Rapid Assessment of Squatting Report (NOTE: LARGE FILE)

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................5
List of Plates ...............................................................................................................................6
List of Maps ................................................................................................................................7
List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................8
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................9
List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... 10
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................. 11
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 12
Background ........................................................................................................................... 12
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................... 14
Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................ 14
Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................... 14
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 15
Data Collection.................................................................................................................. 16
Primary Data Collection .................................................................................................... 16
Secondary Data ................................................................................................................. 16
Use of GIS and its related technologies ................................................................................. 17
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 17
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON SQUATTING IN JAMAICA ..................................................... 19
Towards a Policy and Plan for Managing Squatting in Jamaica (2007) .................................. 19
National Squatter Survey, Jamaica (2004) ......................................................................... 20
HISTORICAL AND SPATIAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 21
Historical Context ................................................................................................................. 21
Age of Settlements ................................................................................................................ 22
Topography ........................................................................................................................... 23
Spatial Context .......................................................................................................................... 23
Location of Squatter Settlements ............................................................................................... 24
POPULATION ..................................................................................................................... 24
Classification of Settlements by Size ................................................................................. 25
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIAL AMENITIES .................................................................. 27
Main Sources of Domestic Water ...................................................................................... 32
Access to Electricity .......................................................................................................... 33
Sewage Disposal ............................................................................................................... 33
Garbage Disposa ............................................................................................................... 35
LAND UTILISATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ................................................... 35
Overview .............................................................................................................................. 35
Presentation of data ............................................................................................................... 36
Land Use of Squatter Settlements .......................................................................................... 42
Vegetation Cover of Settlements ....................................................................................... 42
Physical Zone of Settlements ................................................................................................. 43
Environmental Impact ........................................................................................................... 44
Squatting along Waterways ............................................................................................... 46
NATURAL HAZARDS VULNERABILITY AND MANAGEMENT ...................................... 49
Construction Material ............................................................................................................ 49
1

Environmental and Natural Hazards ...................................................................................... 50
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................... 53
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 54
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 59
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a response to the request of the Government of Jamaica (GoJ) to have a rapid
assessment of squatting carried out in order that policy can be developed and informed decisions
taken with respect to addressing the many challenging issues associated with the phenomenon.
The main focus of the assessment was various aspects of the informal settlements relating to
location, age, population estimate, physical infrastructure, environmental context and the general
level of vulnerability to natural hazards. A combination of field survey and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) analysis was employed to arrive at various conclusions of the study.
A total of seven hundred and fifty four (754) settlements were identified. Of these, three
hundred and twenty (320) were surveyed during this exercise. GIS analysis was applied to five
hundred and eighty five (585) settlement for which spatial data was available.
The assessment revealed three types of squatting in Jamaica: agricultural, residential and
commercial, the most dominant type being residential. Sixty six percent (66%) of the
settlements surveyed have been in existence for more than twenty (20) years. Squatter sites
range from less than ten (10) units or households per site to in excess of two thousand
households in large settlements. An estimated twenty percent (20%) of Jamaica’s population
reside in squatter settlements.
Physical infrastructure (roads and drains) within squatter settlements are either poorly developed
or non-existent. There is access to water and electricity with regards to close proximity to the
mains but most of the connections observed were illegally done. Some squatter settlements
benefit from municipal garbage collection but the majority resort to a combination of open
dumps and burning. There is no infrastructure for proper disposal of sewage waste hence the
dominant methods identified were soak-away pits and pit latrines.
3

Squatter settlements are located close to natural resources with most of them sited in watershed
areas. Regarding land capability, arable lands account for the greater number of settlements
followed closely by marginal lands. Squatter settlements are vulnerable to the following
common natural hazards: earthquakes, flooding, landslides and storm surges.
Among several recommendations made, the report has given high priority to the identification of
funds to facilitate the speedy completion of a national policy on squatting. It recognizes the need
for an urgent review of existing legal provisions relevant to squatting followed by the
establishment of a legislative framework within which the wide range of associated issues can be
addressed.
Given the limitations of this study, the report recommends ongoing site specific assessment and
analysis on squatter settlements, employing the use of Geographic Information Systems and
related technologies. This information should be maintained in a national squatting geo database.
It was recognized that firm and immediate steps must be taken to stem the proliferation of
squatting locally. As such, a strong recommendation made by the study is that a moratorium
(approved by Cabinet) be placed on squatting preceded by a preparatory period of public
education. This however should be supported by a strong enforcement mechanism and material
resources to provide alternatives to squatting.
4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was coordinated by an Inter-Agency Steering Committee comprising the Ministry of
Water & Housing, National Housing Trust, National Housing Development Corporation (now
HAJ- Housing Agency of Jamaica), Spatial Data Management Division (Office of the Prime
Minister), National Land Agency, Department of Local Government, Planning Institute of
Jamaica and Office of Disaster Preparedness & Emergency Management.
A number of Agencies participated in the data collection and we extend our gratitude to them.
Also special thanks to the Agencies which demonstrated a real “joined up” government approach
by generously making Geographic Information System and other datasets and expertise
available.
Special acknowledgement to The Minister and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Water &
Housing who initiated the inter-agency collaboration necessary for undertaking the Study as well
as approved the utilization of resources within the Ministry of Water & Housing.
Special acknowledgements also to those who have contributed extensively of their time and
effort:
Basil Forsythe; Amoy Bernard; Kristina Cassell; Allison Richards; Richard Jones; Tricia-Anne
McLean; Cecille Blake; Jacqueline Darwood; Nikolai Thomas; Nicholas Henry; Daveia Angus
and Authrine Scarlett.
All others who contributed but whose names are not mentioned, your contributions are
appreciated.
5

List of Plates
Plate 1 SMU photograph showing a public Pit Latrine 35
Plate 2 Settlements with 6.1 & 12.2m setback from the Hope River 48
6

List of Maps
Map 1 Informal settlements & community infrastructures in 29
Montego Bay, St. James
Map 2 Informal settlements & infrastructures of Mud Town & 30
Mona Common Papine, St. Andrew
Map 3 Settlements by Parish 37
Map 4 Natural Resources & built up areas, land Capability, Classification
of squatter settlement 39
Map 5 Distribution of land capability classification of squatter settlements 40
Map 6 Squatter Settlements within 100m of a water way 46
Map 7 Informal Settlements and Vulnerable communities 51
Map 8 St. Mary landslide vulnerability maps 52
7

List of Tables
Table 1 Classification of Settlements by number of household Units 26
Table 2 Location of squatter settlements 38
Table 3 Percentage of squatter settlements that fall within 100m of a
Waterway 47
8

List of Figures
Fig. 1 Pie Chart showing age of surveyed Informal settlements 22
Fig. 2 Bar Graph showing topography of surveyed settlements 23
Fig. 3 Pie Chart showing Average household size of surveyed 27
settlements
Fig. 4 Bar Graph showing road quality in surveyed settlements 31
Fig. 5 Pie Chart showing surveyed Settlements’ sources of water 32
Fig. 6 Bar Graph showing access to Electricity 33
Fig. 7 Pie Chart showing methods of sewage disposal in
Surveyed settlements 34
Fig. 8 Bar Graph showing squatter settlements in Jamaica by Parish 36
Fig. 9 Pie Chart showing land capability of squatter settlements in 41
Jamaica
Fig. 10 Column Graph showing land capability classification of 42
squatter settlements in Jamaica
Fig. 11 Column Graph showing vegetation cover of settlements in 43
Jamaica
Fig. 12 Column Graph showing physical zone of squatter settlements in 43
Jamaica
Fig. 13 Column Graph showing major types of land use within squatter 44
settlements in Jamaica
Fig. 14 Bar Graph showing construction material used on structures 49
Fig. 15 Bar Graph showing environmental hazards to which settlements 50
are exposed
9

List of Appendices
Appendix I Squatter site investigation questionnaire-------------------------------------59
Appendix II Studies on squatting in Jamaica since 1990----------------------------------64
Appendix III Proposed four stages towards development of a national policy
on squatting-----------------------------------------------------------------------67
Appendix IV Agricultural/structural squatting on forest reserves-------------------------68
Appendix V A typology of squatter settlements --------------------------------------------69
Appendix VI Photographs on squatting-------------------------------------------------------71
Appendix VII Named squatter settlements used in GIS analysis---------------------------77
Appendix VIII Updated list of approximately754 squatter sites ----------------------------96
Appendix IX Agencies that participated in the data collection----------------------------113
Appendix X Map of Jamaica showing slope and informal settlements------------------114
10

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
DLG ------------------------------------------------ Department of Local Government
GIS ------------------------------------------------- Geographic Information Systems
GoJ ------------------------------------------------- Government of Jamaica
GPS ------------------------------------------------ Global Positioning System
HAJ ------------------------------------------------ Housing Agency of Jamaica
JBI ------------------------------------------------- Jamaica Bauxite Institute
JPSCo---------------------------------------------- Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd.
JRC ------------------------------------------------ Jamaica Railway Corporation
MLE ----------------------------------------------- Ministry of Land & Environment
MWH ---------------------------------------------- Ministry of Water & Housing
NEPA --------------------------------------------- National Environment & Planning Agency
NHDC -------------------------------------------- National Housing Development Corporation
NHT ----------------------------------------------- National Housing Trust
NLA ----------------------------------------------- National Land Agency
NSWMA------------------------------------------ National Solid Waste Management
Authority
NWA ----------------------------------------------- National Works Agency
NWC ----------------------------------------------- National Water Commission
ODPEM ------------------------------------------- Office of Disaster Preparedness &
Emergency Management
OPM ----------------------------------------------- Office of the Prime Minister
PIOJ ------------------------------------------------ Planning Institute of Jamaica
SMU ----------------------------------------------- Squatter Management Unit
SPSS ----------------------------------------------- Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SDMD--------------------------------------------- Spatial Data Management Division
STATIN ------------------------------------------- Statistical Institute of Jamaica
UDC ------------------------------------------------ Urban Development Corporation
UTech--------------------------------------------- University of Technology, Jamaica
WRA ------------------------------------------------ Water Resources Authority
11

INTRODUCTION
Background
The proliferation of informal settlements and its associated challenges is one of the most chronic
social problems confronting the country at this time. This is widely seen as a response to the
low-income and unemployed inability to access affordable land and other housing services. The
unplanned nature of squatter settlements gives rise to:
environmental degradation
public health issues
increased exposure to natural and man-made hazards, as well as
a haven for criminal activities.
Definition
A basic definition of squatting is the illegal or unauthorized occupation of land or housing. A
squatter settlement therefore, can be defined as a residential area which has developed without
legal claims to the land and/ or permission from the concerned authorities to build; as a result of
their illegal or semi-legal status, infrastructure and services are usually inadequate. 1 There are
three characteristics of the squatter settlements which help in an understanding of the
phenomenon: physical, social and legal.
The physical characteristics of squatter settlements usually include services and infrastructure
below the ‘adequate’ or minimum levels. These include water, electricity, roads, and sanitation
among others. Social characteristics of squatter settlements include a population mostly from the
lower income group who are largely employed in the informal sector. Squatter settlements are
(legally) characterised by illegal occupation of land as the settlers have no ownership of the land
which they occupy or build their houses on. Squatting exists in a residential form as well as
agricultural and commercial.
Squatting in Jamaica pre-dates slavery, however it became more pronounced in the immediate
post-slavery era, when the landless ex-slaves were forced to occupy marginal lands in almost all
1 Global Development Research Centre
12

parishes. Jimmy Tindigarukayo (2005) in a policy assessment of squatters in Jamaica identified
five (5) factors which he considered as having aggravated the squatting problem. These were
highlighted as:
rural /urban migration
housing shortage
economic hardships
political support and
availability of idle lands.
Information on the present state of squatting is fairly limited since not many studies have been
conducted. A national squatting survey commissioned by the then Ministry of Land and
Environment and conducted by the University of Technology, Jamaica (UTech) in 2002-2003
revealed that there were approximately six hundred and thirty five (635) squatter settlements
island wide, with approximately seventy-six percent (76%) of these on Government lands.
The Government of Jamaica (GoJ) is cognizant of the island-wide proliferation of squatting and
its attendant challenges. As such the Hon. Prime Minister in April 2008 mandated the Minister
of Water and Housing (MWH) to prepare a report on the status of squatting. The body with
specific responsibility for the report is the SMU. Established in 2006 under the Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands and later transferred to the Ministry of Water and Housing; the SMU goal
is to coordinate government’s response to squatting islandwide and promote planned and
sustainable development of land resources.
13

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The general objective of the project is to assess the status of squatting island wide to inform
options for intervention.
Specific Objectives
1) To provide a historical and spatial overview of squatter settlements island wide
2) To generate a reliable estimate of the population of squatters island wide
3) To determine the level and state of infrastructure within squatter settlements as well as
relationship to surrounding vital infrastructure
4) To determine the environmental context within which squatter settlements exist, that is,
possible impact on a range of natural resources
5) To identify the common hazards that impact squatter settlements
6) To determine the land-use context in which the settlements exist
7) Recommend critical squatter settlements for relocation
Scope of Work
During a Jamaica House discussion between the Honourable Prime Minister and the Honourable
Minister with responsibility for Water and Housing in April 2008 on issues relating to the
housing stock as well as the state of squatting; the Prime Minister cited the need for sufficient
information to be made available about squatting. The Prime Minister commissioned the MWH
to prepare a Squatting Assessment Report in six (6) months.
The study focuses on squatting of government lands. It is a rapid assessment that captures the
general characteristics such as:
location
age of settlements
state of infrastructure
environmental concerns as well as
vulnerability to natural and man-made hazards.
14

The Inter-Agency Steering Committee decided that to quickly prepare the report, fifty percent
(50%) of the five hundred and ninety-five (595) settlements listed is a representative sample.
Methodology
The Assessment is a four step process:
Data collection
Compilation
Analysis
Report preparation
Field Data
Collection
- GOJ Entities
- Students
Data Collection
Primary
SPSS
Secondary
Compilation
Analysis
Spatial
GIS
Report Preparation/
Presentation
Reports
Existing Data
GIS Data Sets
&
Geodatabases
15

Data Collection
Primary Data Collection
Field data was collected with a survey instrument (see Appendix1) designed to gather
information pertinent to the specific objectives of the study. The questionnaire consisted of
twenty-five (25) (mostly closed-ended) items. One (1) questionnaire was intended for each
squatter settlement surveyed and more than half of the items could be answered through
observation.
The administration of the questionnaire was undertaken by the field officers of the various land
related Agencies who had good knowledge of the location and dynamics of the squatter sites.
Where students were employed to assist, they were accompanied by a field officer who operated
as a guide and resource person (see list of contributing Government entities in Appendix 9).
Given the project schedule, the period for fieldwork was limited to three (3) months. At the end
of the period, three hundred and twenty (320) questionnaires were distributed and completed.
The data was entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software
programme (Version 16.0). Various frequencies and cross tabulations were performed on the
data.
Secondary Data
The National Squatter Survey of Jamaica (2004) was used as baseline information and a
reference point for various aspects of this study. Since its establishment in 2006, the Squatter
Management Unit (SMU) with the support of the Social Development Commission (SDC) and
the Parish Councils embarked on an exercise to verify and update the list of six hundred and
thirty-five (635) squatter settlements recorded in the survey. This list along with any additional
settlements identified during the primary data collection phase represents the updated listing of
squatter settlements in this report.
Other relevant information on squatting gathered from collaborating government agencies by the
Unit was also utilized. Even though GIS analysis was dealt with as a separate method, it must be
appreciated that the datasets utilized in the various applications can be considered secondary
data.
16

