capital city as well as due to centralization, the opportunity is

higher in capital than in the regional area, which within the 15 years,

people flew in capital for business, quality education, employment, to go

abroad and due to perspective to be in one way for living in the cities

which is rich in cultural and easy to access for what the people needs in

their life.




25

Fig23: Buddhanagar in 2003 Fig24: Buddhanagar in 2007

Fig25: Buddhanagar in 2010 Fig26: Buddhanagar in 2013

Chapter:4

Neighbourhood Structure as an Analysis Tool

Field study emphasize the importance of the method used to define Neighbourhood

structure. This is of the utmost concern given the effect this definition can have on the

study. The use of borders established more or less arbitrarily can generate serious

information biases and reduce the validity of analyses.

As the Neighbourhood integrates place as well as people, its conceptualization must

consider characteristics of both place and people, and the interaction between them. It

must also consider that a neighbourhood is always a part of a larger whole.




26

METHODS

Studied Area

We conducted this study in five places (Marga) of the Buddhanagar. They were selected

for their comparability on certain aspects and contrasts on others. Furthermore, they

represent three basic types of milieus, namely a local area, a suburban and a business area

(a source for income housing).

In order to produce a set of neighbourhood units as close as possible to the way the

territories are built, lived, and perceived, meaning where the neighborhood’s idiosyncrasy

is best represented, a three-prong approach was developed combining and integrating

historical, socioeconomic and perceptual viewpoints.

The Historical Perspective

Buddhanagar is located to the north-east of the main road to the way of New Baneswor

from Babarmahal. Previously, it was name as chuchol galli but known as Buddhanagar due to presence of statue of Buddha and Buddhist community. Buddhanagar is one of the

blooming areas for the residential neighborhood plan that has grown and changed over

time. The total area of Buddhanagar covers around 982 ropanies (49 hectare). The study

area covers about 25% (12.25 hectare) of total area which are divided into five quarters.

In these quarters, various features are analyzed to observe the various socio-culture

activities at different times.

This perspective is based on locating all institutional, private or public demarcations used

during the past years before the beginning of Neighbourhood concept started in Nepal.

The period was considered since it is about the average duration of an adult's active life.

The collected limits could be, for instance, from primary schools' catchment area,

Regional planning units, fire or police security dispatch zones, municipalities or parishes'

boundaries.




27

Different maps have been collected for each studied territory. Every single limit of each

map was weighted according to four criteria: the length of utilization, the decade of use,

the relevance of a limit according to the research theme and the collected information's

accuracy.

A topological structure was made using street network for Buddhanagar. Every segment

of the topological structure was given a weight according to the four criteria. Natural

breaks in the distribution of those weights served as class thresholds for defining the

frequency of the limits use: very often, often, sometimes and never.

The Socioeconomic Perspective

For the definition of Neighbourhood structure according to a socioeconomic perspective,

Material deprivation is mainly associated with education, employment and income,

whereas social deprivation refers primarily to parenting, marital status, age and living.

Both dimensions of deprivation are in fact the two main components of a principal

component analysis carried out on the above socioeconomic indicators.

In order to provide a unique statistical representation of deprivation for each territory, we

carried out a cluster analysis by dissemination area for each aspect. We used the cluster

analysis since the results generated are more compact than those obtained by the

hierarchical method, exclude any possibility of overmatching and maximize the internal

groupings' homogeneity. Following preliminary analyses, we determined that five groups

were adequate to spatially reveal the main deprivation differences. Each group brings

together data with similar factor scores on both deprivation aspects.

The result of this approach is mainly cartographic, offering a portrait of the population's

material and social conditions' internal diversity. It allows locating places with similar

levels of deprivation into five groups, from most privileged to most deprived, and the

evaluation of the level of adjacency for each of the five groups. The five groups or

quarters or area represent the area taken within the Buddhanagar area or teritory.




