Analysing Livelihood of Squatters and Low Income Tenants in Khulna City: A study of Rupsha Slum and Sonadanga Slum

This dissertation examines urban poverty and livelihood strategies of squatter and low-income tenants in Khulna city. To collect the required information, questionnaire survey was done with slum dwellers. Simple random sampling method was used to select respondents for questionnaire. One hundred and twenty poor households were surveyed in structured questionnaire. The data like socio-demographic characteristics, economic activities, access to housing and utilities services, vulnerability, and household assets for livelihood strategies were identified. The quantitative data was also supplemented by qualitative data and collected through ten in-depth life history interviews with poor households. This research also explores the how the climatic and the non-climatic vulnerability affected the poor livelihoods; also identifies coping strategies are. This level of poverty was also identified by using household consumption method. Squatters have got various access to services from government and NGOs which help them to improve physical environment, socio-economic, human capital etc. They can also be able to create social and political network by which they develop their livelihood. However, some squatters have another land in urban fringe which provide them buffers to with stand eviction problem. These squatters live in public slum because of their job location nearer to here, social safety and extended family members. Strategies and reduce vulnerability, whereas low-income tenants often failed to do that. In private slum, tenants are deprived of accessing urban services and building political network. However, the extreme poor of both slums always deprived of assessing assets any institutional support such facilities. In general, the poor ‘s livelihood in this study explored that the poverty, vulnerability, assets level and livelihood strategies are different between squatters and low-income tenants. The squatters are more sustainable than low-income tenants according to physical, financial, socio-political aspects.

• Supervision