Analysis
Use of GIS and its related technologies
Geographic Information System (GIS) was applied to the overall analysis of the squatting
situation in Jamaica. This was done by utilising existing secondary geospatial datasets. The
focal areas for GIS analysis are: infrastructure and social amenities; land utilisation and
environmental impact; and natural hazards vulnerability.
GIS analysis utilizing datasets voluntarily provided by a number of inter-agency personnel. The
approach was taken to collect the data was to solicit the effort of entities owning or managing
government lands, to survey informal settlements located on their lands. The GIS analysis of the
squatter settlements was made possible through datasets provided by a number of collaborating
government agencies.
SPSS
The data collected were compiled and entered into SPSS. Statistical analysis in the form of
frequencies and descriptive statistics was done on select variables.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This assessment was commissioned in short notice and without budget. This meant that
resources were not streamlined or dedicated towards its completion. All effort to undertake the
assignment therefore (with the exception of some tertiary students who assisted the MWH with
fieldwork and data entry) was given voluntarily by the relevant staff of various supporting
government agencies. This approach resulted in three hundred and twenty (320) squatter
settlements being surveyed which are less than was initially projected. In addition, some sites
were avoided due to security concerns at the time the visits were planned.
The assessment was not intended to focus on socio-economic variables since much more time
and resources would be needed to undertake this more comprehensive approach. Socio-
economic surveys are usually carried out prior to intervention into a particular settlement.
17

The primary data collected was not geo-referenced. Only textual data was collected; therefore
detailed geospatial analysis could not be carried out.
The squatter settlement base map used in the project was provided by the Mona Geo-Informatics
Institute. It contained approximately five hundred and eighty-five (585) settlements. Only point
data was available and this limited the amount of geospatial analysis being conducted.
Proper GIS analysis could not be conducted.
The main hindrance to the GIS analysis on the environmental and land use component is that
settlements are represented as points, and as such the aerial extent of the settlements could not be
determined. It was therefore not possible to observe how squatter settlements are aligned to
natural resources or how they are positioned to existing planned settlements.
Data accuracy was also a limitation as some of the datasets were outdated and therefore did not
reflect current conditions.
Data standards need to be set to ensure quality of the data. The names of the settlements did not
correspond in the different datasets which increased the difficulty of analyzing the data using
GIS. This needs to be done properly
Due to the fact that all the settlements mapped were not surveyed, the results are presented as an
extrapolation. The settlements that were surveyed and mapped are used to represent the total
squatter settlements in a particular parish. The data that is provided therefore is but a sample of
the actual population of squatter settlements.
18

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON SQUATTING IN JAMAICA
Squatting is a dynamic phenomenon and no one (1) study done in a particular time can satisfy all
areas of reliability after a year or two (2) of the study being carried out. This means that the
assessment of squatting should be an ongoing exercise and the responsibility of a particular
body. Lee, McHardy and K’nIfe (2007) identified a list of studies conducted on squatting in
Jamaica since 1990. This list is represented in Appendix II, however only two (2) of the more
recent studies will be highlighted in this section: Towards a policy and plan for managing
squatting in Jamaica; and the 2004 National Squatter Survey.
Towards a Policy and Plan for Managing Squatting in Jamaica (2007)
A ‘Stock-taking’ Study was undertaken in 2007 by a combined team of local and international
consultants contracted by the World Bank/Cities Alliance in joint support of the Government of
Jamaica’s effort to develop a National Policy on Squatting. The ‘Stock Taking’ Study entitled
‘Towards a Policy and Plan for Managing Squatting in Jamaica’ was undertaken in response to
the perceived absence of firm knowledge about squatters and how squatting may be managed
and countered. It was undertaken as the first part of a proposed four-stage process (see
Appendix III) for policy and programme development and implementation.
One of the conclusions arrived at in the ‘Stock Taking’ Study is that there is little concrete
information about the extent or nature of squatting in Jamaica. The study went on to state that
without knowledge of the magnitude of the phenomenon, its growth and the potential for
upgrading the settlements, it would not be possible to develop a policy to manage the existing
settlements in a sustainable manner. One (1) of the specific recommendations coming out of this
study was for a series of analytical studies that must precede the drafting of a policy. These high
priority studies comprise an assessment of squatting, legal and physical options for managing
squatter settlements, an analysis of land markets in Greater Kingston, Montego Bay and two
smaller urban centres, an analysis of the needs for new housing by different income groups and
collection of the baseline data for this, and studies on housing finance directed to determining
alternative methods of providing financing to lower income households.
19

National Squatter Survey, Jamaica (2004)
The 2004 National Squatter Survey was commissioned by the then Ministry of Land and
Environment (MLE) and prepared by the Urban and Regional Planning Division of the
University of Technology, Jamaica. The study began in June 2002 and the final report was
submitted August 2004. The study sought to assist the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) in
determining the nature and incidence of squatting in the country. More specifically, the study:
1. Undertook a survey of all squatter settlements, both on government and private lands and
of settlements in urban and rural areas that are subject to “lot lease” by owners or
managers of property (land and / or building).
2. Mapped the location of all identified squatter settlements. 2
Of an estimated five hundred and ninety-five (595) settlements in Jamaica, three hundred and
eighty (380) or 64% were surveyed. Eighty-two percent (82%) were in the urban centres and
eighteen percent (18%) in the rural areas. It was also found that of the surveyed settlements:
Seventy six percent (76%) of the squatting took place on Government lands,
sixteen percent (16%) on private lands and the tenure status of eight percent (8%)
was uncertain
Thirty-six percent (36%) of the settlements were in existence for over twenty-five
(25) years.
Kingston and St. Andrew had the largest number of settlements, followed by St.
Catherine, and Manchester was found to have the lowest incidence of squatting.
Most occupants in the squatter settlements were self-employed
There were more male-headed households in these settlements. The survey found
that this amounted to forty-nine point four percent (49.4%), while eighteen point
seven percent (18.7%) of those households were female-headed.
Overall supporting infrastructure and social support facilities were lacking; in
most cases non-existent in the settlements.
2 Urban and Regional Planning Programme, 2004. “National Squatter Survey”
20

HISTORICAL AND SPATIAL OVERVIEW
This report relies mainly on the data gathered to substantiate this chapter.
Historical Context
The root and culture of the squatting presently experienced in Jamaica can be traced back to the
Post-Emancipation period in the country’s history. The end of slavery saw an exodus of former
slaves most of whom were eager to get as far away as possible from both the physical and mental
realities of the plantation. No provision for either land or housing were in place for them
therefore for basic survival they occupied whatever land was left idle whether it be abandoned
plantations or crown lands. Many of these lands however were marginal for agricultural
purposes as well as were located in fairly mountainous terrain.
Despite intermittent effort to rid areas of squatters by both the government and private
landowners the problem has steadily worsened and the last three or four decades have seen a
proliferation of squatter settlement across the length and breadth of Jamaica. Jimmy
Tindigarukayo (2005) in a ‘Policy Assessment of Squatters in Jamaica’ identified five (5) factors
which he considered as having aggravated the squatting problem in Jamaica. These were
highlighted as:
1. rural /urban migration 4. political support
2. housing shortage 5. availability of idle lands
3. economic hardships
In addition to these factors, sporadic as well as ongoing violence (gang or politically related) in
several inner-city/low-income communities have resulted in families fleeing overnight, many of
whom have no other alternative but to squat, most times in locations not suited for housing.
From a more criminal perspective, there are notorious characters referred to as ‘Squatter
Landlords’ who rent, lease or sell structures as well as land over which they have no legal claim.
Beneficiaries are so desperate for shelter that they do not seriously question the legality of these
transactions.
21

Age of Settlements
Figure 1
Age of surveyed informal settlements
66%
1%
5%
10%
18%
0-2 yrs.
3-5 yrs.
6-10 yrs.
11-19 yrs.
20 & over
The findings of the survey revealed as represented by figure 1 that some sixty-six percent (66%)
of settlements have been in existence for twenty (20) years or more. If we look at settlements
which have been around for more than ten (10) years, the proportion would be represented by a
significant eighty-one percent (81%). Fieldwork carried out in 2003 as part of the National
Squatter Survey highlighted that some sixty-five percent (65%) of settlements were in existence
for over ten (10) years.
22

Topography
Figure 2
Despite the mountainous nature of the country, the survey has shown that fifty-five percent
(55%) of squatter settlements are located on lands which are relatively flat (figure 2). These
lands are mostly within flood plains and along coastal areas. The remaining topography as
highlighted in the figure sees twenty-two percent (22%) of the settlements on gently sloping
terrain, seventeen percent (17%) on moderate slopes, while six percent (6%) are on lands
described as very steep.
Map in Appendix X further highlights the relationship between slopes and informal settlements
in Jamaica.
Spatial Context
Jamaica with an approximate area of eleven thousand (11,000) sq. km is the third (3 rd ) largest
Caribbean island and the largest among the English-speaking countries of the region.
Geographically, it is situated at 18 15 N, 77 30 W and therefore enjoys a Tropical Marine
Climate. The country is fairly mountainous with an average elevation of approximately four
hundred and sixty (460) m and a maximum height (Blue Mountain Peak) of two thousand five
hundred and six (2,256) m above sea level.
23

The mountainous interior of the island is flanked to the north and south by inconsistent coastal
plains. The plains are dominantly alluvial in nature with the more significant ones to the south of
the island. The coastal plains are dissected by mostly small, fast-flowing rivers which make their
passage through numerous interior valleys northwards or southwards to the sea.
Location of Squatter Settlements
Politically, Jamaica is divided into three (3) counties and fourteen (14) parishes, each parish with
a principal urban centre representing the administrative capital. The National Squatter Survey
(2004), show that Kingston and St. Andrew followed by St. Catherine had the largest number of
squatter settlements (see 2008 updated listing of seven hundred and fifty-four (754) squatter
settlements in Appendix VIII).
Traditionally, urban parishes are usually cited as Kingston, St. Andrew and St. Catherine with
the others grouped as rural. The survey reveals that rural parishes account for sixty-two percent
(62%) of settlements surveyed as against thirty-five percent (35%) in urban parishes.
Previous supporting research on squatting has shown that squatter settlements in rural parishes
are actually located within or on the fringes of the urban centres in these rural parishes
POPULATION
Reliable estimate of squatting population in Jamaica has to take into consideration the distinction
between the types of squatting. Previous studies carried out on squatting locally, have estimated
the residential squatting population within the range of fifteen percent (15%) to twenty-five
percent (25%) of Jamaica’s population. It is the preferred convention to use a range and
percentages as it is extremely difficult to verify every single case of squatting.
24

Of the three hundred and twenty (320) settlements surveyed, two hundred and eighty-eight (288)
responded that two hundred and twenty-two thousand (222,000) persons were living in these
communities. The information revealed that there was an average of eight hundred (800)
persons per settlement. When this average is extrapolated to the three hundred and twenty (320)
settlements surveyed, the estimated population would be two hundred and fifty-six thousand
(256,000) persons. Applying this approach to the seven hundred and fifty-four (754) sites
identified (Appendix VIII), the squatter population would represent approximately twenty
percent (20%) of Jamaica’s population.
In previous paragraphs mention was made of the fact that squatting in Jamaica was not only
residential. Trends highlight that non-residential squatting is a pervasive feature of the Jamaican
landscape. Data obtained from the Forestry Department in April 2008 (Appendix IV) revealed
that there are some one thousand three hundred and thirty-six (1,336) agricultural squatters in
forest reserves across the country. Of this amount, six percent (6%) establish residence on the
properties they farm. In terms of the spread of agricultural squatting, the same data show that the
parishes of Portland and Clarendon account for the highest numbers. Forest reserves occupy
much of the mountainous interior and poor land husbandry practices associated with squatting
can have serious implications for the state of the island’s watershed and other associated natural
resources.
Classification of Settlements by Size
One of the short comings of the National Squatter Survey (2004) is that it did not seek to
establish a typology for squatter settlements. The document ‘Towards a Policy and Plan for
Managing Squatting in Jamaica’ (2007), commented on this deficiency and attempted to
establish one such typology based on reference to previous works as well as observation (See
Appendix V)
Research has shown that typologies of squatter settlements developed in other countries have
been based mainly on factors such as location, building material, settlement pattern and
infrastructure. While a typology of squatter settlements in Jamaica has not been established some
consideration could be given to developing on the one proposed in Appendix V.
25

For the purpose of this study however, an attempt is being made to develop a classification of
squatter settlements by size (number of households). Based on the assumption that one
household in most cases amounts to one household unit or structure, the following table is a
suggested classification and the information represents the 320 sites surveyed.
Table 1: Classification of Settlements by number of Household Units
# of
households/units
Percentage (based
on 320 sites)
Classification
10 or less 18% Incidental squatting
11 – 99 43% Small settlement
100 – 500 22% Medium settlement
Above 500 8% Large settlement
No Response 9%
The present survey has revealed that some of the sites based on size (ten or less
households/units) should not really be classified as settlements but should be referred to, as
indicated in the table as Incidental squatting. In the survey, approximately eighteen percent
(18%) of such sites (incidental) were identified, while some forty-three percent (43%) of sites
fall under the category small settlements. Medium settlements accounted for twenty two
percent (22%) of settlements surveyed, while large settlements comprised approximately eight
percent (8%) of the data.
The survey also revealed that more than six (6) of the large settlements had in excess of one
thousand (1,000) units. Of note are Windsor Heights in St. Catherine with approximately two
thousand two hundred and seventy five (2,275) households; and in St. James, Norwood and
Barrett Hall with over two thousand one hundred (2,100) households/units each.
The most prevalent household size for the squatter settlements as indicated by the pie chart in
Figure 3 below is three (3) to six (6) persons which represents two hundred and eighty seven
(287) of the three hundred and nine (309) sites from which responses were obtained.
26

Figure 3
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIAL AMENITIES
Squatter settlements locally are generally characterized by very poor physical infrastructure and
social amenities. While the GIS analysis was used to examine the location of squatter settlement
in relation to certain vital infrastructure and social amenities, the sample survey was used to
describe the nature and state of these provisions within the settlements. The GIS maps (maps 1
and 2) which follow outline two (2) squatter areas and their proximity to some vital physical
infrastructures and social institutions. A collage of photographs (Appendix VI) taken in several
squatter settlements will further highlight some of the features of these settlements.
27

Map 1 shows the relationship between informal settlements in the Montego Bay area and their
relationship to vital infrastructure such as roads, waste water facilities and potable water pipe
network. It also gives an indication of the distribution of various social amenities.
Map 2 shows several squatted areas in a section of St. Andrew and highlighted two (Mud Town
and Mona Commons) which are of grave concerns based on their associated environmental and
social impacts.
28

Map 1: Informal settlements and community infrastructure in Montego Bay, St. James (prepared by SDMD)
29

Map 2: Informal settlements & Community infrastructure of Mud Town & Mona Commons, St. Andrew (SDMD))
30

Roads and Drains
Where roads exist in squatter settlements, thirty six percent (36%) of these are paved while sixty
four percent (64%) are unpaved (see Figure 4). Where roads are paved, approximately thirty five
percent (35%) of these are in a state of disrepair with significant sections of the paved area
eroded. Though not adequately reported on, most of these settlements have a network of
footpaths some of which can be upgraded to roadways.
Figure 4
Within squatter settlements, there are areas which represent natural pathways for surface water.
Some of these features are small gullies while others have been altered by trenching to allow a
greater volume of water to be controlled while flowing through the settlement. These comprise
approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the drains identified with twenty-two percent
(22%) reported as paved.
31

Main Sources of Domestic Water
Figure 5
Squatters settlements are often said to have limited access to potable water. This study however,
highlights that access within the squatter settlements is no different than the remaining island in
some instances. This is so because there is access to potable water unless there is a direct
shortage in the general area where the settlement lies. Although there is no information on the
ready access of the particular domestic water sources, eighty-five percent (85%) of the surveyed
settlements had access to water through established NWC’s distribution systems and sources
(legal or otherwise). This is evidenced by the information shown in the pie chart above (figure
5), with forty percent (40%) having running water in their houses, twenty-eight percent (28%)
have running water in their yard and a further thirteen percent (13%) obtain water from public
standpipes.
32

Access to Electricity
The survey confirms the vital importance of energy to communities whether formal or informal
in that all communities rely heavily on electrical power supply. The findings reveal that ninety-
five percent (95%) of squatter settlements have access to electricity (figure 6) which suggests
that the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPSCo.) lines are usually in close proximity to these
settlements. From casual observations, it would appear that a large number of connections are
illegal, carelessly undertaken and pose a perennial threat to settlers being exposed to
electrocution.
Figure 6
Sewage Disposal
The inappropriate disposal of waste within squatter settlements is an area of gross concern and
has serious implications for public health, impact on natural resources and the overall state of the
natural environment. As shown in figure 7, the dominant method of sewage disposal in squatter
settlements is the private pit latrine which represents fifty percent (50%) of the disposal options.
33