28

The Perception Perspective

For this perspective, a focus-group type work was carried out with local respondents who

have had knowledge of our five study areas. We chose to intereact with locals because

they bring a valuable and coherent point of view of the territory since they can both look

at it as a whole and give advice about its interactions with the region, and discuss specific

details within it.

In each territory, we held an interview of three hours for locals coming from activity

sectors such as community groups, school board, and community health and social

services. Twenty people per territory took part in this interview. The goal was to collect

their overall perception of the territory, to understand what a neighbourhood structure

meant to them, to insure the integration of the three perspectives, and to circumscribe a

set of neighbourhood units.

Before the Questionnaire, all the local respondents were informed of the objectives and

the context of the study as well as the interview already carried out on their territory for

the definition of neighbourhood structure, e.g. the result of the historical and statistical

perspectives.

It was essential to provide this information at the beginning of the Interview in order to

give a basis on which to work and on which respondents could reach a consensus. We

then asked the respondents or participants to map out, according to them, what would be

their personal proposal of neighbourhood structure on their territory by leaving them

completely free to use any criteria they considered most significant.

They could select or discard layouts suggested by the historical and statistical perspective

and/or modify them according to other criteria they considered relevant.

Only two constraints of a statistical nature were established. The first constraint was that

units must gather an integer number of dissemination areas; this criterion allowing units

to be perfectly compatible with Statistics available census data and other databases. The

second constraint was that the units should contain approximately 5,000 inhabitants (+/-

3,000) to carry out analyses about rare events with the minimum level needed for

statistical significance, and to keep a local perspective. There is no gold standard number

for neighbourhood structure analysis and the selected values are always more or less

arbitrary.




29

The historical perspective identified the most frequently used limits generated by public

services, local policy or by urban infrastructures for its recent history.

The socioeconomic perspective offered a picture of the current deprivation status while

locating some spatial clusters. The perception perspective not only provided useful

information on social interactions, sense of belonging, accessibility to various services,

and on local characteristics, but also made it possible to integrate the whole procedure. It

is with this procedure that we obtained a final set of neighbourhood structure among

which we investigated Neighbourhood characteristics at the local scale.

Neighbourhood Structure Analysis:

Based on inner characteristics and the geographic scale there are two main categories of

elements that need to be considered when identifying a neighbourhood structure: the inner

characteristics and the geographic scale.

The inner characteristics refer to everything that could be considered an

important element to characterize a neighbourhood. A neighbourhood concept has

provided the most complete listing of those elements, grouping them in ten

groups: structural, infrastructural, demographic, class status, public services,

environmental, proximity, political, social-interactive and sentimental

characteristics.

We agree with this general and integrative definition of a neighbourhood, which is

"a bundle of spatially based attributes associated with a cluster of residences,

sometime in conjunction with other land uses. However, obviously no

neighbourhood can be homogeneous with regard to all these elements. Instead, it

is characterized by a specific combination of homogeneity and/or heterogeneity

of a few or many elements that make a neighbourhood different from its

surrounding. This is known as the neighborhood’s idiosyncrasy. All these refer to

some specific aspect of a territory's reality. We believe that this reality shall be

best represented if they are all taken into account when one tries to define

neighbourhood structure.




30

The geographic scale: It is also an important aspect to consider when defining

neighbourhoods structure. Indeed, their relation to the territory and their principal

characteristics might change with the scale. It can be determined by the dominant

function of each of three spatial levels of the concept of Neighbourhood which are

intrinsically connected inside the same area: the home area, the locality and the

urban district. The home area refers to belonging and family, where the psycho-

social purposes of neighbourhood tend to be strongest and it is typically defined

by the area within a 5–10 minute walk around someone's residence. The locality

refers to the wider area where residential activities are still highly predictable,

familiar, and is visited frequently.

The urban district refers to an even larger landscape of social and economic

opportunities which might vary considerably from one individual to another. In

this way, Neighbourhoods can be seen as overlapping areas in relation to one's

needs, the whole being centered on the residence. Moreover, the scale of a

neighbourhood shall be very different between urban and rural areas, where

notions like distance or local are different. Therefore, the concept of

neighbourhood is not necessarily confined to urban milieus; it could simply be

another way to express the idiosyncrasy at a proper geographic scale.

