In the period after Algeria gained independence from France in 1962, there was a huge housing crisis that called for the quick, mass production of housing for the population. In response, Algeria’s ministerial circle introduced les zones d’habitat urbain nouvelles, or ZHUN, to combat the lack of housing in February of 1975 (Bachar, 2018). Although this project did provide housing for people, it caused certain social challenges within its communities and took up space that would have otherwise been used for schools, health centers, cultural centers, etc. (Bachar, 2018). They also lacked sufficient commercial centers, which caused many inhabitants to have to go out of their way to the main city for even basic necessities such as medical care or food (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). The lack of proper management and control of these communities, as well as the absence of traditional neighborhood relationships also led to a lack of social interaction among the inhabitants, which contributed to a climate of insecurity and anguishwithin the communities (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). This lack of social interaction also occurred as a result of these zones being filled so quickly with a wide variety of people with no regard for sociocultural status or cultural origins, which falls in contrast with other individual neighborhoods that grew over decades and generally had ethnic and tribal groups living together somewhat homogeneously (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). To better understand the level of social alienation that the inhabitants of the ZHUN felt, it is important to understand how traditional relationships worked in individual neighborhoods. In their 2003 study, Naceur & Farhi took a sample of 250 inhabitants from two different individual neighborhoods, Bouakal and Chikhi, to identify the main factors that contributed to the sense of togetherness and social solidarity among their inhabitants (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). The results showed that the way the neighborhoods developed was more organic and thus more conducive to socializing between neighbors: socializing and interaction occurs from the moment of purchase of a plot of land throughout the time it takes to connect water and gas pipes, all before the new inhabitant has even fully moved into the neighborhood yet (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). Another highly notable detail is that occupation of these individual neighborhoods is highly based ontribal and parental relationships, with 80.9 percent of the people interviewed from Bouakal reporting that multiple families from the same tribe had settled in the same neighborhood (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). This is further demonstrated by the fact that the neighborhood’s homogeneity is physically represented through street names based on the dominant tribes of the respective street (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). Seniority also proved to be an important factor in the strong social solidarity in these communities–73.8 percent of the inhabitants of Bouakal and 77.9 percent of the inhabitants of Chikhi reported having 30 years of familial ties to their neighborhoods (Naceur & Farhi, 2003). As stated above, these conditions fall in great opposition to those of the ZHUN, which goes to show the extent to which the traditional social fabric of Algerian communities was disturbed by this project. By the end of the project period, 149 ZHUN communities were either being planned or in the process of being established, taking up 1,875 hectares of land and providing 420,000 different housing accommodations, which puts into perspective the level to which these social struggles were perpetuated by a poorly managed housing project (Bachar 2018). This project is a clear example of a rushed plan causing difficulty for the people affected by it. While in this particular case it is unclear whether or not the government was aware of the possible social repercussions of this project, it still lacked many of the necessary steps needed for ethical development, especially since it was done with so much haste in response to the high demand for housing. This case is a pertinent example of a project that could have used guidelines five and seven. If the government had taken more time to consider how the social fabric of their country may be affected by a hasty communal housing project and/or consulted with local leaders and members of different communities, the outcome of this project may have been less jarring to the Algerian people.
Case Study Evaluation using Project Evaluation Tool
Developing (given from an average score of 2.4 across the 7 values of worthwhile development)
Well-Being
Score: 1/5
The project provided housing for some, but limited access to basic needs, healthcare, and food, negatively impacting affected communities and resulting in low satisfaction among stakeholders.
Equality
Score: 3/5
The plan successfully promoted equality by providing housing options for all citizens, but some faced inadequate access, highlighting the need for addressing gaps and bias.
Human Rights
Score: 3/5
The UN considers housing a human right, but the plan’s execution hindered access to other rights like healthcare and food, indicating moderate adherence to human rights.
Cultural Freedom
Score: 1/5
The housing development plan in this community negatively impacted cultural identities and social interactions, neglecting cultural freedom and ignoring the preservation of cultural values.
Agency and Empowerment
Score: 2/5
The plan, while promoting agency and empowerment through providing homes, limited its impact due to limited support for participant agency and self-determination.
Responsibility
Score: 3/5
The plan aimed to provide a community resource, with responsible intentions, but execution was substandard. Moderate attention to responsibility, but gaps in ethical considerations need refinement.
Sustainability
Score: 4/5
The plan’s impact on the community’s environmental sustainability was minimal, but improvements could be made to address long-term impacts and enhance current efforts.