Figure 7
This is followed by the private flush toilet with thirty-five percent (35%) and the public pit
latrine with twelve percent (12%). All three (3) options pose a serious threat to public health and
the environment in that disposal is simply in a soak away pit or a hole dug on the premises. Plate
1 shows an example of a public pit latrine seen in a squatter settlement.
The remaining three percent (3%) represent other methods of disposal not specified and could
include the unsanitary practice of directly using the bushes or black plastic bags which are then
flung into gullies or other convenient areas. The GIS analysis (refer to Maps 1 and 2) carried out
on selected squatter regions, show that several of these settlements are in close proximity to
central sewage facilities. However, they do not fall within the formal planning regime as there is
no connection to these systems.
34

Plate 1: Showing a Public Pit Latrine
Source: SMU
Garbage Disposal
The survey revealed that some thirty seven percent (37%) of settlements benefit from municipal
garbage collection whether it is through the parish councils or the National Solid Waste
Management Authority (NSWMA). This proactive approach by the authorities is based on some
level of cognizance regarding the far reaching negative impacts of uncontrolled garbage disposal
from squatter settlements on public health and the environment. Open dumps and open burning
of garbage are closely associated and jointly account for the remaining sixty three percent (63%)
of settlements surveyed.
LAND UTILISATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Overview
This section assesses the environmental context within which squatter settlements exist, that is,
possible impact on a range of natural resources. It will also examine the land use context in
which these settlements exist. The assessment was conducted using GIS and related datasets. The
settlements that are used as the sample population are those that were mapped based on the 2004
National Squatter Survey (See Appendix VII for a listing of these settlements).
35

Presentation of data
There are a total of five hundred and eighty five (585) mapped squatter settlements in Jamaica.
The largest number of settlements is in Kingston and St. Andrew, which accounts for seventeen
percent (17%) of the squatter settlements in total. This is followed by St. Catherine with eleven
11% share and Hanover and Clarendon, both with ten percent (10%) each (See Figure 8 and Map
3).
Parish
St. Elizabeth
St. James
Figure 8
Squatter Settlements in Jamaica by Parish
Hanover
Kingston & St. Andrew
St. Thomas
St. Ann
Trelawny
St. Catherine
Westmoreland
Clarendon
Manchester
Portland
St. Mary
2
3
3
4
7
8
8
8
9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
10
Percentage
10
11
17
36

Map 3: Showing the number of squatter settlements in Jamaica by parish.
37

In observing the distribution of the settlements islandwide, it is clear that there is a concentration
of squatting in and around built up areas. This is evidence that squatter settlements are usually
located close to existing utilities and services or close to opportunities where they can provide
unskilled labour at minimum transportation cost.
Map 4 shows the location of squatter settlements, in relation to natural resources and
environmental features.
Location of Squatter Settlements
Parish Protected Area Bauxite Reserves Forest Reserves
Hanover 3 - -
Kingston & St. Andrew 2 - 2
Clarendon 6 1 1
St. Catherine 4 6 1
St. James - 2 -
St. Elizabeth - 15 -
Manchester - 7 2
Trelawny - 9 3
St. Ann - 22 2
Total = 15 64 11
Table 2
38

Map 4: Map of Jamaica showing squatter settlements, natural resources and built up areas, Land Capability Classification of Squatter Settlements in
Jamaica
39

Map 5: Map of Jamaica showing the distribution and land capability classification of squatter settlements.
40

Of the five hundred and eighty five (585) mapped squatter settlements in Jamaica, thirty eight
percent (38%) are on arable lands, thirty-five percent (35%) on marginal lands and three percent
(3%) on urban lands. There was no data for the remaining twenty-four percent (24%) (figure 9).
Arable lands are those that are fit for cultivation while marginal lands are difficult to cultivate
and have very little yields.
Figure 9
Land Capability of Squatter Settlements in Jamaica
3%
24%
35%
38%
Arable
Marginal
Urban
No data
St. Elizabeth has the largest percentage of squatter settlements located on arable lands with sixty
five percent (65%) occupying arable lands. This is followed by Clarendon with sixty four
percent (64%) and St. Catherine with sixty one percent (61%). Trelawny has the smallest
percentage of squatter settlements with seven percent (7%) on arable lands. The second smallest
percentage of squatter settlements on arable lands is Kingston and St. Andrew with fourteen
percent (14%) (See Figure 10).
41

Figure 10: Showing land capability classification of squatter settlements in Jamaica by parish.
P e rc e n t a g e
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
59
36
St. Mary
5
0
Land Capability Classification of Squatter Settlements in Jamaica by Parish
30
15
Portland
2
53
25
67
Manche ste r
8
64
25
60
30
11 10
61
19
20
7
43
0 0 0 0 0
Cla re nd o n
We stmorela nd
St. C atherine
Land Use of Squatter Settlements
Trelaw ny
50
Parish
22
62
St. An n
12
4
47 47
St. Thomas
14
30
56
47 47
6
6
0 0 0
Kingston & St. An drew
Arable Marginal Urban No data
Hano ver
21
48
St. James
65
22
17
14 13
St. Elizab eth
Vegetation Cover of Settlements
Shrub was the most common vegetative cover of squatter settlements. The tree cover of more
than sixty percent (60%) of the squatter settlements in Portland is agricultural crops. St. Thomas,
Hanover and St. Elizabeth also have a large percentage, with over thirty percent (30%) of their
squatter settlements with agricultural crops as the vegetation cover. None of the settlements
were void of vegetative cover (See Figure 11).
0
42

Physical Zone of Settlements
Percentage
Percentage
120
100
80
60
40
20
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
St Mary
29
6
St. Mary
41
6
Portland
33 33
0
Portland
Manchester
100
Figure 11
Figure 12
Physical Zone of Squatter Settlements by Parish
50
59
0 0 00 0 00
0
Manchester
Vegetation Cover of Squatter Settlements by Parish
Clarendon
Clarendon
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
21
7
St Catherine
18
9
55
St. Catherine
9
Trelawny
40
20
Trelawny
Parish
75
13
40
20 20
0 0 0 0 0
Parish
St. Ann
St. Thomas
70
Kingston & St. Andrew
20
50
40
63
38
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hanover
St. James
Watershed area River valley Flood plain Coastline Wetlands Other No response
St Ann
St Thomas
Kingston & St Andrew
Original tree cover Agricultural crops Secondary vegetation shrub Secondary vegetation grass
Secondary vegetation woodland Secondary vegetation bare No response
Hanover
St James
13
St Elizabeth
St. Elizabeth
13
0
43

The majority of squatter settlements are located in watershed area (Figure 12). Noticeably too, is
the percentage of squatter settlements located along the coastline and in a wetland area.
Figure 13 shows the major type of land use within squatter settlements as residential. This is
followed by residential and agricultural. Residential and agricultural land uses are highest in
those parishes which also had agricultural crops as the vegetative cover (Refer to Figure 11).
Percentage
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
47
6
29
St. Mary
18
33 33 33
Portland
Figure13
Major Types of Land Uses within Squatter Settlements in Jamaica
100
75
17
13
14 14
10 9
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manchester
Clarendon
62
Westmoreland
St. Catherine
100
Trelawny
50
13 13
0 0 0 0 0
Parish
St. Ann
60
40 40 40
St. Thomas
Kingston & St. Andrew
50 50 50
10
0 0 0 0
Hanover
6
25
St. James
6
50
13 13
St. Elizabeth
Residential Agriculture Residential & Agriculture Commercial Residential & Commercial No Response
Environmental Impact
In assessing the environmental impact of squatter settlements, it cannot be isolated from the
associated risk to human health as a result of the damage to the physical environment (both the
natural and the built) arising from the squatting process. Much of the problems stem from the
fact that squatters are not concerned with sustainable development; instead, they are more
interested in satisfying their present needs and do not realize that their livelihood and health are
being compromised.
13
44

The primary concerns as it relates to the environmental impact are the proximity of squatter
settlements to forest reserves and other protected areas and distances to water sources and
waterways. The majority of squatter settlements in each parish are located in a watershed area.
Several of these watershed areas are also forest reserves and as such become exposed to threats
such as depletion of biodiversity, soil erosion on steep slopes and contamination of water sources
which have their sources or are otherwise located in these areas. These along with those that are
located along the coast increase the risk of contamination of waterways. It follows that the
inadequate disposal of sewage and solid waste leads to the contamination and pollution of rivers,
gullies, drains and ground water supplies.
Squatter settlements are mostly located close to natural resources from which the population can
make a livelihood, for example:
Bays for fishing
Lands suitable for agriculture
Where they can obtain employment at minimum transportation cost (example close to
mines)
Lands that are considered idle because they are not being actively used
Lands on which they can access firewood and charcoal for cooking
Approximately ten percent (10%) of the squatter settlements [eighty eight (88) settlements] are
located in environmental fragile areas.
The second major type of land uses within squatter settlements is residential and agricultural
which is consistent with the number of squatter settlements with vegetation cover as agricultural
crops (see figures 11 and 13).
45

Squatting along Waterways
People squat on the banks of gullies and rivers, exposing large numbers of lives to risk when
there is flooding. It is not only lives which are at risk but vital watershed areas such as the Rio
Cobre and the Hope River watersheds have been severely impacted by the indiscriminate
practices of informal settlers.
Of the five hundred and eighty five (585) mapped squatter settlements in Jamaica, one hundred
and thirty eight (138) of them are within 100m of a waterway (see map 6), while more than fifty
percent (50%) of the squatter settlements in Kingston & St. Andrew and St. Thomas are within
100m of a waterway (See Table 2).
Map 6: Squatter settlements within 100m of a waterway.
46

Table 3: Percentage of squatter settlements that fall within 100m of a waterway.
Parish
No. of Squatter
Settlements
No. of Squatter
Settlements Less
than 25m from a
waterway
No. of Squatter
Settlements 25m
- 50m from a
waterway
No. of Squatter
Settlements 50m -
100m of a
waterway
Percentage of Squatter
Settlements within 100m of a
waterway
Westmoreland 50 2 1 4 8%
Hanover 19 2 1 2 11%
St. James 48 5 1 4 8%
St. Elizabeth 23 0 3 1 4%
Manchester 12 0 2 0 0%
Trelawny 42 0 1 3 7%
St. Ann 60 1 0 6 10%
St. Mary 44 0 2 5 11%
Portland 47 2 1 5 11%
St. Thomas 19 1 4 6 32%
Kingston & St. Andrew 97 11 7 32 33%
St. Catherine 64 9 3 1 2%
Clarendon 56 1 3 6 11%
A large number of squatter settlements are on the banks of gullies. The banks of the paved
gullies were not constructed to withstand the weight of housing development. It is therefore
important that setbacks are observed. The National Works Agency (NWA) dictates the setback
from gullies and riverbanks, which varies sometimes based on the topography and strength of the
waterway’s current when in spate. Plate 2 shows a section of an informal settlement in Tavern,
St. Andrew. There were two setbacks used to determine how many settlements had the potential
to be affected whenever the river is in spate. The plate shows that along that small stretch of the
river, more than fifteen (15) properties are likely to be affected, either by landslides or
floodwaters.
47

Plate 2: Settlements within 6.1 and 12.2m setback from the Hope River
48

NATURAL HAZARDS VULNERABILITY AND MANAGEMENT
Construction Material
Figure 14
Squatter settlements in many instances are among the areas most severely impacted during
natural disasters. This is due not only to location of these settlements but also the nature of the
material from which the majority of them are constructed. Figure 14 shows that sixty three
percent (63%) of the units are constructed mainly from a combination of concrete and board
followed by board with twenty percent (20%). Concrete only comprised fourteen percent (14%)
of construction material. It should be noted that the construction material is linked to the
material make-up of the walls of the house.
49

Environmental and Natural Hazards
The survey revealed as indicated in Figure 15 that squatter settlements are exposed to a variety of
environmental hazards, some related to the physical context of the site while others are induced
by the practices evident within the settlements.
Figure 15
Bush fires and landslides combine to account for hazards affecting twenty eight percent (28%) of
settlements and these are related to location. Solid waste disposal alone is dominant for twenty
six percent (26%) of settlements while water pollution also poses a concern. The remaining
percentages did not highlight the particular hazard but un-coded responses pointed to flooding as
potential hazards for a number of settlements.
Map 7 shows that the three (3) main natural hazards to which squatter communities are
particularly vulnerable are flooding, landslides and storm surges. Settlements located on the
banks of gullies and channels of rivers, notably along the Hope River are at constant risk of
being serious impacted by flooding from inland storm water sources. Squatter areas along the
South Coast, particularly sections of Bull Bay, Old Harbour Bay and Rocky Point, Clarendon are
at constant risk of been affected by a combination of storm surges and general coastal flooding
associated with poor or non-existent drainage infrastructure. Some squatter areas in St. Andrew
and St. Mary as indicated by Maps 7 and 8 are particularly vulnerable to landslides.
50

Map 7: Showing informal settlements and vulnerable communities
51

Map 8: Showing St. Mary landslide vulnerability map and informal settlements (ODPEM)
52

CONCLUSIONS
The survey results of the three hundred and twenty (320) selected squatter settlements as well as
GIS mapping of the five hundred and ninety (595) sites have resulted in several conclusions
being drawn. Among these conclusions are:
.
1. Sixty-six percent (66%) of squatter settlements in Jamaica have been in existence for
more than twenty (20) years.
2. Some seven hundred squatter sites locally which comprise about twenty percent
(20%) of Jamaica’s estimated population of two point seven (2.7) million
3. The majority of squatting in Jamaica is residential.
4. Physical infrastructure (roads and drains) within squatter settlements are either poorly
developed or non-existent.
5. Squatter settlements have access to water and electricity but connection in most cases
are illegally made.
6. Sewage, water and electricity mains are within access to the majority of squatter
settlement.
7. Some thirty seven percent (37%) of the squatter settlements benefit from municipal
garbage collection while the remaining resort to a combination of open dumps and
burning. The findings of the research should direct some commendation to the
relevant authorities for making provisions to collect garbage from a number of
informal settlements.
8. There is no infrastructure for proper disposal of sewage waste within squatting
communities hence the dominant methods are soak-away pits and pit latrines.
9. Squatter settlements are located close to natural resources with the majority being in
watershed areas.
10. With regard to land capability, arable lands account for the greater number of squatter
settlements (thirty eight percent) followed closely by marginal lands.
11. The common natural hazards to which squatter areas are vulnerable have been
identified as flooding, earthquakes, landslides and storm surges.
53