Unfortunately, there is no magic formula that could bring together all relevant

elements of a neighbourhood to create an all-purpose spatial grid. However, we

believe that the two categories of elements described earlier, e.g. the inner

characteristics and the scale, are particularly relevant for defining spatial units

related to environment, and that choices are to be made regarding those elements

before defining neighbourhood structure. What follows are the choices we made

that led to the creation of geographical units that could be used to manage the

multidimensional concept of neighbourhood.




31

Chapter: 5

Discussion

This study is an implementation of a multi-perspective for defining Neighbourhood

structure in five quarters (or territories or pockets or groups) located in the Buddhanagar. Our purpose was two-fold. First, we wanted to show how it is possible to integrate

different ways of defining neighbourhood structure and produce significant information

on necessary information variations at a local scale.

Second, we sought to incorporate the point of view of local respondents in defining such

structure in order to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between researchers and local

Stakeholders. Results show that this survey was feasible and successful. Three

methodological approaches were integrated to delineate neighbourhood structure in the

selected territories or pockets. Socioeconomic and structural variations were found

between neighbourhood structure and within territories, and these variations raised much

interest among local stakeholders. We have seen that in defining neighbourhood

structure, each perspective had its role or input in the process.

The historical approach reveals boundaries usually inherited from the institutional

framework which significantly cut out the territory, and to evaluate the presence, the

strength, or the coherence of the spatial frame of reference. The socioeconomic approach

rather highlights the actual homogeneity or heterogeneity of a territory's deprivation and

its spatial distribution. Provided with these two geographical representations, local

respondents can determine which elements of these perspectives, or other elements drawn

from their own experience, are most significant in defining neighbourhood structure.

We consider this whole process fundamental to render the concept of Neighbourhood

operational, since it uses an objective methodology that integrates elements of

subjectivity and reflects the singularity of the territory. Indeed, inner characteristics

identified by respondents were aspects which could only be pointed out by people having

an intimate experience of the territory. What distinguishes one Neighbourhood from

another is the way various specific elements combine among themselves, thereby

conferring its idiosyncrasy to the Neighbourhood.




32

The scale at which Neighbourhood structure were constructed was mainly determined by

two features: the historical boundaries that qualify the general spatial frame of reference,

especially in local environments, and the statistical constraint that keeps Neighbourhood

populations in the range of 2,000 to 8,000.

Even though the spatial frame of reference was very different for the urban boroughs of

pockets A to Pockets E, it is interesting to note that criteria evoked by local key

respondents during the Questionnaire were often the same for surveyed places.

Indeed, main roads or inner roads, housing types, the general level of deprivation, the

presence of social contacts and historical aspects were all important elements used as

guideposts by the respondents from Buddhanagar (The surveyed locations).

Thus, it was possible to integrate the historical and socioeconomic perspectives by having

resorted to the local respondents' personal knowledge.

Indeed, results showed an efficient way to present general outcomes at the local scale that

could be easily understood by local stakeholders. Each one of these structure had its own

characteristics; however, it should be known that no characteristic was used as a global

beacon for a unit's definition. Consequently, local respondents individually bounded each

one of these structure according to one or several of these indicators that specifically

characterized them.

Nevertheless, our work was not carried out without difficulty. Moreover, keeping a

structure's population within an interval of 2,000 to 8,000 individuals was sometimes

awkward for questionnaire respondents.

However, in the context of Neighbourhood structure studies carried out at a local level

and for reasons of statistical precision, it was not possible to reduce the size of

neighbourhood units. When very small populations are involved, perhaps other types of

analyses, more qualitative in nature, would be more appropriate.

In an area like Buddhanagar, the same kind of problems arose but with greater impact on

the significance of the final set of structure or units, and for several reasons first, it was

harder to find homogeneity or some socioeconomic similarity in this area because of the

large expanse of the area and the low population density.




