What we read
We have now read and checked our understanding of author Rajan Kamal's paper "Solving the Problem of Informal Settlements" (in Boyle & Warwick, pp. 50-51, 2014). As usual, Boyle and Warwick now invite us to respond to the ideas in a critical thinking exercise.
___________________________________
Boyle and Warwick's questions
Think for a moment, and then respond to Boyle and Warwick's questions in a comment.
- What conclusions does the author make? Is he exact about his conclusions or is he vague? How do you know?
- Do you agree with the author's conclusions? Why or why not?
- What do you think governments should do to prepare for future migration from rural to urban areas?
___________________________________
Reference
- Boyle, M. & Warwick, L. (2014). Skillful Reading & Writing: Student's Book 4. London: Macmillan Education
His conclusion completely clear about informal settlement the best way to solve this problem is rehousing.We can be sure about his exact idea because he give us a lot of good point in rehousing.I agree with his idea because rehousing can offer clean and comfortable accommodation.In my opinion I think if government want to prepare migration from rural to urban areas,government should have urbanization plan and infrastructure enough for people that come in to live in urban areas.
ReplyDeleteThe author conclusions was explicitly agree with rehousing because his statement is explained advantages of rehousing, further more the reason why he chose this idea. I agree with the author to move into better-living-quality environment than leave the rest of the life in an informal settlement. For the future migrants, I think the government shouldn't prepare them any additional things for them, instead they better develop the urban area in order to balance the number of employment and occupation.
ReplyDelete- The conclusion of this article is the rehousing is a better solution of the informal settlement problem as there're more pros than cons.
ReplyDelete-I think his answer is quite clear because it is mentioned the pros & cons of his answer to make people understand his idea.
- First, the government has to find an appropriate place for the migrants where is well-developed, affordable and comfortable for them.
I agree with you that they should rehousing, it better than moving them.
DeleteThe author make a vague conclusion about the idea of rehousing project. Even though there is an evident that he prefers rehousing to upgrading settlement, he raises that it could applicable in some conditions like "when settlements are situated on unstable land or land without rights".
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with the author. I think upgrading the same settlements solves less issues than rehousing.
The author concludes that rehousing is good option for better future because he mentioned about that in his conclusion when said ".. rehousing is the most effective option when settlements ...". In my opinion, this is the correct and best solution for those people who lived in informal settlement and for governments as well. However, there is a big challenge for governments in order to provide the good places for migrants.
ReplyDeleteConclusion of this article is talking about we should rehousing them better than moving people away from there family.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree because I think we should rehousing better than moving them.It have a negative impact on their psychological health.
In my point of views, Kamel Rajan concludes that the rehousing project is better than upgrading settlements because it easily to provide clean and comfortable accommodation. At this point, the writer claims the rehousing is the most effective way, but he cannot clearly in the conclusion because he did add the contrast issue that rehousing could take people away from their families, employment and the community. In accordance with the Rajan's conclusion, I do agree with him because rehousing is very easy to do and the government have not to find other area for building new accommodation.
ReplyDeleteThe author excatly choose the rehousing is better than the upgrading, and I agree with the author because rehousing can reduce the the disease and poor health. For me,The goverments shouldn't prepare anything.
ReplyDeleteThe author concludes that rehousing is the absolute solution for solving informal settlement problems after considering impacts on wealth, health, environment and land rights. He is clear about his idea on this since he state the rehousing as a mix degree of success and the most effective option. Due to his examples and support ideas, I agree with him that rehousing is a proper way to solve informal settlement problem. In the future, I encourage government to expand a better standard of living to rural areas.
ReplyDelete-The author's conclusion was clearly written. From passage 8 line 6, the writer wrote "It seems that rehousing is the most effective option when settlements are situated on unstable land or land without rights" which clarifies the author's conclusion.
ReplyDelete-I completely agree with what the author wrote because rehousing solves the problem of people who lack basic human and land rights.