RECOMMENDATIONS
The study has given further insights into the state of squatting and the characteristics of squatter
settlements locally. The following are recommendations which are deemed relevant based on the
results of the investigations and analyses carried out.
1. One of the functions assigned to the Squatting Management Unit (SMU) is to assist in the
development of a National Policy to manage squatting in Jamaica. A four-stage approach
was outlined to include Stock-taking, Analytical Studies, Policy Formulation and Policy
Implementation. The World Bank/Cities Alliance collaborated with the GoJ to undertake
the Stage One study out of which several analytical studies were prioritized to provide
additional data for policy formulation. The identification of funding to conduct these
studies has however been a challenge and as such, the identification of funds to complete
of the process of developing a national policy and implementation plan to manage
squatting should be given priority.
2. The SMU presently has an approved structure and staff of three persons including
support staff. This present structure is grossly inadequate to undertake the various
functions assigned to address the squatting situation. A new structure has been developed
and given the serious challenges associated with squatting, priority should be given to its
approval. In addition the technical capacity of the SMU needs to be built with increased
personnel and relevant GIS/GPS technology to facilitate comprehensive mapping of and
information gathering on squatting in Jamaica.
3. The present legislative framework needs to be updated to make it more effective. The
Trespass Act of 1851, Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act along with existing
legislation that can be used to address squatting need to be amended. In addition the
enactment of new legislation to address all aspects of squatting needs to be fast tracked.
Of note there are several development related laws on the books to address squatting
issues at an early stage. The Local Authorities need to acknowledge their role in
54

preventing and containing squatting through increased enforcement of these relevant
statutes
4. A set of guidelines aimed at addressing issues associated with squatting were developed
by the then Ministry of Land and Environment and approved by Cabinet in 2005. Since
then a number of inefficiencies have been highlighted by various user agencies who have
expressed the need for changes. The existing Guidelines for Dealing with Informal
Settlers should therefore be reviewed to provide an interim policy framework in the
absence of a national policy on squatting
5. This Rapid assessment exercise is a further development of the information base
necessary to provide vital information to inform decisions aim at addressing squatting.
Based on the dynamism of the present squatting situation, ongoing assessment
incorporating the use of imagery is necessary and mapping of squatter settlements should
be updated on a regular basis
6. The GIS analysis utilized in the study was based on general squatting areas and not
particular settlements. To be better able to evaluate the impact that squatter settlements
have on the environment and natural resources, it is recommended for instance, that the
levels of pollution and contamination of waterways close to squatter settlements be
measured and compared to pollution levels of those compared to national standards.
When information is required at the settlement level, site specific assessment has to be
undertaken.
7. It is very important that boundaries are observed, and therefore it is imperative that the
GPS technology be used to map the boundaries of the squatting. If this information is
provided and updated annually, then it will be possible to observe trends over specific
time periods.
8. Where in the opinion of the relevant technocrats the existing sites are not deemed
extremely hazardous or environmentally sensitive, the land not needed for national
55

development and there is existence of basic infrastructure, squatter settlements with over
five (500) households should be considered for automatic regularization. For settlements
below five hundred (500) households, site specific assessment should be undertaken to
determine the appropriate course of action.
9. Cases of incidental squatting (less than 10 units on site) should be investigated with a
view to demolishing the structures unless regularization or relocation is the optimal
approach.
10. The Security forces have been making their services available to provide security for
personnel involved in tackling squatting. They however need to play a more proactive
role in helping to stem the proliferation of squatting locally by being empowered legally
and through training to intervene at the first sight of squatting.
11. Government Ministries, Agencies as well as private land owners should take greater steps
to secure and monitor their lands against squatting as well as utilize legal provisions
available to them to avert squatting
12. Given the magnitude of the squatting problem, the limited lands that are available for
relocation, the fact that many of these settlements are well established albeit in a
haphazard manner, and the need for urgent solutions, the relevant Ministries and
development approval agencies will have to agree on minimum development standards to
facilitate regularization, upgrading and relocation exercises where such provisions are
warranted.
13. Given the challenges to identify suitable lands for relocation, the high cost of
infrastructure and the social implications associated with displacement of communities,
relocation of informal settlements should be approached with caution. However, some
amount of relocation is inevitable and although there are some obvious disaster zones
wherein people should not be living, high importance should be given to conducting site
specific investigations aimed at developing a priority list of settlements to be relocated.
56

This prioritization exercise should be undertaken jointly by (but not limited to) the SMU,
Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM), National
Environment Protection Agency (NEPA), Social Development Commission (SDC)
Parish Councils and the Police.
14. The Community Social Initiative programme should be extended to squatter settlements
so as to empower residents to thrive towards available opportunities to uplift themselves
and hopefully divorce themselves from a state of squatting.
15. A moratorium on squatting needs to be announced by the Prime Minister taking into
consideration adequate time for a public education campaign and the strengthening of the
monitoring and enforcement capabilities of relevant agencies. At the end of this period
there needs to be a zero tolerance approach to squatting. It must be noted that for this to
be effective there must be a buy-in from all stakeholders - public and private landowners,
political directorate, enforcement entities and any other relevant bodies.
16. Resources should be sought for providing housing solutions for present squatters who
need to be relocated. There needs to be a proactive approach to the provision of housing
solution, for example where labour intensive development is taking place simultaneous
provisions need to be made for housing workers.
57

REFERENCES
Tindigarukayo, Jimmy. 2005. Squatters in Jamaica – A Policy Assessment: Sir Arthur Lewis
Institute of Social and Economic Studies: University of West Indies, Mona Campus Kingston,
Jamaica WI.
Urban and Regional Planning Programme, 2004. “National Squatter Survey”: University of
Technology, Kingston, Jamaica. Prepared for the Ministry of Land and Environment.
World Bank/Cities Alliance 2007. Squatting Management Report June 2007: Towards A Policy
And Plan for Managing Squatting in Jamaica: Kingston, Jamaica.
Squatter Management Symposium 2008, Managing Squatter Settlements in Trinidad and
Tobago: Towards Sustainable Development, Hyatt Regency Trinidad, November 19 – 20, 2008.
Mona GeoInformatics Institute, 2008. Mapped Squatter Settlements in Jamaica, University of
the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica W.I.
Global Development Research Centre http//www.gdrc.org/uem/define-squatter.html
58

APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
MINISTRY OF WATER & HOUSING
SQUATTER SITE INVESTIGATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain selected information on squatter settlements
in Jamaica. All responses should be as accurate as possible, as incomplete or inaccurate
responses will only result in inadequate planning. One questionnaire is intended for one
settlement; it is not a house to house survey. (Please provide sketch/photograph of each
settlement where possible)
1. a) Name of Settlement: ________________________
b) Rural or Urban? ___________________________
c) Location/Parish ____________________________
__________________________
__________________________
2. Who owns the land on which this settlement is sited?
a) Government
b) Privately-owned
c) Church
d) Don’t Know
3. If land is privately owned, give owner’s name:
a) Name ______________________________________
b) Address ____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
c) Telephone # _________________________________
4. If government-owned, identify the agency.
a) Commissioner of Lands
b) Ministry of Housing
c) Urban Development Corp.
59

d) Forestry Department
e) National Water Commission
f) Parish Council/KSAC
g) Other (please name) ______________________________________
5. Describe the topography of the land on which settlement is located:
a) Relatively flat
b) Gently sloping
c) Moderately sloping
d) Very steep
6. The vegetation cover is:
a) Original tree cover
b) Agricultural crops
c) Secondary vegetation (shrub grass woodland bare )
7. In which physical zone is the settlement located?
a) Watershed Area
b) River Valley
d) Flood Plain
e) Coastline
f) Wetlands
g) Other (specify)________________
8. How long has this informal settlement been in existence?
a) 0 – 2 years
b) 3 – 5 years
c) 6 – 10 years
d) 11 - 19years
e) 20 or more years
9. What is the predominant tenure of the occupants on this site?
a) Own
b) Rent
c) Lease
d) Squatted
e) Other (Specify) ________________
10. What is the average household size?
a) < 3 persons
b) 3-6 persons
c) 7-10 persons
d) > 10 persons
11. State the number of units on the site ______________________________
60

12. Estimate the number of persons living in this settlement
13. Identify the predominant construction material used.
Construction Material of Structures
Concrete
Board
Concrete/Board
Zinc sheeting
Cardboard
Wattle and daub
Rough wood
Nog
Other
14. Identify the major types of land uses within the settlement:
a) Residential
b) Agriculture
c) Residential & Agricultural
d) Commercial
e) Residential & Commercial
f) Industrial
g) Institutional
h) Recreational
i) Other ____________
(Specify)
15. a) How many of the occupants farm these lands? ______________________
b) What are the main crops cultivated?
_____________________________________________________
16. What is the main method of garbage disposal?
a) Municipal Collection
b) Open Dumps
c) Burnt
d) Other (specify)______________
17. What is the main type of sewage disposal used by the residents of this settlement?
a) Private flush toilet
b) Public flush toilet
c) Private pit latrine
d) Public pit latrine
61

e) Bush/Gully
f) Other (Specify) __________________
18. Which of the following infrastructure exists within the community?
(i) Footpaths (ii) Roads (iii) Sidewalks (iv) Drains
paved paved grassed concrete
unpaved unpaved earth grassed
paved earth
covered
open
19. Provide a brief description of the quality of the roads and drains.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
20. What is the main source of water in the community?
a) Running water (in house)
b) Running water (in yard)
c) Public Standpipe
d) Public Tank
e) Other (specify) ____________________
21. Identify the other utilities available within the community
a) Electricity
b) Telephone
c) Cable
d) Other (specify) ____________________
22. What kind of environmental hazard is the settlement exposed to?
a) Water pollution
b) Air pollution
c) Chemical Wastes
d) Solid Waste
e) Bush fire
f) Landslide
g) Other ______________________________________
23. Identify any formal community groups in this community?
a) Neighbourhood Watch e) Citizens Association
62

) Environmental group
c) Youth club f) Entertainment group
d) Sports club/group g) Cultural group
h) Other: (specify) ______________________
24. What type of community facilities exists within the community?
a) Community centre e) Playfield
b) Nursery f) Basic School
c) Child care centre g) Other (Specify)______________
d) Church
THIS SECTION IS TO BE COMPLETED INTERNALLY
25. a) Latitude: ______________________ b) Longitude: ______________________
c) Outline boundaries of settlement:
North _________________________________________________
South _________________________________________________
East __________________________________________________
West _________________________________________________
d) valuation # _________________ e) Volume __________ f) Folio ___________
g) Size of land (sqm) __________________________
Name of Interviewer ________________ Date: _________
63

APPENDIX II
Studies on Squatting in Jamaica since 1990
Clarke, Colin G. (2006) Kingston Jamaica Urban Development and Social Change 1692-2002.
Provides a brief historical perspective on squatter settlements in the Kingston Metropolitan Area from
1944 to 1991, including information on the physical and social characteristics of these settlements and the
political context of their evolution.
Eyre, L. Alan (1997) ‘Self-Help Housing in Jamaica’. In Robert Potter and Dennis Conway (eds.) Self
Help Housing, the Poor, and the State in the Caribbean.
Discusses the turnaround in support for the long tradition of self-help housing in Jamaica by examination
of the development of informal communities at Riverton City, Hangman Burial Ground, Whitehall,
Flankers and Holland.
Ferguson, Bruce (1996) “The environmental impacts and public costs of unguided informal settlement;
the case of Montego Bay” Environment and Development.
Quantifies the costs of providing infrastructure to unguided informal settlements (squatter upgrading) and
shows them as comparable to those for government-produced serviced sites and privately produced
moderate income projects.
Government of Jamaica, Portmore to Clarendon Park Highway 2000 Corridor Development Plan 2004-
2025. 2004.
Contains a list of squatter settlements and the estimated population along the corridor in south St.
Catherine and south Clarendon.
Land Administration & Management Programme (2007). End of Project Report.
Includes a case study of the regularization of a squatter community on private land at Union Pen
(Lauriston), St Catherine.
McHardy, Pauline (1997) Draft Resettlement Policy.
Contains information on the principles and conditions of Operation PRIDE, legal constraints to
resettlement, and resettlement experience in Jamaica including a review of the UDC Orange Bay Sites
and Services Project.
Ministry of Land and Environment, National Squatter Survey Final Report, August 2004.
Presents data and information on the number, nature and characteristics of squatter settlements in Jamaica
from a 2002 survey – see text for comment.
Mohammed Asad and Julia McCray-Goldsmith (1994) Operation PRIDE: Draft Policy and
Programmatic Framework.
The report was prepared on the basis of findings and recommendations generated by ASCEND and
participants at a seminar “Low-income Settlements Solutions: A National Approach”, 1994.
PADCO (1993) Housing in Montego Bay: A Case Study Analysis Using GIS, Aerial Photographs and
Housing Typology.
Presents census, aerial photo interpretation and field observation data on the status of housing in Montego
Bay as a GIS case study. Provides a housing typology for the analysis of growth in formal and informal
housing between the 1982 and 1991 censuses.
64

Tindigarukayo, Jimmy K. (2005) Squatters in Jamaica: A Policy Assessment.
Provides a brief background on factors contributing to squatting and discusses problems encountered on
the Operation PRIDE Scheme. Reports the findings of a 2001 survey of 791 randomly-selected
household heads in squatter settlements, with data collected by STATIN. The questionnaire covered
demographic and socio-economic characteristics, questions relating to land tenancy and questions relating
the squatters’ priorities. A list of tabulations and figures from this survey is included as Annex Table
A17.
Other papers by Tindigarukayo listed in the bibliography cover similar ground.
65

APPENDIX III
Proposed four Stages towards Development of a National Policy on Squatting
‘Stage 1 – Stock Taking and Proposal Development: A rapid stock taking of available information
and analysis of key land and housing data generated by the Government of Jamaica is required as
an initial step in the process of developing a squatter management policy and program. A detailed
proposal for the development of a squatter management policy and program would follow this
stock-taking exercise. Key deliverables would include: (i) an analytical report summarizing existing
data and critical knowledge gaps in the areas of squatter management, informal settlements, low-
income housing, land supply and related topics; (ii) identification of subsequent in-depth
information and analytical requirements (e.g. land market and housing assessments, squatter
settlement inventory, etc.) that require more intensive investigative work than is possible in stage 1;
(iii) identification of a detailed work plan covering the ensuing stages; (iv) development of ToRs
for key activities and deliverables in subsequent stages of in-depth analysis, policy and program
development; and (v) development of a complete grant proposal on behalf of the GoJ to the Cities
Alliance to finance activities in Stages 2-4 outlined below. A key outcome of this stage would be to
understand the ‘universe’ of information needs and identify strategies to meet them prior to, during
and after policy development. (Timeframe: 2-3 months)
‘Stage 2 - Analytical Work: GoJ would commission and finalize a series of key analytical studies
(e.g. land market assessments, inventory of squatter settlements, housing market demand
assessment, etc.) based on the results of Stage 1 and the ToRs developed at that stage. (Timeframe:
4-6 months; overlapping with Stage 3)
‘Stage 3 - Policy Development and Program Design: Develop in a consultative and participatory
manner policy instruments and programs that reflect the analytic work and the capacity of the
Government to implement. Linked to the policy instruments in this stage would also be the need to
develop necessary legal instruments that would provide legal cover for future programs. More
specifically, this stage would include all necessary legislative and regulatory framework reform and
an extensive program of public consultations. (Timeframe: 2-3 months)
66

‘Stage 4 - Program Launch and Implementation: This last stage would be an ongoing exercise based
on an action plan developed in the previous stage. Program implementation would involve a series
of sub-stages, deliverables and actions that cannot be specified at this point. However, it is
envisioned that these programs are driven and led by Government agencies with the periodic
support of external consultants on an increasingly diminishing basis. (Timeframe: Ongoing)’
67

APPENDIX IV
AGRICULTURAL/STRUCTURAL SQUATTING ON FOREST
RESERVE
PARISH TYPES OF SQUATTING TOTAL
AGRICULTURAL *STRUCTURAL
No. Squatters
Portland 360 2 362
St. Thomas 47 2 49
St. Andrew 174 39 213
St. Mary 30 30 60
St. Ann 75 0 75
Clarendon 345 0 345
Manchester 10 1 11
Trelawny 90 14 104
St. James 64 9 73
Hanover 21 18 39
Westmoreland 4 1 5
Total 1220 116 1336
68

3.2.6 A typology of squatter settlements
APPENDIX V
While it is difficult on the current available data to make conclusive statements on squatter settlements in
Jamaica past studies and recent anecdotal evidence suggest a typology of squatter settlements in Jamaica
as shown below.
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Box 3: A Typology of Squatting in Jamaica
Most of these settlements were formed before 1980. They are usually dense
and found on vacant tracts of unattractive land often wedged in between
middle and higher income areas or along gullies, in the former fringes of
major towns. The layout of these settlements is often haphazard with narrow
paths and gully courses often serving as the only entrance to the houses.
Almost all the dwelling units are detached units with the majority constructed
of scrap materials although some newer and rebuilt house is of concrete block.
The land is often occupied illegally, but in some cases the legality of occupation
is complicated or unclear.
These areas are more recent in origin and usually found in peri-urban areas
along steep and almost inaccessible foothills. Settlements are dense and access
to housing units by pedestrian path and alleyways There are virtually no
vehicular roads in these areas. Almost all the dwelling units are detached with
majority built of wooden planks and often on stilts due to the topography.
Some newer and rebuilt houses are made of concrete block. Roofs are
predominantly lightweight corrugated tin, although a few houses have
concrete slabs. Often, but not always the houses, are built and occupied by
their owners. There is evidence of “professional” squatting, defined as those
who own units in more than one squatter settlement for rental purposes. The
land is usually owned by government, but there are some cases where private
where land is involved. Often such land was originally leased but is now
squatted.
This type of settlement is similar to Type 2 but less dense with clear vehicular
access due to less severe topography. Some areas have piped water and
electricity, while the majority of families use pit latrines for sanitation. A
greater proportion of housing units are built of concrete block than in Type 2.
Most of these squatter settlements are on government lands which were
earmarked for formal low-income housing and are often on the edges of such
housing.
The most recent incidences of squatting are occurring in the parishes of St.
Catherine and Clarendon along a corridor which provides easy access to
transportation and to the location of jobs in the major metropolitan area.
Increasingly squatting is taking place along the rail tracks owned by the
Jamaica Railway Corporation and on lands along the irrigation canals.
Settlements are dense and access to housing units by pedestrian path and
alleyways. Almost all the dwelling units are detached with majority built of
wooden planks. There is vehicular access in some of these settlements which
are located on flatter lands than those to Types 1 and 2. The land is usually
owned by government and quasi-government entities.
69