33

We also noted from local respondents' comments that the Buddhanagar area, at the local

scale, was perceived to have a level of heterogeneity that is seldom observed in an urban

area, second, indicators mentioned by Buddhanagar questionnaire respondents differed in

nature from those mentioned for the urban boroughs.

Those indicators reflected indeed a very different social reality and were adapted

according to the scale at which space is used by the inhabitants. Consequently, the

neighbourhood concept took a new dimension here and often extended to bordering

municipalities with which social or administrative contacts were more frequent and

common.

In this field study, the concept of neighbourhood is rarely used in relation to the

countryside and defining neighbourhood structure in urban and sub-urban areas now

represents an important methodological challenge. Based on our study, we can suggest

that neighbourhood structures are entities which share many institutions and public

services and are often linked by an economic pole. It is mainly through these elements

that our neighbourhood structures were created.

The quality of our final set of neighbourhood structure, in Buddhanagar, can be closely

related to the quality and diversity of the local key respondents who took part in

questionnaire and an interview. However, the results' significant value comes precisely

from the fact that, in spite of their various expertises, they succeeded in reaching

a consensus on the neighborhoods’ representations.

This procedure strengthened the final divisions, which we believe would not have been

significantly different had we interviewed with other local key respondents, especially in

different pockets of Buddhanagar areas. In fact, boundaries were selected without much

discussion as they were already known by respondents.

The method presented in this field study provides a set of geographical units based on a

consensus made by local respondents. With this consensus, we believe their spatial

distribution can be used to qualify their idiosyncrasy relating the Neighbourhood

structures.

Also, as our final set of Neighbourhood structure was not compared with more

conventional ones, based exclusively on socioeconomic indicators, for instance, we do

not know if this set brings greater geographical disparities and provides more useful




34

Insights into the determinants of necessary required informations of Buddhanagar

surveyed pockets.

In our opinion, the present study makes an original and important contribution to the field

of research on Neighbourhood. Fist, it gives substance to an ambiguous and vague

concept. Second, it exemplifies a three-fold approach for defining Neighbourhood

structure that goes beyond the usual socioeconomic criteria and administrative statistical

units. Third, it considers not only cities but also rural areas, which are usually ignored in

such study. Fourth, it shows how fruitful links can be created with local stakeholders and

knowledge exchange facilitated. Finally, it proposes an approach which is reproducible

elsewhere, in under-developed and developing countries, despite differences in local

information systems and local decision makers.

CONCLUSION

The concept of the neighbourhood is well established as a basic unit for planning our

cities. Further, it is a popular and accepted (though often vague) element of social and

physical organization in the minds of the engineers, architects and city designers. The

neighbourhood has become the symbols , through conscious designs of a means to

preserve the real or imagined values of an earlier, semi-rural way of life in our increasing

complex and fast moving urban centers. unqualified criticsm of it would be unair and un

warranted .

The modern concept of the neighbourhood and for that matter , many of the more recent

version of the neighbourhood unit or structure derive from the notion that the

neighbourhoods will be composed of aggregations of “average” families and may be a

miscellaneous relative like containing both the social and physical attributes within

neighbourhood stability. Actually families of this sort comprise less than half of the

families occupying dwelling units in our cities.

Even for those families that conform to the average , the planned neighbourhood does not

necessarily provide the ideal living environment. This is not to say that many of the




35

elements that are being incorporated into contemporary neighbourhoods are not sound,

i.e. who can argue against the advisability of diverting speed and volume traffic away from living areas, especially when children are walking to the school or playing in the

nearby open playground.

While this report has been devoted primarily to the discussion of techniques for delimiting

the neighbourhoods, it unavoidably has dealt with certain subjective evaluations of the

neighbourhood theory. Drawing the boundaries of a neighbourhood , if these boundaries

are to serve as a frame of reference for actual physical change , will affect significantly

the kinds of neighbourhoods that results.

