Policy Opportunities and Constraints for Addressing Urban Precarity of Migrant Populations

Abstract

Addressing sources and drivers of precarity among marginalized migrant populations in urban spaces is central to making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable for all. Yet dominant policy discourses continue to frame migrants as problematic causes of insecurity and tend to exclude them from policy processes. Deliberative democratic theory suggests that inclusive processes have the potential to create innovative solutions for resilient cities. This study elicits and reports on self‐identified sources of precarity and insecurity as experienced by new low‐income migrant populations. It combines visual ethnography and deliberative democracy tools in an action research process that facilitated dialogue between migrant populations, urban planners and policy stakeholders. The objective is to elicit policy opportunities and constraints for changing dominant discourses, with a view to enhance marginalized lives and to implement sustainable urban infrastructure in Chattogram, the second largest city of Bangladesh. The results show options for addressing precarity, developed through facilitating migrants and planners to engage with each other’s perspectives. Priorities include focusing on insecure tenure, exposure to environmental hazards, and representation in planning processes. Integrating the perspectives and lived experiences of migrant urban populations into policy processes potentially leads to more effective, sustainable and legitimate solutions.

Urban sustainability and the subjective well‐being of migrants: The role of risks, place attachment, and aspirations

“…The sources of insecurity are familiar to all precarious populations: food insecurity, access to clean environments, and a collection of processes of social exclusion. Yet they are, we suggest, amplified for migrant populations in places where they have less place attachment, limited citizenship rights, and cluster in densely populated informal settlements (Banks et al, 2011; Chu & Michael, 2019; Siddiqui et al, 2021). In effect, the study here points to a new urban precarity in that urban migration involves substituting one set of risks and vulnerabilities for a different set in the destination, which also include social factors (Siddiqui et al, 2021).…”

“…For example, pollution and inadequate sanitation in densely populated areas have been found to impact migrants' health and well‐being (Adamo, 2010; McMichael et al, 2012). Furthermore, precarious livelihoods and work‐related stress factors have been linked to poor psychological well‐being outcomes among rural–urban migrants (Lu, 2010; Siddiqui et al, 2021). The observed patterns in the subjective experiences of migrants are upheld when cultural and contextual differences across the three countries are taken into account, although there is some variation in experiences.…”

“…Where environmental factors are considered in subjective well‐being studies, these are usually limited to neighbourhood amenities and cleanliness (Liu et al, 2017, in Guangzhou, China), residential living environment, housing and sense of security (Dang et al, 2019, in Beijing, China). The link between exposure to environmental risks and hazards and migrant subjective well‐being has only been analysed in a handful of recent studies (Adger et al, 2020, 2021; Siddiqui et al, 2021).…”

“…The experiential aspect of increased incomes in destinations is further moderated by migrants' expectations and the cost of living in cities, which cause dissatisfaction with the rate of material gains (Chen et al, 2019; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2008, 2010; Yu et al, 2019). Indeed, higher incomes do not necessarily translate into improved material outcomes for migrants who are concentrated in marginalised informal settlements where they lack access to decent housing and basic services such as water and sanitation (Owusu et al, 2008; Siddiqui et al, 2021). In addition to material conditions, weak social capital in destination and systemic forms of exclusion from labour markets and social protection have also been shown to result in unmet or frustrated aspirations and lowered subjective well‐being for migrants (Li & Rose, 2017; Wang et al, 2010; Wen & Wang, 2009; Zhang, Li, Fang, & Xiong, 2009).…”

Commentary: Inequality, precarity and sustainable ecosystems as elements of urban resilience

“…Our own research in Chattogram also shows that insecure tenure, material aspects of wellbeing, access to services and labour markets and health issues associated with waterlogging and waste pollution constitute an experience of urban precarity self-identified by migrant populations (Siddiqui et al, 2019). Using survey and in-depth participatory methods, we have shown that many of these dimensions of insecurity are producing levels of mental ill-health, including reported symptoms of stress and anxiety.…”