Commercial squatting usually occurs along major transportation routes where
structures are erected to facilitate commercial activities and in some cases is
mixed with residential use.
70

APPENDIX VI
Photographs on squatting
Roadways/Pathways
71

Garbage Disposal
Construction Materials
Ply Structure Concrete Structure
Board/Wooden Structure
72

Environmental Hazard
Debris Flow Rock fall Threat
Bush Fire
73

Sources of Water
Illegal Electricity connection
74

Physical Zones
Coastal Zone Watershed
Flood Plane
75

Agricultural Squatting
76

APPENDIX VII
NAMED SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS USED IN GIS ANALYSIS
** Represents the settlements that coincide in the GIS and in the National squatter survey
Hanover (19 settlements)
1. Fish River, Logwood District - falls within a ‘protected area’, Marginal lands, Agricultural (Improved Pasture;
Cattle),
2. Haughton Hall, Green Island** – Marginal lands, falls within a ‘protected area’
3. Spring Valley, Friendship, Spring Mountain** – falls within a ‘protected area’, 55 metres from the Lookout
River, Arable Lands
4. Eaton (Break Heart), Chambers Pen** – Arable lands,
5. Bulls Bay** - 104 metres from the coast, Marginal lands
6. Esher (Western Section) - 184 metres from a river, 94 metres from the coast, Arable lands
7. Part of Haughton Court** - 48 metres from a river, Arable Lands
8. Global Villas – Arable lands
9. Global Villas II – Arable lands,
10. Esher (Eastern Section) - along the coast,
11. Point** – Marginal lands,
12. Kew I, II and III** – Marginal lands
13. Hopewell (Public Works) - 16 metres from a river, Marginal lands
14. Mosquito Cove (Retirement) – Marginal lands
15. Sandy Bay, Tryall Estate – Arable lands
16. Kenilworth** - 90 metres from Anchovy Gully, Arable lands
17. Old Pen (Cacoon Castle) – Marginal lands
18. Hopewell Farm, Hopewell** - 171 metres from a river, Marginal lands
19. Burnt Ground, Ramble** – Arable lands
Westmoreland (50 settlements)
1. Alma, Grange Hill** – Arable lands
2. Grange Hill Square** – Arable lands
3. Mint Road, Grange Hill** – Arable lands
4. Herring Piece** – Arable lands
77

5. Grange Hill Cemetery** – Arable lands
6. King Valley, Grange Hill – Arable lands
7. Church Lincoln/Kings Valley** – Arable lands
8. Mount Eagle – Marginal lands
9. Masemuir** – Arable lands
10. Negril, Whitehall – Marginal lands
11. Whitehall I** – Arable lands
12. Whitehall II – Arable lands
13. Whitehall, Negril – Arable lands
14. Summerset, Westend** – Marginal lands
15. Non-Pariel** – Arable lands
16. Nonpariel – Marginal lands
17. Revival – Marginal lands
18. Retreat – 89 metres from a waterway, Arable lands
19. Delve Bridge** – Arable lands
20. Station Road, Little London** – within 60 metres of the town of Little London, Arable lands
21. Shanty Town, Top Road, Little London – within 60 metres of the town of Little London, Arable lands
22. Egypt Pen/Big Bridge** – Marginal lands
23. Llandilo, Savana-La-Mar** – Marginal lands
24. Llandilo, Common Lands** – Marginal lands
25. New Market Oval, Savanna-La-Mar** – Not considered
26. Seaton Crescent, Savanna-La-Mar – Not considered
27. Barracks Road** – Arable lands
28. Barracks Road II – Not considered
29. Russia, Hudson Street and Ricket Street** – Not considered
30. Cook Street, Savanna-La-Mar – Not considered
31. New Hatfield – 109 metres from a river, Arable lands
32. Hatfield, Strathbogie** – 121 metres from a river, Arable lands
33. Back Wakefield – 90 metres from a river, Arable lands
34. Paradise** – 18 metres from a river, Arable lands
35. Truro Gate – Arable lands
36. Tollgate, Truro Pen – 161 metres from the Carbarita River, Arable lands
37. Prospect Park** – Arable lands
38. Fort William/Morass Lane** – 58 metres from a river, Arable lands
78

39. Friendship – Arable lands
40. Shrewsbury – Arable lands
41. Roaring River** – Marginal lands
42. Galloway** – Marginal lands
43. Dean’s Valley Water Works – Arable lands
44. Bethel Town Land Development – within 50 metres of Bethel Town, Marginal lands
45. Bethel Town** – within 50 metres of Bethel Town, Marginal lands
46. Kent, Darliston – within 25 metres of Darliston, Arable lands
47. Mount Edgecombe** – Marginal lands
48. White House – 20 metres from a river, Marginal lands
49. Hermitage, Bethel Town** – 141 metres from a river, Marginal lands
50. Unity, Coffee Ground, St. Leonards** – 30 metres from a river, 68 metres from the town of St. Leonards,
Arable lands
St. James (48 settlements)
1. Bogue Land** – Marginal lands
2. Anchovy – 42 metres from the town of Anchovy, Marginal lands
3. York – Marginal lands
4. Red Ground, Montpelier** – 19 metres from Anchovy Gully, Arable lands
5. Mahogany Hall, Mount Carey, Montpelier – 90 metres from Anchovy Gully, Arable lands
6. Richmond Hill – Arable lands
7. Farm Heights, Montego Bay – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (SEPL)
8. Farm – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (SEPL)
9. Seven Rivers** – 9 metres from the Seven River, Arable lands
10. Copper Wood** – 102 metres from a river, Urban lands
11. Copper Wood II – 140 metres from a river, Urban lands
12. Rose Heights, Montego Bay – 165 metres from a river, Urban lands
13. Jamaica School of Hope – Urban lands
14. Jamaica School of Hope II – Urban lands
15. Barrack Road, Montego Bay – Urban lands
16. Railway Lane, Montego Bay – Urban lands
17. Mount Salem – 7 metres from the town of Mount Salem, Marginal lands
18. Barnett River Bank – 3 metres from a river, Marginal lands
19. Albion – Marginal lands
79

20. Canterbury – 15 metres from a river, Urban lands
21. Glendevon** – Marginal lands
22. Rosemount, Montego Bay – Marginal lands
23. Flankers** – Not considered
24. Flankers II – Not considered
25. Flanker’s Montego Bay – Marginal lands
26. Providence Heights – 60 metres from the town of Providence, Arable lands
27. Tucker – Marginal lands
28. Retirement Estate, Granville – 109 metres from a river, Marginal lands
29. Pitfour** – 182 metres from a river, Marginal lands
30. Irwin District, Tropic Gardens – Arable lands
31. Retirement I** – Marginal lands
32. Retirement II** – Not considered
33. Retirement Forest Reserve I and II – Not considered
34. Norwood, Montego Bay** – 113 metres from a river, Marginal lands
35. Norwood – Arable lands
36. Buck Toe Lane (Part of Salt Spring) – Arable lands
37. Melbourne Avenue (Part of Salt Spring) – Marginal lands
38. Outskirts of Cornwall Court, near Green Pond – Marginal lands
39. Blue Hole, Montpelier** – Marginal lands
40. Montego Valley, Sunderland** – 43 metres from a river, Marginal lands
41. Montego Valley, Amity Hall – 16 metres from the Montego River and 42 metres from the town of Amity Hall,
Marginal lands
42. Success South** – Marginal lands
43. Barrett Town** – 70 metres from Barrett Town, Marginal lands
44. Lilliput** – Marginal lands
45. Lilliput, Rose Hall – Marginal lands
46. Grange Pen – 152 metres from a river, Not considered
47. Barrett Hall** – Not considered
48. Barrett Hall II – Not considered
80

St. Elizabeth (23 settlements)
1. Lewisville – Arable lands
2. Long Acres, Fyffes Pen – Arable lands
3. Long Acre-Galleon Beach, Brompton – Arable lands
4. Crane Road, Black River – 174 metres from the Black River and 63 metres from the town of Black River,
located in a ‘bird sanctuary’, Not considered
5. Brigade Street, Logwood, Black River** – 142 metres from Black River and 36 metres from the town of
Black River located in a ‘bird sanctuary’, Not considered
6. Peacock Heights, Black River – 119 metres from Black River and 18 metres from the town of Black River,
located in a ‘bird sanctuary’, Not considered
7. Whitehall #1, 2 and 3 P.L.L., Giddy Hall** – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
8. Farm P.L.L. Giddy Hall – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
9. Lancewood P.L.L., Middle Quarters – 93 metres from the town of Midle Quarters, Arable lands, located in a
Bauxite reserve (SEPL)
10. Bailey Ground Project, Middle Quarters** – 54 metres from the town of Middle Quarters, Marginal lands,
located in a Bauxite reserve (SEPL)
11. New Holland, Middle Quarters – 26 metres from the Y.S River, Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
(SEPL)
12. Holland Bamboo, Middlesex** – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (SEPL)
13. Holland Bamboo – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (SEPL)
14. Holland Mountain P.L.L, Middlesex – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
15. Barton Isle – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
16. Elim, Bogue** – Arable lands
17. Jerusalem – 52 metres from the town of Santa Cruz and 174 metres from a river, Arable lands, located in a
Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
18. Gilnock, Santa Cruz** – 22 metres from the town of Santa Cruz and 171metres from a river, Arable lands,
located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
19. Jerusalem II – 15 metres from the town of Santa Cruz, Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg +
SEPL)
20. Lyceo, Santa Cruz – 43 metres from the town of Santa Cruz, Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg
+ SEPL)
21. Burnt Ground, Santa Cruz** – Arable lands
22. Emmaus, Leeds** – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
23. Northampton, Santa Cruz – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SEPL)
81

Manchester (12 settlements)
1. Alligator Pond** – 54 metres from the town of Alligator Pond and located in ‘forest reserve’, Arable lands
2. Alligator Pond – 68 metres from the town of Alligator Pond and located in ‘forest reserve’, Marginal lands
3. Coleyville – 53 metres from the town of Coleyville, Marginal lands
4. Silent Hill – 26 metres from a river, Marginal lands
5. Mile Gully – 30 metres from the town of Mile Gully, Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
6. Retford – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
7. Greenvale – 178 metres from the town of Green Vale, Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
8. Grey Ground – 36 metres from the town of Mandeville, Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
9. Worries Gully/Hope Property, Kingsland – 13 metres from the town of Mandeville, Marginal lands, located in
a Bauxite reserve
10. Kingsland – 21 metres from the town of Mandeville, Not considered, located in a Bauxite reserve
11. Georges Valley – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
12. Guts River – 47 metres from a river, Marginal lands
Trelawny (42 settlements)
1. Salt Marsh – Marginal lands
2. Salt Marsh (Falmouth, P.O.) – Marginal lands
3. Falmouth Cemetery – 53 metres from the coast, Not considered
4. Waterlane** – 91 metres from the coast and 163 metres from the town of Falmouth, Not considered
5. Sea Board Street, Falmouth – 102 metres from the coast and 119 metres from the town of Falmouth, Not
considered
6. Tharp Street, Falmouth – Not considered
7. Land adjacent Falmouth Gardens Treatment Plant – Not considered
8. Falmouth Gardens Housing Scheme (Vanzie Lands) – Not considered
9. Vanzie Land/Race Course (Falmouth Gardens) ** – Not considered
10. Privately owned land adjacent to public market – located in ‘bird sanctuary’, Not considered
11. Coopers Pen** – Marginal lands
12. Zion – Marginal lands
13. Hague – Not considered
14. Hague, Falmouth – Not considered
15. Danielle Town – Marginal lands
16. Hope Mountain Forest Reserve, Deeside – 118 metres from a river, Arable lands
17. Dromilly Lands (Dromilly District, Deeside) – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
82

18. Unity (Bunkers Hill P.O.) – 130 metres from a ‘forest reserve’, Arable lands
19. Caledonia (Alps P.A.) ** – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite Reserve
20. Belmore Castle – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
21. Quick Step – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
22. Heading – Not considered
23. Troy – 31 metres from the Coco River and 60 metres from the town of Troy, Not considered
24. Wilson Valley – 13 metres from the town of Warsop, Not considered
25. Warsop – 65 metres from the town of Warsop, Not considered
26. Durham – 34 metres from Albert Town, Not considered
27. Bristol – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
28. All sides (Wait-a-Bit P.O.) – 30 miles from the town of Wait-A-Bit and 95 miles from a river, Marginal lands
29. Stewart Castle – Marginal lands
30. Carey Park – Marginal lands
31. Braco (Rio Bueno P.O.) – 166 metres from a river, Marginal lands
32. Brompton Bryan – Marginal lands
33. Middlemost/Samuel Prospect, Duncans – Marginal lands
34. Hyde Hall, Sawyers – Not considered
35. Linton Park, Duanvale – 160 metres from a ‘forest reserve’, Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
36. Kinloss – 50 metres from a ‘forest reserve’, Not considered, located in a Bauxite reserve
37. Hyde, Clarkes Town – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
38. Pamarsus, Clarkes Town – 61 metres from Clarkes Town, Not considered
39. Mack Hill, Clarkes Town** – 61 metres from Clarkes Town, Not considered
40. Cockburn Pen, Clarkes Town – 35 metres from Clarkes Town, Not considered
41. Cockburn Pen, Clarkes Town II – 90 metres from Clarkes Town, Not considered
42. Mahogany Hall – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
St. Ann (60 settlements)
1. Thicketts, Discovery Bay – Marginal lands
2. Domarch 2 and 3, Thicketts – Marginal lands
3. Domarch, Thicketts – Marginal lands
4. Black Ants Corner, Discovery Bay – 85 metres from a river, Arable lands
5. Industry, Gibraltar - located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SML), Marginal lands
6. Summer Hill - located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SML), Marginal lands
83

7. South Hampton, Orange Hill - located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SML), Marginal lands
8. Old Home, Alexandria – 41 metres from the town of Alexandria, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SML),
Arable lands
9. Alexandria Pen – 65 metres from the town of Alexandria, located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SML), Arable
lands
10. Crowns Land, Top Cascade, Frank Hall – Marginal lands
11. Crowns Land, Grants Mountain – Not considered
12. Crown – Marginal lands
13. Crown Lands, Cuffie Ridge/Borrobridge – Arable lands
14. Mount Edgecombe, Runaway Bay – Marginal lands
15. Beach Lot, Cardiff Hall – 200 metres from a river, Marginal lands
16. Salem Fishing Beach, Runaway Bay – 188 metres from the coast, Marginal lands
17. Thatchfield, Bluefield – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
18. Saunders Mine, Laughland – Arable lands
19. Summer Hill, Lewis – Marginal lands
20. Seville Great House Heritage Park** – Marginal lands
21. Cloistan – Urban lands
22. Cloister, St. Ann’s Bay** – Urban lands
23. Old Jail Lane, St. Ann’s Bay – 98 metres from the coast and 105 metres from a river, Arable lands
24. Windsor, St. Ann’s Bay – 33 metres from the Great River, Marginal lands
25. Drax Hall – 104 metres from the Spanish Lookout River, Marginal lands
26. Mammee Bay – 76 metres from the coast, Urban lands
27. Mammee Bay II – 75 metres from the coast, Urban lands
28. Steer Town – Marginal lands
29. Roaring River** – Arable lands
30. Roaring River II – 192 metres from the Dunns River, Arable lands
31. Bogue – Marginal lands
32. Sailor Hole, Ocho Rios – 136 metres from the coast, Urban lands
33. Ocho Rios By-Pass – Urban lands
34. Buckfield Heights, Falklane – 155 metres from a river, Marginal lands
35. Mansfield/Fauklands, Ocho Rios** – Urban lands
36. Land behind Shell Gas Station, Ocho Rios – Arable lands
37. Parry Town, Ocho Rios** – Marginal lands
38. Shaw Park Land** – Marginal lands
84