There seems to be a great need for integration in neighbourhoods- integration of different

kinds of people, different kinds of dwellings, and different kinds of ideas. utilization of as

many criteria of neighbourhood identification as are available may provide the tools to

build better new neighbourhoods and to recognize the strenght and weakness of existing

ones.

The neighborhood unit concept provides a theoretical basis for the planning of residential

areas. It should be borne in mind that in practice the various elements in the concept are

given different emphasis according to the approaches made by different engineers,

architects and planners.

A willingness to go further than adopting a neat set of standards based upon a 10 year old concept as the guide for all residential development in the city is necessary (incase of

Nepal), if we are to provide the variety of living areas suited to the variety of people who

live in the city like Kathmandu and the place like Buddhanagar which has its own

historical, sociological, economical and perception value from the earlier years.




36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/25/the-importance-of-strong-

neighborhoods/

http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/maps/gps-bulletin-v2i2.pdf

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1704

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status

A study on Buddhanagar- Book named as “Buddhanagar Darpan”; Published by

Buddhanagar Development Committee(2061 B.S).

Urban and Environmental planning in Nepal by Ambika Prasad Adhikari

http://www.worldbank.org/

www.cityplanning.org/europe

Babbit, Bruce.2005.’How to Rebuild New City’, Newyork Times,

Alonso, William.1971. “A theory of the urban land market in the subtopic Internal

structure of the city, edited by Larry.S. Bourne. Newyork: Oxford University Press.

www.cwac.net/landuse/index on july 21,2008

www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/09/eco.cities/index.html on july 28,2008

www.urbanandregionalplanning/london

www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Culture_leisure/Tourism/?a=42496

GUEST, AVERY M., JANE K. COVER, ROSS L. MATESEUDA, AND CHARISE E.

KUBRIN.2006. “Neighbourhood Context and Neighbouring Ties.” City & Community

www.elibrary.au/

Planned development and Residential segregation- Gordon, Tracy

www.knowledgegain.com/Urbanism

Berkeley publication Journal: University of California press

HEVESI, DENNIS.2001. “East New york: A Neighbourhood Reborn.” Newyork Times,

June 10, pp. RE1,10

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/25/the-importance-of-strong-

neighborhoods/




http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/25/the-importance-of-strong-neighborhoods/

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/25/the-importance-of-strong-neighborhoods/




http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.cityplanning.org/europe

http://www.cwac.net/landuse/index%20on%20july%2021,2008

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/09/eco.cities/index.html%20on%20july%2028,2008

http://www.urbanandregionalplanning/london

http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Culture_leisure/Tourism/?a=42496

http://www.elibrary.au/

http://www.knowledgegain.com/Urbanism

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/25/the-importance-of-strong-%20neighborhoods/

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/25/the-importance-of-strong-%20neighborhoods/







37

APPENDIX

Buddhanagar Neighbourhood Survey (By using these question pattern for questionnaire, respondents helped us to know their

view and from all that relevant data, the data are taken and using all that ,Charts and bar

diagram is taken under following basis: Respondents are 50 to 70 from all pockets and

estimating the population chart as 10 person each from each pocket and assuming 10 as

100%, the charts and bar diagrams are prepared.)

Questionnaire

1. What are the top three concerns about your neighbourhood?

a. People Issue

b. Crime & Safety

c. Traffic speeding & Parking

d. School & green space

e. Facilities: Watersupply, drainage and solid waste disposal

f. Upkeep of Neighbourhood

2. What are the four things you like best about living in your Neighbourhood?

a) Living close to park space

b) Neighbours

Neighbourhood concerns People’s view in %

People issue 19

Crime & safety 22

Traffic speeding & parking 19

School & green space 11

facilities: w/s, drainage, road, disposal 16

Upkeep of neighbourhood 14




38

c) Living close to shopping

d) Quiet & secluded

Population in percentage Best neighbourhood factors

quiet and secluded 40

living close to shopping 30

Neighbours 35

Living close to park space 50

3. What are the four things you like best about living in your Neighbourhood?

a. Minimal traffic

b. Living close to work

c. Living close to major link roads

d. Sense of belonging

e. Housing design & value

Population in number Best neighbourhood factors

5 Housing design and value

7 Sense of belonging

20

living close to major link

roads

15 living close to work

20 Minimal traffic




39

4. In your opinion, what is the most important factor that makes a neighbourhood

safe?