39. Shaw Park Heights (Lime Bottom) – Marginal lands
40. White River, Ocho Rios – 40 metres from the White River, Marginal lands
41. Fern Gully – 99 metres from a river, Marginal lands
42. Becher Town – Marginal lands
43. Beecher Town – Marginal lands
44. Hiattsfield, Colegate** – 115 metres from Salt River, Arable lands
45. Belmont - located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
46. Walkerswood, Hadden - located in a Bauxite reserve, Arable lands
47. Pheonix Park, Moneague - located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
48. Rio Hoe, Moneague - located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
49. Unity Valley, Moneague - located in a Bauxite reserve, Arable lands
50. Union Hill – located in a ‘forest reserve’, located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
51. Moneague** – 37 metres from the town of Moneague, located in a Bauxite reserve, Arable lands
52. Lebanon, Woodstock – located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
53. Balintoy, Calderwood - located in a Bauxite reserve (reg + SML), Marginal lands
54. Simms Run, Nine Mile - located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
55. Barrett Pen - located in a Bauxite reserve, Not considered
56. York Castle - located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
57. Grants Pen (Tingly) - located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
58. Penny, Harmony Vale - located in a Bauxite reserve, Not considered
59. Douglas Castle – located in a ‘forest reserve’, located in a Bauxite reserve, Marginal lands
60. Pedro River – 52 metres from the Pedro River, Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
St. Mary (44 settlements)
1. Halifax Crawle – Arable lands
2. Hudderfield** – 175 metres from a river, Marginal lands
3. Boscobel** – Marginal lands
4. Boscobel II – Marginal lands
5. Boscobel III – Marginal lands
6. Arcadia, Gayle – Marginal lands
7. Salisbury, Jeffery Town** – Arable lands
8. Wood Park – 92 metres from the Rio Nuevo River, Arable lands
9. Spicy Grove – Marginal lands
10. Coleraime, Oracabessa – 21 metres from the town of Oracabessa, Marginal lands
85

11. Eden Park, Jacks River – 107 metres from the Oracabessa River, Arable lands
12. Tryall** – Arable lands
13. Galina Estates – Arable lands
14. Galina – Arable lands
15. Galina II – Arable lands
16. Wentworth, Port Maria** – 110 metres from a river, Arable lands
17. Palmer Park, Port Maria – 169 metres from the coast and 93 metres from Port Maria
18. Pagee, Port Maria Fishing Beach – 23 metres from the coast, Arable lands
19. Frontier** – Arable lands
20. Frontier Housing Scheme – Arable lands
21. Quebec** – 57 metres from a river, Arable lands
22. Llangley** – Not considered
23. Hampstead Housing Scheme – 112 metres from the Negro River, Marginal lands
24. Hampstead – 72 metres from the Negro River, Marginal lands
25. Tremolsworth** – Arable lands
26. Captured Land (Hopewell, Highgate) – 137 metres from Orange River, Marginal lands
27. Captured Land, Highgate – 65 metres from the town of Highgate, Arable lands
28. Goffeland, Highgate** – 12 metres from the town of Highgate, Arable lands
29. Goffeland, Highgate II – 20 metres from the town of Highgate, Arable lands
30. Siding Railway Land – Arable lands
31. Orange River – 154 metres from the Flint River, Arable lands
32. Richmond Train Line (all the way to Troja) – 35 metres from Flint River, Marginal lands
33. Albany Railway Land – 162 metres from the Stony River, Arable lands
34. Cape Clear – 68 metres from Roaring River, Arable lands
35. Sheerness Property, Robins Bay, Annotto Bay – 120 metres from the coast, Arable lands
36. Colorane Train Line, Agualta Vale – 137 metres from a river, Arable lands
37. Annotto Bay Train Line (town centre to hospital) ** – Arable lands
38. Crooked River, Annotto Bay** – Marginal lands
39. Grays Inn, Pringles, Annotto Bay** – 11 metres from Annotto Bay and 72 metres from Pencar River, Arable
lands
40. Bottom Fort George** – Marginal lands
41. Fort Stewart, Enfield** – 56 metres from the Dry River
42. Epsom** – 125 metres from the Enchanted River, Marginal lands
43. Guava Scheme, Dover Bottom** – Marginal lands
86

44. Iterboreale - Marginal lands
Portland (47 settlements)
1. Whitehall – 39 metres from White River
2. Hart Hill – 191 metres from a river, Not considered
3. Road Reservation/Boat House, Hart Hill – 178 metres from a river, Not considered
4. Part of Hart Hill Cemetery/Playfield – 21 metres from a river, Not considered
5. Railway, Dover to Buff Bay – Arable lands
6. Woodstock Housing Scheme – 197 metres from a river, Not considered
7. Woodstock Housing Scheme II – 173 metres from a river, Not considered
8. Craigmill – 160 metres from White River, Arable lands
9. Railway, Buff Bay – 126 metres from a river, Arable lands
10. Buff Bay – 6 metres from the town of Buff Bay and 200 metres from a river, Arable lands
11. White River Settlement – 5 metres from a river, Not considered
12. Diamond Ridge – 159 metres from a river, Not considered
13. Old Stud Farm, Pleasant Hill – 87 metres from Buff Bay River, Marginal lands
14. Railway, Spring Gardens – 7 metres from a river ad 177 metres from the coast, Not considered
15. Skibo – 67 metres from the Mabess River, Arable lands
16. Chepstowe – Marginal lands
17. Shirley Castle – 146 metres from a river, Marginal lands
18. Railway, Orange Bay – Arable lands
19. Orange Bay – 173 metres from a river, Arable lands
20. Lot 119, Lennox Recreation Area, Orange Bay – 126 metres from a river, Arable lands
21. Lowleigeyton, Warf Lane, Orange Bay – 103 metres from Duncans River, Not considered
22. Lowleigeyton, Swamp Land, Orange Bay – 127 metres from Duncans River, Marginal lands
23. Caenwood, Hope Bay – Arable lands
24. Railway Lands, Sandy Shore, Hope Bay – 97 metres from the coast, Urban lands
25. Union, Hope Bay District – Not considered
26. Railway Lands, Ken Jones to St. Margaret’s Bay – 148 metres from a river and 63 metres to the coast, Not
considered
27. Darley – Not considered
28. Friendship Hall, Durham – Marginal lands
29. Railway, Norwich to White River – Arable lands
30. Bryan’s Bay, Port Antonio – Arable lands
87

31. Railway, Port Antonio – 52 metres to Annotto River and 81 metres to the coast
32. Fellowship Forest Reserve – 23 metres from the town of Fellowship and 152 metres from the Sandy River,
Marginal lands
33. Lots 11 and 12 Stanton Reserve – Not considered
34. Lot 99 Stanton House Reserve – 141 metres from Sandy River, Not considered
35. Forestry House Reserve, 20 Folly Road – 25 metres to the coast
36. Light House Old Dam, Port Antonio – 55 metres to the coast, Arable lands
37. Lot 19, Anchovy I, Folly Road, Port Antonio** – 22 metres to the coast, Not considered
38. Lot 191 Anchovy II Land Settlement** – Not considered
39. Lot 241 Anchovy Land Settlement – Not considered
40. Anchovy, Mangrove Swamp – 198 meters to the coast, Not considered
41. Fairy Hill – 11 metres from the town of Fairy Hill, Arable lands
42. Windsor and Seamans Valley – Not considered
43. Mill Bank Forest Reserve, Comfort Castle – 108 metres from a river, Marginal lands
44. Windsor Forest Reserve** – Not considered
45. Muriton Property – 180 metres to the coast, Not considered
46. Lot 384, Grange Hill, Murton Pen – 147 metres to the coast, Arable lands
47. Bar, Manchioneal – 23 metres from the town of Manchioneal, Not considered
St. Thomas (19 settlements)
1. Easington – 79 metres to the Yallahs River, Marginal lands
2. Albion – Arable lands
3. Albion Estates, Lot 7, Peanut Palm – Arable lands
4. NWC Tank Site, Seaforth, York Hill – 8 metres from the town of Seaforth and 64 metres from a river, Arable
lands
5. Riverside, Seaforth** – 81 metres to Seaforth and 40 metres to a river, Arable lands
6. Morant (Cottage Pen) ** – 180 metres to a river, Arable lands
7. Morant River – 161 metres from the Morant River, Not considered
8. Pleasant Walk, Morant Bay** – 67 metres to a river and 112 metres to Morant Bay, Marginal lands
9. Morant Land Settlement, Morant Bay – 44 meters to Morant Bay, Marginal lands
10. Friendship Pen (Back Bush) – Arable lands
11. Airy Castle – 54 metres from the Ginger River and 3 metres from the town of Airy Castle, Marginal lands
12. New England, West Potosi, Airy Castle – 16 metres from Airy Castle and 58 metres from the Ginger River,
Marginal lands
88

13. New England, Airy Castle – 60 metres to Ginger River, Marginal lands
14. Port Morant (vicinity of dump site) – 185 metres to a river, Arable lands
15. Leith Hall, Morning Star – 23 metres to a river, Arable lands
16. Fort, Leith Hall, Part of East Prospect – 40 metres to a river, Arable lands
17. Lot 97 Lyssons – 132 metres to White River, Marginal lands
18. Lyssons House Reserve, Lyssons** – 79 metres to White River, Marginal lands
19. Charles Town (Stokes Hall), Golen Grove** – 190 metres to a river, Marginal lands
Kingston (97 settlements)
1. Bull Bay – 7 metres to Bull Bay River and 10 metres to the coast, Marginal lands
2. Windsor Lodge, Bull Bay – 55 metres to the coast and 26 metres to Bull Bay River, Marginal lands
3. Windsor Lodge, Bull Bay II – 26 metres to the Bull Bay River and 48 metres to the coast, Marginal lands
4. Temple Heights – 80 metres from the Wagwater River, Arable lands
5. Rosemount, Temple Hall – 71 metres from the Wagwater River, Arable lands
6. Mount Airy** – 111 metres from the Ginger River, Marginal lands
7. Belmoure, Mt James - Marginal lands
8. Redlight District, Irish Town** – 45 metres from a river, Marginal lands
9. Middleton, Redlight** – 41 metres from a river, Marginal lands
10. Jack’s Hill – 77 metres from a river, Marginal lands
11. Maryland** – 10 metres from a river, Marginal lands
12. Jack’s Hill II – 72 metres from a river, Marginal lands
13. Savage Pen, Gordon Town – 8 metres from a river and 27 metres from Gordon Town, Marginal lands
14. Trumpet Tree, Constitution Hill – 111 metres from the Cane River, Marginal lands
15. Flamstead, Mavis Bank – Arable lands
16. Chestervale – 200 metres from the Yallahs River, located in a ‘National Park’ and ‘Forest Reserve’, Marginal
lands
17. Clifton Mt., St. Peters – Marginal lands
18. Cinchona, St. Peters – 62 metres from the Yallahs River, Marginal lands
19. Pleasant Hill – 9 metres from a river, Marginal lands
20. Strawberry Hill – 25 metres from the Green River, located in a ‘National Park’ and a ‘forest reserve’,
Marginal lands
21. Hall’s Delight – 164 metres from a river, Marginal lands
22. Orchard, Mavis Bank** – 25 metres from the town of Mavis Bank, Marginal lands
23. China Beach, Rockfort – 58 metres from the coast, Marginal lands, along the coast
89

24. Bayshore – 36 metres from a ‘forest reserve’, Marginal lands, 47 metres from a forest reserve
25. Harbour View – 180 metres from the coast and 29 metres from the town of Harbour View, Not considered,
177 metres from the coast
26. Harbour View II – 113 metres from the Hope River, Not considered
27. Red Hills – Arable Lands
28. Lower Norbrook** – Not Considered, 20 metres from a waterway
29. Vantage View, Sterling Castle – Marginal lands
30. 8 Miles, Bull Bay – Arable lands, 33 metres from the Charky River
31. Bayview Hills, Bull Bay – Arable lands, 71 metres from the Charky River
32. Wicki Wacki – Arable lands, 57 metres from the Charky River
33. Arcadia – Not considered, 148 metres from a waterway
34. August Town – Not considered, 108 metres from a waterway
35. Cassia Park – Not considered
36. Delacree Park – Not considered
37. Grant’s Pen – Not considered
38. Hope Pastures – Arable lands
39. Hope Tavern – Not considered, 197 metres from a waterway
40. Trench Town – Not considered
41. East Wood Park Rd. – Not considered
42. Birdsucker – Not considered, 89 metres from a waterway
43. Cassava Piece – Not considered, 196 metres from a waterway
44. Cassava Piece – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway
45. Constant Spring Grove – Not considered
46. Marlborough Rd. – Not considered
47. Maxfield Ave. – Not considered, 87 metres from a waterway
48. Mona Commons – Not considered, 187 metres from a waterway
49. Mud Town – Marginal lands
50. Munroe Rd. – Not considered
51. Oddman Lane – Not considered
52. Omara Rd. – Not considered, 151 meters from a waterway
53. Papine – Not considered, 186 metres from a waterway
54. Sandy Park – Not considered, 84 metres from a waterway
55. Standpipe Lane – Not considered, 152 metres from a waterway
56. Swallowfield – Not considered
90

57. Waltham Park Rd. – Not considered, 23 metres from a waterway
58. Wareika Hills – Marginal lands
59. While Hall Ave. – Not considered
60. Tinson Pen – Not considered
61. Caledonia Crescent – Not considered, 200 metres from a waterway
62. William Street – Not considered
63. 100 Red Hills Road – Not considered, 190 meters from a waterway
64. 1-3 Goodwin Park Rd. – Not considered
65. 25 Penwood Rd. – Not considered
66. 66 Old Hope Rd. ** – Not considered
67. 11 Ford Pen Lane – Not considered, 46 metres from a waterway
68. Duhaney Park Water Treatment Plant** – Arable lands
69. Greenwich Town – Not considered
70. Riverton – Not considered
71. Look Out** – Not considered, 106 metres from a waterway
72. Drewsland Phase 3 – Arable lands
73. Bridge Rd. & Preix Rd (Tavern Dr.) – Not considered, 96 metres from a waterway
74. Calaloo Bed – Arable lands, 34 metres from a waterway
75. Hope, Papine – Arable lands
76. Hope Estate – Marginal lands
77. 51 Mannings Hill Rd. – Not considered, 130 metres from a waterway
78. Boardvilla, Admiral Town – Not considered, 62 metres from a waterway
79. Hope Estate-Lease Section – Marginal lands
80. Manor View-Constant Spring – Not considered, 4 metres from a waterway
81. Queensbury Treatment Plant Perkins Blvd. ** – Marginal lands, 81 metres from a waterway
82. Ravinia Courts – Not considered, 24 metres from a waterway
83. Ackee Walk – Arable lands, 76 metres from a waterway
84. August Town – Marginal lands
85. Balmagie – Arable lands
86. Bedward Pasture – Marginal lands
87. Seivwright Gardens – Not considered, 113 metres from a waterway
88. Stanville – Not considered, 25 metres from a waterway
89. Devon Lodge and Dunblair – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway
90. Harbour Heights – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway
91

91. Hope Estate – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway
92. Mavis Bank – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway
93. Palisadoes Park – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway, 163 metres from the coast, located in a
‘protected area’
94. Sigmay Beach, Michael Manley Blvd. – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway, 77 metres from a
waterway, 147 metres from the coast
95. Stony Hill, Long Lane – Not considered, 95 metres from a waterway
96. 70 West Street – Not considered
97. Port Royal Fishing Beach – Along the coast, located in a ‘protected area’
Clarendon (56 settlements)
1. Hosey Property, Spalding – 132 metres to a river, Arable lands
2. Ritches Land Settlement – 140 meters to the Rio Minho River, Marginal lands
3. Palmyra – Arable lands
4. James Hill – 154 metres to Green River, Marginal lands
5. Bull Head – 58 meters from a river and located in a ‘forest reserve’, Marginal lands
6. Clarendon College Land, Chapelton – 25 metres from a river, Not considered
7. Forest Reserve, Danks – Arable lands
8. Clumsy Land Lease, Chapleton – Arable lands
9. Clarendon College – 30 metres to a river, Arable lands
10. Salisbury (Brixton Hill) – Marginal lands, located in Bauxite reserve (reg + SML)
11. Clarendon Park, Scotts Pass - Arable lands
12. Belle Plain Great House – Arable lands
13. St. Toolies, Tollgate – 23 metres from the town of Tollgate, Arable lands
14. Ebony Park** – 169 metres from the town of Tollgate, Arable lands
15. Decoy – Arable lands
16. Rhymesbury P.L.L. York Town – 67 metres from a river, Arable lands
17. Farquhar Beach (Milk River) – 161 metres from the coast, Arable lands
18. Farqhar’s Beach – 155 metres from the coast, Arable lands
19. Race Course (Longwood District) - Arable lands
20. Hayes (Corn Piece) – located in a ‘protected area’, Arable lands
21. Raymond’s, Capture Land – 85 metres to a river, located in a ‘protected area’, Arable lands
22. Lionel Town, King Street – 7 metres to Lionel Town, located in a ‘protected area’, Arable lands
23. Rocky Settlement – 190 metres from the coast, located in a ‘protected area’, Not considered
92

24. Portland Cottage/Food for the Poor – 37 metres from the town of Portland Cottage, located in a ‘protected
area’, Not considered
25. Salt River – located in a ‘protected area’, Marginal lands
26. Rose Hall, Free Town – 143 metres from a river, Marginal lands
27. Rose Hall Race Track, May Pen, Marginal lands
28. Rasta Gully, Free Town** – 190 metres to a river, located in a ‘protected area’, Arable lands
29. Bucknor – Marginal lands
30. Sevens Bush - Marginal lands
31. Seven Heights, Sevens – 96 metres from a river, Marginal lands
32. Ebony Park** – 44 metres from the town of Four Paths, Arable lands
33. Havana Heights (Jacobs Hut) - Arable lands
34. Muirhead Avenue – 130 metres from the St. Ann’s Gully, Arable lands
35. Foga Road, Denbigh – 16 metres from a river, Arable lands
36. Denbigh** – 140 metres from a river, Arable lands
37. Manchester Avenue, Denbigh – 189 metres from a river, Arable lands
38. Rectory Lands, May Pen – Arable lands
39. Brooks Land, Threadlight – 46 metres from the town of May Pen, Arable lands
40. Brooks Common (off Threadlight Street) – 26 metres from the town of May Pen, Arable lands
41. Bucks Common, May Pen** – 11 metres from the town of May Pen, Arable lands
42. Canaan Heights, May Pen** – Arable lands
43. Evans Meadows, May Pen – Arable lands
44. Cuba, May Pen – Arable lands
45. Juno Crescent, May Pen** – Arable lands
46. Over Line, May Pen – Arable lands
47. Bushy Park** – 30 metres from a river, Arable lands
48. Western Park (Harris Street) – 69 metres from a river, Arable lands
49. Buckshaven - Marginal lands
50. Bucks Haven - Marginal lands
51. Long Gully, Effortville – 68 metres from a river, Arable lands
52. Windsor Avenue, May Pen – Not considered
53. Railway Lands, Lincoln Avenue – Marginal lands
54. Reagan City (Juno Crescent) – 65 metres to a river, Arable lands
55. On the Rocks, Hazard Dr. (Sunshine Gardens) – 40 metres to a river, Arable lands
56. Rhules (Palmers Cross) – Marginal lands
93

St. Catherine (64 settlements)
1. Worthy Park, Lluidas Vale** – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve, Arable lands
2. Lluidas Vale, Valley District** – Arable lands
3. Lluidas Vale Squatters Settlement – Arable lands
4. Charlemont P.L.L. (Sterling Castle) – 132 metres from a river, Marginal lands
5. Charlemont** – 113 metres from a river, Marginal lands
6. Charlemont Heights – 1 metres from a river, Marginal lands
7. Bush Park, Linstead – 82 metres from a river, Arable lands
8. Rosemount** – 134 metres from the Rio Cobre River, Arable lands
9. Bushy Park, Linstead** – 118 metres from the Rio Cobre River, Arable lands
10. Train Line, Bog Walk – 77 metres from a river, Arable lands
11. Flat Bridge, Bog walk – 38 metres from the Rio Cobre River, Arable lands
12. Kent Village, Bog Walk – 164 metres from the Rio Cobre River, Marginal lands
13. Bodles, Old Harbour** – 28 metres from a river, Arable lands
14. Succaba, South East Old Harbour – 196 metres from a river, Not considered
15. Old Harbour Villas Housing Scheme – 13 metres from an aqueduct, Arable lands
16. Campbell Land, Old Harbour Bay – 153 metres from the coast, located in a ‘protected area’, Not considered
17. Thatford, Old Harbour** – Marginal lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
18. Hartland Main (Owen Young) – 157 metres from a river, Arable lands
19. Hartland Main Canal – 36 metres from a river, Arable lands
20. Hartland Main Canal (Hubert Grant) – 28 metres from a river, Arable lands
21. Hartland Main Canal (Owen Young) – 35 metres from a river, Arable lands
22. Hartland Main Canal Bank – 30 metres from a river, Arable lands
23. Crescent, Spanish Town** – 71 metres from the Rio Cobre River, Not considered
24. Naseberry Grove – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
25. Naseberry Grove II – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
26. Naseberry Grove III – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
27. Johnson Pen, Dovecot Park – Arable lands, located in a Bauxite reserve
28. Frazer’s Content** – Arable lands
29. Frasers Content – Arable lands
30. Job’s Lane** – 64 metres to a river, Arable lands
31. Reservoir Lane, Jobs Land, Spanish Town** – 69 metres from a canal, Arable lands
32. Eltham Meadows – 155 metres from a river, Arable lands
33. Angels Farm – 9 metres from a river, Arable lands
94

34. Angels I – 41 metres from a river, Arable lands
35. Angels II – 40 metres from a river, Arable lands
36. Eltham Blvd. – 51 metres from a river, Arable lands
37. Eltham Meadows, Lot 19 – 46 metres from a river, Arable lands
38. Sydenham Canal Bank (Beresford Jones) – Arable lands
39. 35 Old Harbour Rd. (Close to Homestead) – 140 metres from a river, Arable lands
40. Horizon Park (Randy Ross) – 1 metre from a river, Not considered
41. Horizon Park (Wade McDonald) – Arable lands
42. Tawes Pen, Spanish Town** – 188 metres from a canal, Not considered
43. Shelter Rock, Spanish Town** – 189 metres from the Rio Cobre River, Arable lands
44. Windsor Heights, Sufferers Heights, Caymanas** – Not considered
45. Caymanas Branch Canal (Devon Green) – Marginal lands
46. Christian Pen** – Arable lands
47. Cedar Grove – Arable lands
48. Portmore Gardens** – Arable lands
49. West Cumberland – Arable lands
50. Gregory Park, Portmore Villa** – Not considered
51. Gregory Park, Portmore Villa II** – Not considered
52. Ackee Village and Dyke Road – Arable lands
53. Ackee Village and Dyke Road II – Arable lands
54. Port Henderson** – 3 metres from the coast, Not considered
55. Port Henderson (Forum Beach), near Forum – 1 metre from the coast, Not considered
56. Port Henderson, Portmore – 19 metres from the coast, Not considered
57. Rodney’s Arm – 65 metres from the coast, Marginal lands
58. Rodney’s Arm – 114 metres from the coast, Marginal lands
59. Causeway/Hunts Bay** – 96 metres from the coast
60. Helsinki Village, Causeway Strip – 39 metres from the coast
61. Shooters and Marley Hill, Hellshire Road – 1 metre from a ‘protected area’, Marginal lands
62. Shooters Hill and Marley Hill, Hellshire Road, Marginal lands
63. Hellshire Beach – 38 metres from the coast, located in a ‘protected area’, Marginal lands
Half Moon Bay, Hellshire – 45 metres from the coast, located in a ‘forest reserve’ and a ‘protected area’,
Marginal lands
95

APPENDIX VIII
Updated list of approx.754 squatter sites
(It must be noted that many of these informal settlements are not discreet sites but are extensions to or located within
formal communities)
St. Elizabeth
1 Alligator Pond
2 Bailey Ground Project Land Lease
3 Barton Isle
4 Biscayne
5 Brigade Street, Logwood - Black River
6 Burnt Ground, Santa Cruz
7 Crane Road, Black River
8 Elim, Bogue
9 Emmaus, Leeds
10 Farm P. L. L - Giddy Hall
11 Galleon Beach
12 Gilnock Santa Cruz
13 Holland Bamboo, Middlequarters
14 Holland Mountain
15 Jerusalem
16 JRC Line St. Elizabeth
17 Lancewood P. L. L, Middle Quarters
18 Lewisville
19 Long Acres, Fyffes Pen
20 Luana Property
21 Lyceo, Santa Cruz
22 New Holland, Middle Quarters
23 Northhampton, Santa Cruz
24 Peacock Heights, Black River
25 Vineyard I
26 White Hall
St. James
1 Albion
2 Anchovy
3 Barnett River Bank
4 Barracks Road, Montego Bay
5 Barret Hall - South of Highway
6 Barret Town
7 Bickerstet
8 Blue Hole Montpelier
96

9 Bogue Heights
10 Bogue Land
11 Buck Toe Lane
12 Burnt Ground - Ramble
13 Cambridge
14 Canaan
15 Canterbury
16 Chesterfield
17 Cooperwood
18 Copperwood
19 Ducketts
20 Eden
21 Equity
22 Farm
23 Farm Heights (Lots 281,282,612)
24 Farm Heights, Montego Bay - Lot 283, Farm Heights H/Scheme
25 Farm Pen - Residue
26 Flankers - Lot 398 Flankers H/Scheme
27 Flankers, Montego Bay
28 Garlands
29 Georges Valley
30 Glendevon - Lies between Glendevon & Salt Spring H/Scheme
31 Grange Pen
32 Guilsbro
33 Infirmary Lands
34 Irwin District, Tropic Gardens
35 Jamaica School of Hope
36 JRC Line St. James
37 Latium
38 Lilliput
39 Lilliput Ph. 1 & 2
40 Long Acre
41 Mafoota
42 Mahogany Hall, Mount Carey, Montpelier
43 Melbourne Avenue - Along Montego Bay to Flower Hill main road
44 Mocho
45 Montego Valley
46 Montego Valley, Amity Hall
47 Montego Valley, Sunderland
48 Mount Salem
49 Norwood
50 Norwood GHJ
51 Outskirts of Cornwall Court H/Scheme
52 Pitfour - Adjacent to Pitfour H/Scheme, Montego Bay
53 Pitfour Heights
54 Pitfour Hillside - Adjacent to Pitfour H/Scheme
55 Pitfour, II - Adjacent to Pitfour H/Scheme
56 Providence Heights
57 Railway Lane, Montego Bay
58 Red Ground Montpelier
97

59 Retirement Estate, Granville
60 Retirement Forest Reserves 1 & 11
61 Retirement I
62 Retirement II
63 Richmond Hill
64 Roehampton
65 Rose Heights Montego Bay
66 Rosemount, Montego Bay
67 Seven Rivers
68 Success South
69 Tucker
70 Vaughnsfield
71 York
Hanover
1 Bulls Bay
2 Bulls Bay/Supreme Pride
3 Burnt Ground
4 Burnt Grove, Ramble
5 Copse
6 Eaton (Break Heart), Chambers Pen
7 Esher (Eastern Section)
8 Esher (Western Section)
9 Fish River, Logwood District
10 Fisherman Village
11 Global Villas
12 Haughton Court
13 Haughton Hall, Green Island (Moderately sloping and sections flood-prone)
14 Hopewell (Public Works)
15 Hopewell Farm, Hopewell
16 Kenilworth
17 Kew I, II, III
18 Mosquito Cove, Retirement
19 Old Pen (Cacoon Castle)
20 Orange Bay
21 Point
22 Sandy Bay, Tryall Estate
23 Section of Haughton Court
24 Spring Valley - Friendship/Spring Mountain
St. Thomas
1 Airy Castle
2 Albion
3 Albion Estate, Lot 7 Peanut Palm
4 Along
98

5 Bamboo River
6 Bayview
7 Charles Scheme
8 Charles Town (Stokes Hall) Golden Grove
9 Chesterfield
10 Easington
11 Fort , Leith Hall, Part of East Prospect Estate
12 Friendship Pen, (Back Bush)
13 Jacks View Heights
14 Leith Hall, Morning Star
15 Lot 97, Lyssons
16 Lyssons House Reserve, Lyssons
17 Morant (Cottage Pen)
18 Morant Land Settlement, Morant Bay
19 Morant River
20 Mount George
21 New England, Airy Castle
22 New England, West Potosi, Airy Castle
23 NWC Tank site, Seaforth
24 Phampret
25 Phillipsfield
26 Pleasant Walk, Leith Hall
27 Pleasant Walk, Morant Bay
28 Port Morant (Vicinity of dump site)
29 Riverside, Seaforth
30 Seaforth - Riverside
31 Stanton
32 West Albion
33 West Potosie
34 Wheelerfield
35 Windsor Lodge, Bull Bay
Westmoreland
1 Achindown
2 Alma, Grange Hill
3 Back Wakesfield
4 Barracks Road
5 Barracles Road
6 Bethel Town - South of Bethel Town to Ducketts main road
7 Bethel Town Land Development/Hermitage Land Development
8 Bluefields
9 Causeway, Grange Hill
10 Church Lincoln, Kings Valley
11 Cooke Street, Savanna-la-mar
12 Dean's Valley Water Works
13 Delve Bridge
14 Egypt Pen, Big Bridge
15 Fort William/Morass Lane
16 Friendship
99

17 Galloway
18 Grange Hill Cemetary
19 Grange Hill Square
20 Gratto
21 Harmony Town
22 Hartford
23 Hatfield - Adjacent to Hatfield H/Scheme
24 Hatfield, Starthbogie
25 Hermitage, Bethel Town
26 Herring Piece
27 Kent, Darliston
28 King Valley, Grange Hill
29 Llandilo - West of Llandilo H/Scheme
30 Llandilo, Common Lands
31 Masemuir
32 Maseuir
33 McAlpine Farm District
34 McNeil Land, Mykersfield, Bay Road
35 Mint Road, Grange Hill
36 Mount Eagle
37 Mount Edgecombe
38 Negril, White Hall
39 New Hatfield
40 New Mark
41 New Market Oval, Savanna la-mar
42 Non-Pariel
43 Paradise Pen
44 Prospect Park
45 Providence Mountain, Negril - West End Road
46 Retreat
47 Revival
48 Roaring River
49 Russia, Hudson & Rickett Street
50 Seaton Crescent, Savanna-la-mar
51 Shanty Town, Top Road, Little London
52 Shrewsburys
53 South Hatfield
54 Station Road, Little London
55 Summerset West End
56 Tollgate, Truro Pen
57 Top Road, Little London
58 Truro Gate
59 Unity, Coffee Ground, St. Leonards
60 Wharf Road
61 White Hall I
62 White Hall II
63 White House
64 Whitehall, Negril - laong Sheffield to Negril main road
100