a) Cleanliness

b) Lighting

c) Healthy environment

d) Clean air, water & soil

e) Housing & street design

f) Knowing your neighbours

g) Police

h) School

i) Traffic speed

Population in percentage Neighbourhood safety factors

Cleanliness 20

Lighting 25

Healthy environment 15

Clean air, water & soil 10

Housing & street design 5

Knowing your neighbours 17

Police 13

School 21

Traffic speed 19




40

5. In your opinion, what are the top 3 things Neighbourhood should focus on?

a. Being a voice for community planning

b. Community safety

c. Support those in needs

d. Community intereact with newcomers

Population in percentage Focus on Neighbourhood

Being a voice for community planning 5

Community safety 25

Support those in needs 10

Community interact with newcomers 15




41

6. What are the top 3 qualities that make a great Neighbourhood?

a. Clean & green

b. Knowing your neighbours

c. Helping your neighbours

d. Participating in community activities

e. Well planned & designed

Response percent Great Neighbourhood

Clean and green 75

Knowing your neighbours 60

Helping your neighbours 25

Participate in community activities 15

Well planned and designed 85

7. If you know people in your neighbourhood, how did you get to know them (Neighbourhood activity)?

a) Walking in neighbourhood

b) Through mutual friends

c) Through neighbourhood associations like social clubs,

d) Through common interest or issue of concern

e) Through children & school

People and activity in percent Neighbourhood activity

Through children, school 35

Through common interest or issue of concern 30

Through neighbourhood association 25

Through mutual friends 20

Walking in Neighbourhood 15




42

8. How can you indicate the Housing style in your Neighbourhood?

a. Multiplex

b. Duplex

c. Single family home with rent

d. Single family home

e. Apartment

Housing use in percent Housing style

Apartment 0

Single family home 65

Single family home with rent 80

Duplex 5

Multiplex 25

(Note: Duplex means-A duplex house is a dwelling having apartments with separate

entrances for two households. and Butwal powe company limited building is duplex and

Multiplex means-A building, especially a movie theater or dwelling, with multiple




43

Separate units. and in buddhanagar there is a multiplex which has a theatre and qfx with

small department centre)

9. How can you indicating the ownership of your home in Neighbourhood?

a. Own

b. Rent

c. Not applicable

Response in percent Ownership of your home

Own 75

Rent 35

Not applicable 0

10. What are the Facilities in Buddhanagar, surveyed at different pockets?

a) Solid waste disposal

b) Watersupply

c) Drainage

Water supply Drainage Solid waste disposal

Category

1

30% 80% 70%

Category

2

50% 80% 70%

Category

3

20% 70% 90%

Category

4

10% 70% 90%




44

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Category 4

Solid waste disposal

Drainage

Watersupply

(In different pockets we see some difference regarding facilities and services. Somewhere

we see presence of watersupply is more but at other pocket there is less service in

comparison to other pockets, were we surveyed it while studying Neighbourhood

structure in Buddhanagar. Due to increase in population in Kathmandu valley, the

demand is high in comparison to supply. and due to increase in demand, the supply is

poor for some area. and some where ground water by pump are pumped out. Due to

population, the watersupply corporation provide watersupply within the given time when

they say; that’s the main reason, we see some where water and in some where no

watersupply.)

11. Mode of Transportation

a) From krishna tower

b) Baneswor

c) Shankhamul

d) Bijuli bazaar

Transportation

From krishna tower 70%

Baneswor 20%

Shankhamul 15%

Bijulibazaar 5%




45

5.3 Respondents Name

The respondents name of the surveyed area were the questionnaire (both in english and

nepali language) was taken are listed under in tabular form containing the following:




46

Surveyed

Pockets Respondent’s

name

No. of

families

Age group( m/f)

yrs/month

Male Female Building

period

started(B.S)

swetbinayak

marga

Krishna

kumari

shrestha

6 62/15m

60/35/11f

2male 3female 2046

bhawana

marga

Sukra

acharya

8 59/24/22/19m

57/23/19/3month f

4male 4female 2056

Lumbini

galli

Jagat maan

shrestha

3 35/7 m

32 f

2male 1female 2055

bhawana

marga

sundar

dhakal

3 44/35/23 m

3male 0 2052

shram

marga

Alok dhakal 5 50m

45/30/24/22f

1male 4female 2050

shram

marga

sriram

dhundel

3 60/22m

30f

2male 1female 2050

shram

marga

santosh

maharjan

6 70/50m

65/49/26/28f

2male 4female 2065

bhawana

marga

lalaita

maharjan

2 45m

40f

1male 1female 2050

lumbini

galli

sita

chaudhary

5 45m

44/27/25/22f

1male 4female 2051

gangadevi

marga

jait bdr

maharjan

7 62/63/40m

60/61/35/29f

3male 4female 2025

nemuni

marga

mira banyal 3 75m

70/39f

1male 2female 2051

nemuni bishal rawal 4 30/7m

29/5f

2male 2female 2050

swetbinayak gita acharya 3 45m

40/22f

1male 2female 2067

bhawana

marga

maheshlal

karmacharya

6 50/40/35m

45/37/29f

3male 3female renovated

new at

2051

swetbinayak

marga

sulochana

pradhan

6 55/30/19month-m

50/29/19month f

3male 3female 2053

swetbinayak

marga

surya prasad

neupane

5 80/65/60/30m

62f

4male 1female 2055

swetbinayak

marga

sudan

shrestha

4 84/44m

39/17f

2male 2female 2051

swetbinayak

marga

haribhakta

maharjan

6 77/55/42/35/

29m

24f

5male 1female 2058

nemuni

marga

mayyadevi

manandhar

5 70/45/16m

44/12f

3male 2female 2043

bhawana

marga

sudhir bista 5 49/31/17m

45/14f

3male 2female 2041

durga marga mohan 5 84/55/29m 3mlae 2female 2052




47

acharya

47/27f

shram

marga

nilbhakta

shrestha

5 55/29m

50/25/23f

2male 3female 2051

swetbinayak

marga

Amrita aryal 5 84/50/4m

75/50f

3male 2female in rent from

last 15 yrs

bhawana

marga

biraj

khatiwada

6 50/35/11/9m

47/30f

4male 2female 2059

durga marga gunmaya

devi

5 70/50/29m

65/48f

3male 2female 2055

durga marga sundar

shakya

6 50/27/7m

46/25/3f

3male 3female in 2038 buy

land and

started to

live from

2045

shram

marga

prabhaat

shakya

6 55/29/10m

49/25/7f

3male 3female 2056

swetbinayak

marga

kedar

dhungana

4 45/18m

40/14f

2male 2female 2057

swetbinayak

marga

arjun sapkota 4 42/15/10m

38f

3male 1female 2058

simrik

marga

suntali

shakya

5 55/47m

50/43/24f

2male 3female 2048

simrik

marga

nirajman raut 4 55/29m

50/24f

2male 2female 2051

swetbinayak

marga

pritam

pradhan

4 34/11m

32/3f

2male 2female in rent from

2062

simrik

marga

Ram bdr.

khadka

5 70/45/20m

45/21f

3male 2female 2050

simrik

marga

Ram saiju 4 45/14/7m

40f

3male 1female 2063

simrik

marga

Mani

sapkota

8 50/40/29/24/22m

49/36/23f

5male 3female doing

business

from last 7

yrs, in rent

simrik

marga

Rabin

shakya

4 50/14/10m

49f

3male 1female 2060

simrik

marga

surendra raj

karki

4 42/14m

35/10f

2male 2female 2055

swetbinayak

marga

Dhrubalal

joshi

6 70/50/29m

65/45/24f

3male 3female 2061

durga marga raman

shrestha

5 50/25m

65/45/20f

2male 3female 2056

swetbinayak

marga

shova

shrestha

5 39/12/14m

35/14f

3male 2female 2068

durga marga Mohan

chand

5 50/40/30/24m

45f

4male 1female 2039




48

durga marga shyam

pokharel

5 70/40m

35/8/7f

2male 3female 2040

simrik

marga

rita shrestha 4 45/29m

44/26f

2male 2female 2056

bhawana

marga

nirmal

shakya

3 45/13m

40f

2male 1female 2057

Nemuni

marga

hiralal

maharjan

3 49/29m

44f

2male 1female 2039

chuchol

galli

pramod

shakya

4 50/29m

45/25f

2male 2female 2055

durga marga sripesh

shrestha

5 45/30/1m

40/26f

3male 2female 2049

shram

marga

kaji

maharjan

4 60/35m

55/32f

2male 2female 2051

durga marga prem singh 5 45/30/27m

44/22f

3male 2female 2055

bhawana

marga

surya

shrestha

15 55/30/29/25/15/12/7/6/4/4/3m

45/27/29/22f

11male 4female 2049

bhawana

marga

bikram

shakya

5 55/30/22m

45/22f

3male 2female 2051

shram

marga

haribol

shrestha

3 55/50/23m 3male 0female 2055

durga marga bikulala

shrestha

4 55/30m

49/27f

2male 2female 2049

durga marga hari dhakal 4 58/32m

55/31f

2male 2female 2057

simrik

marga

parsuram

acharya

7 75/60/32/29m

55/28/24f

4male 3female 2053

simrik

marga

pursottam

kafley

4 55m

49/23/24f

1male 3female 2061

bhawana

marga

shakti

shrestha

5 79/55m

74/49/29f

2male 3female 2051

lumbini

galli

suraj shakya 3 36/7m

27f

2male 1female 2055

lumbini

galli

rajesh

shakya

5 75/55/38m

47/32f

3male 2female 2051

bhawana

marga

radharaman

shrestha

4 50/29m

45/24f

2male 2female 2049

nemuni

marga

Indra shakya 4 55/29m

49/25f

2male 2female 2051

bhawana

marga

lata shakya 3 49/29/29m 3male 0 2023

nemuni

marga

kundan

shrestha

4 55/29m

59/25f

2male 2female 2049




49

Buddhanagar Neighbourhood Survey: Respondents details of surveyed area

nemuni

marga

lata shrestha 3 55m

50/28f

1male 2female 2055

subarna

marga

shyam

sundar raut

4 55/29m

55/31f

2male 2female 2049

subarna

marga

hiralal kaji 3 55m

50/32f

1male 2female 2055

subarna

marga

mukti shakya 3 65m

60/33f

1male 2female 2049

subarna

marga

mahesh

shrestha

5 65/60/34m

60/31f

3male 2female 2057

subarna

marga

anil shrestha 2 35m

32f

1male 1female 2055

subarna

marga

ankit acharya 3 45m

42/7f

1male 2female 2061

subarna

marga

nilam koirala 5 70/55/29m

50/34f

3male 2female 2062

subarna

marga

haribansha

kuikel

3 55m

49/29f

1male 2female 2055

subarna

marga

narendra

amatya

3 45/14m

40f

2male 1female 2059

simrik

marga

chandra

panta

3 44/43/37m 3male 0

female

2061

bhawana

marga

dipak thapa 5 55/33/27m

50/23f

3male 2female 2051

swetbinayak

marga

pratik

shrestha

3 35/32/22m 3male 0female 2059

subarna

marga

amulya ratna

shakya

2 55m

50f

1male 1female 2043




50