Manchester
1 Albion
2 Alligator Pond - Valley & Nickpiece - N/West of Alligator Pond H/Scheme
3 Christiana IRDP office
4 Christiana PWP
5 Cocoa Walk Lot 19 House Reserve
6 Coleyville
7 Duff Hill
8 Georges Valley
9 Glenvale
10 Grey Ground
11 Guts River
12 Hopeton
13 Johns Hall
14 JRC Line Manchester
15 Kendal Police Station
16 Kingsland
17 Litchfield
18 Mile Gully
19 Nickpiece
20 Property adjoining New Green Round A
21 Property of Waldaston
22 Retford
23 Rose Property
24 Silent Hill
25 Worries Gully/Hope Property, Kingsland
Kingston & St. Andrew
1 1 - 3 Goodwin Park Road
2 1 Caledonia Crescent, St. Andrew
3 1 William Street, Kingston
4 100 Red Hills Road
5 25 Penwood Road, Kgn.11
6 35 Eastwood Park Road
7 4 Aldelaide Park Road
8 51 Mannings Hill Road
9 66 Old Hope Road
10 70 West Street
11 8 Miles, Bull Bay, St. Andrew
12 Ackee Walk
13 African Gardens
14 Arcadia
15 August Town
16 Back Bush
17 Balmagie
18 Bayshore
101

19 Bedward Gardens
20 Bedward Pasture
21 Belmoure, Mt. James
22 Birdsucker
23 Board Villa, Admiral Town, St. Andrew
24 Bridge road (Hope Tavern) Premix Road (Tavern Drive & Golding Avenue
25 Burger Lands
26 Calalloo Bed
27 Cassava Bed
28 Cassia Park
29 Castle Heights, 11 Ford Pen Lane
30 Chester Vale, St, Peter, St. Andrew
31 China Beach, Rockfort
32 Cinchona, St. Peters
33 Clifton Mt. St. Peters
34 Constant Spring Grove
35 Delacree Pen
36 Devon Lodge & Dunblair
37 District
38 Drewsland, Phase 3, off Drews Avenue
39 Duhaney Park Treatment plant/Wordsworth Ave. Kgn.20
40 Flamstead, Mavis Bank, St. Andrew
41 Grants Pen
42 Greenwich Town Fishing Beach
43 Hall Delight, St. Andrew
44 Harbour Head, (Near Harbour View)
45 Harbour View
46 Highlight View (Mud Town)
47 Honey Hill, St. Andrew
48 Hope 1 Papine St. Andrew
49 Hope Estate
50 Hope Estate, Lease section
51 Hope Pastures
52 Hope Tavern
53 Jacks Hill, St. Andrew
54 Look Out (off Gordon Town Road) St. Andrew
55 Lower Norbrook (Section 1 & 2)
56 Malborough Avenue
57 Mandela Terrace
58 Mandela Town, Adelaide Park St. Andrew
59 Manor View, Constant Spring
60 Maryland, St. Andrew/Jacks Hill
61 Mavis Bank
62 Maxfield Avenue
63 Middleton, Redlight
64 Middleton, St. Peters
65 Mona Commons, St. Andrew
66 Mount Airy
67 Mount Airy, Mount James
68 Mount Prospect
102

69 Mt. Airy, Mt. Horeb, Knowsely, Andover
70 Munroe Road
71 Oddman Lane
72 Omara Road
73 Orchard, Mavis Bank
74 Palisadoes Park
75 Papine
76 Pleasant Heights
77 Pleasant Hill, St. Peters, St. Andrew
78 Port Royal Fishing Beach
79 Queensbury Treatment Plant, Perkins Boulevard, Kgn.20
80 Rae Town, Kgn.16
81 Ravina Courts, St. Andrew
82 Red Hills
83 Red Light District, Irish Town
84 Redlight District, Irish Town, St. Andrew
85 Riverton City, St. Andrew
86 Rosemount Temple Hall, St. Andrew
87 Sandy Park
88 Savage Pen, Gordon Town, St. Andrew
89 Seivwirght Gardens
90 Sigorny Beach, Michael Manley Blvd.
91 Standpipe Lane
92 Stanville
93 Stony Hill, Long Lane
94 Strawberry Hill, Westphalia, St. Andrew
95 Swallowfield
96 Temple Heights
97 Temple Heights Land Development
98 Tinson Pen Trench Town
99 Trench Town
100 Trumpet Tree, Constitution Hill
101 Vantage Heights
102 Vantage View, Sterling Castle
103 Waltham Park Road
104 Wareika Hills
105 West Kingston
106 Whitehall Avenue
107 Wicki Wacki
108 Winward Court
St. Catherine
1 1 King Street/Dallas
2 35 Old Harbour Rd,Close to Homestead
3 Ackee Village and Dyke Road
4 Africa
5 Amity Hall
6 Andrews Lane
103

7 Angels Farm
8 Angels Heights Spanish Town
9 Balds,Old Harbour
10 Beggars Bush
11 Bernard Lodge
12 Big Lane/West Side
13 Bodles (South & North)
14 Bourkesfield,Blackwood Gdns- South of the H/Scheme
15 Brunswick Avenue
16 Buck Town (Spanish Town)
17 Bushy Park
18 Campbell Land (Old Harbour Bay)
19 Captured Land
20 Causeway, Hunts Bay
21 Caymanas Branch Canal(Devon Green)
22 Cedar Grove
23 Charlemont
24 Charlemont Heights
25 Charlemont PLL (Sterling Castle)
26 Christian Pen (East & West)
27 Claremont
28 Crescent Park (Off Spn. Twn/Bog Walk)
29 Crescent Park (Upper)
30 Crescent Spanish Town
31 Deeside
32 Detroit/London/Bronx
33 Duncan's Pen
34 Dyke Road Squatter Village
35 Ellerslie Pen (East & West)
36 Eltham Boulevard
37 Eltham Meadows
38 Ferry , Caymanas
39 Flat Bridge, Bog Walk
40 Frazer's Content
41 Gordon Pen - Off Eltham Boulevard
42 Gravel Hill,Spanish Town
43 Gregory Park (Portmore Villas, Cotton, Hydrant)
44 Half Moon Bay,Helshire
45 Halfway Tree Plantation,Braeton Parkway-Newlands
46 Hartland Main (Hubert Grant)
47 Hartland Main (Owen Young)
48 Hartland Main Canal
49 Hartland Main Canal (Owen Young)
50 Hartland Main Canal Bank
51 Hellshire Beach
52 Helsinki Village (Causeway Strip)
53 Homestead
54 Horizon Park (Randy Ross)
55 Horizon Park (Wayde Mcdonald)
56 Irish Pen (Lower & Upper)
104

57 Jobs Lane
58 Johns Lane
59 Johnson Pen,Dovecot Park
60 JRC Line St. Catherine
61 Kent Village,Bog Walk
62 Knox Lane
63 Lakes Pen (North & South)
64 Little Jungle
65 Little Lane
66 Lluidas Vale ,Valley District
67 Lluidas Vale Squatters Settlement
68 March Pen
69 Mount Dawson
70 Mount Pleasant
71 Naseberry Grove
72 New Nursey (East & West)
73 Newlands
74 North Racecourse
75 Old Harbour Bay
76 Old Harbour Villas(West ot the H/Scheme)
77 Old Prison Lands
78 Old Watson Grove
79 Part of Twickenham Park
80 Port Henderson
81 Port Henderson (Forum Beach)
82 Port Henderson ,Portmore
83 Portmore Gardens
84 Quarry Hill
85 Railway Lands Portmore
86 Red Pond, Spanish Town (East & West)
87 Reservoir Lane,Jobs Lane,Spanish Town
88 Rio Cobre Main Canal (Hilary Harrow)
89 Rodney's Arm
90 Rosemount
91 Shelter Rock, Spanish Town
92 Shooters anh Marley Hill,Helshire Rd
93 Spanish Town (St. Yard)
94 Spanish Villa
95 Succaba Southeast,Old harbour
96 Tawes Pen
97 Thatford Old Harbour
98 Thompson Pen
99 Train Line, Bogwalk
100 Upper Main Canal ( Horace Longmore)
101 Upper Main Canal (Blossom Craige)
102 Upper Main Canal (Casilda Williams)
103 Upper Main Canal (Dexter Thompson)
104 Upper Main Canal (Dorothy Benjamin)
105 Upper Main Canal (Matiesha Douglas)
106 Upper main Canal (Pablo Johnson)
105

107 Upper Main Canal (Shirley Heyman)
108 Upper Main Canal -Rio Cobre (Trevor)
109 Upper Main Rio Cobre (Cheryl Scott)
110 Valdies Road
111 Waterloo Close
112 West Cumberland
113 Westchester
114 Windsor Heights,Suffers Heights,Caymanas
115 Worthy Park,Lluidas Vale
Portland
1 Achovy Mangrove Swap
2 Anchovy 1 and 11(Lot 19,191 & 241)
3 Bar, Manchioneal
4 Beach Land Lowleyton
5 Boundbrook Fishing Beach (Lot 180)
6 Boundbrook Water Reserve
7 Bryans Bay, Port Antonio
8 Buff Bay Housing Scheme
9 Caenwood, Hope Bay
10 Chepstowe
11 Ctaigemill
12 Darley
13 Darlington, Manchioneal, East of Manchioneal H/Scheme
14 Diamond Ridge
15 Fairy Hill
16 Fellowship Forest Reserve
17 Forestry House Reserve 10 Folly Road
18 Friendship Hall, Durham
19 Grange Hill,Muirton Pen(Lot 384)
20 Hope Bay Dump
21 Hunt Hill
22 JRC Line Portland
23 Lennox Recreation Area,Orange Bay (Lot 119)
24 Light House Old Dam, Port Antonio
25 Lowleigeyton,Wharf Lane,Orange Bay
26 Mill Bank Forest Reserve,Comfort Castle
27 Muirton Property
28 Old Stud Farms,Pleasant Hill
29 Orange Bay
30 Part of Hart Hill Cemetery/Playfield
31 Pleasant Hill
32 Railway Land Sandy Shore,Hope Bay
33 Railway Lands,Ken Jones to St. Margaret’s Bay
34 Railway, Buff Bay
35 Railway, Dover to Buff Bay
36 Railway, Norwich to White River
106

37 Railway, Orange Bay
38 Railway, Port Antonio
39 Railway, Spring Gardens
40 Road Reservations/Boat house,Hant Hill
41 Shirley Castle
42 Skibo
43 Spring Garden (Lot 5)
44 Stanton House Reserve (Lot 11,12 & 99)
45 Turtle Crawle
46 Union, Hope Bay District
47 White River Settlement
48 Windsor and Semans Valley (Lot 60)
49 Windsor Forest Reserves
50 Woodstock Housing Scheme
St. Ann
1 Alexandria Pen
2 Armadale
3 Balintoy, Calderwood
4 Barrett Pen
5 Beach Lot, Cadiff Hall
6 Beecher Town
7 Belle Air
8 Belmont
9 Black Ants Comer, Discovery Bay
10 Bogue
11 Buckfield Heights, Faulkland
12 Chewmagna
13 Cloistan (Methodist Church Land)
14 Cloister, St. Ann's Bay
15 Crown
16 Crown Land Cuffie Ridge/Borrobridge
17 Crowns land Grants Mtn.
18 Crowns land, Top cascade, Frank hall
19 Dornarch Thicketts (2 & 3)
20 Douglas Castle
21 Drax Hall
22 Dry Harbour
23 Endeavour
24 Fern Gully
25 Grants Mountain (Tingly)
26 Halifax Crawle
27 Hiattsfield, Colegate
28 Industry, Gibraltar
29 Land Behind Shell Gas Station- Ocho Rios
30 Lebanon, Woodstock
31 Mamme Bay (x3)
107

32 Mansfield/Faulklands, Ocho Rios
33 Moneague
34 Mount Edgecombe, Runaway Bay
35 Ocho Rios By- Pass (Near JPSC)
36 Old Home, Alexandria
37 Old Jail Lane, St. Ann's Bay
38 Parry Town, Ocho Rios
39 Pear Tree Bottom
40 Pedro River
41 Penny- Harmony Vale
42 Pheonix Park, Moneague
43 Pineapple Place
44 Rio Hoe, Moneague
45 Roaring River
46 Sailor Hole, Ocho Rios
47 Salem Fishing Beach, Runaways Bay
48 Saunders Mine, Laughland
49 Seville Great House Heritage Park
50 Shaw Park Height ( Lime Bottom)
51 Shaw Park Land
52 Shaw Park-South of Shaw Park H/Scheme
53 Simms Run, Nine Mile
54 Southampton, Orange Hill
55 Steer Town
56 Summer Hill, Lewis
57 Thatchfield, Bluefield
58 Thicketts, Discovery Bay
59 Union Hill
60 Unity Valley, Moneague
61 Walkerswood, Hadden
62 White River, Ocho Rios
63 Windsor, St. Ann's Bay
64 York Castle
St. Mary
1 Albany Railway Land
2 Annotto Bay Train Line,from Town Center
3 Arcadia, Gayle
4 Boscobel
5 Boscobel Fort-Above Boscobel Aerodome
6 Bottom Fort George
7 Cape Clear
8 Captured Land, Highgate
9 Captured Land, Hopewell, Highgate
10 Coleraime, Oracabessa
11 Colerane Train Line, Augualta Vale
12 Crooked River (Grays Inn)
13 Crooked River, Annotto bay
108

14 Eden Park, Jacks River
15 Epsom
16 Fort Stewart, Enfield
17 Frontier & Frontier H/Scheme
18 Galina
19 Galina Estates
20 Goffeland, Highgate
21 Grays Inn Pringles, annotto Bay
22 Guava Scheme, Dover Bottom (1 & 11)
23 Gully/Grove
24 Hampstead & Hampstead H/Scheme
25 Hopewell- West of Richmond to Highgate Main Rd
26 Hudderfield
27 Iterbopeale
28 Jacks River (Eden Park)
29 Jamaica Beach
30 Jamaica Railway Land
31 JRC Line St. Mary
32 Llangley
33 Orange River
34 pagee, Port Maria Fishing Beach
35 Palmer Park, Port Maria
36 Quebec
37 Reddington
38 Refugee
39 Richmond Train Line all the way to Troja
40 Salisbury, Jeffrey Town
41 Sheerness property, Robins Bay Annotto Bay
42 Siding Railway Land
43 Spicy Grove
44 Termolsworth
45 Tryall
46 Wentworth, Port Maria
47 White hall
48 Wood Park
Trelawny
1 Allsicles
2 All-Sides Wait-A-Bit
3 Belmore Castle
4 Braco,Rio Bueno
5 Bristol
6 Brompton Bryan
7 Caledonia Alps
8 Carey Park
9 Cockburn Pen,Clarkes Town
10 Coopers Pen
11 Danielle Town
109

12 Dromilly Land
13 Dump
14 Durham
15 Easy
16 Falmouth Cemetary
17 Falmouth Gardens H/Scheme (Vanzie Land)
18 Hague,Falmouth
19 Heading
20 Hope Mountain Forrest Reserve
21 Hyde Hall,Sawyers
22 Hyde, Clarkes Town
23 Kinloss
24 Land Adjacent Falmouth Gardens
25 Mack Hill,Clarkes Town
26 Mahogany Hall
27 Middlemost/Samuel Prospect,Duncans
28 Paramarsus,Clarkes Town
29 Quick Step
30 Salt Marsh, Falmouth
31 Sea Board Street, Falmouth
32 Stewart Castle
33 Troy
34 Unity,Bunkers Hill
35 Vanzie Land/Race Course,Falmouth Gardens
36 Warso
37 Water Lane
38 Wilson Valley
39 Zion
Clarendon
1 Banana Board
2 Belle Plain Great House
3 Brooks Common
4 Brooks Line,Treadlight
5 Bucknor (Horace Williams Soltau,Meta Yvonne Tornedo)
6 Bucks Common, may Pen
7 Bucks Haven
8 Bull Head
9 Burnt Ground/Dampy
10 Bushy Park
11 Canaan Heights May Pen
12 Canal Reserve
13 Clarendon College Land, Chapleton
14 Clarendon Park, Scotts Pass
15 Clumsy Land Lease, Chapleton
16 Coshen
17 Cuba, May Pen
110

18 Dampy, Cross
19 Decoy
20 Denbigh
21 Ebony Park
22 Ebony Park, South-Adjacent Ebony Park H/Scheme
23 Emerald Heights
24 Evans Meadows, May Pen
25 Farquar Beach,Milk River
26 Foga Road, Denbigh
27 Forrest Reserves, Danks
28 Havanna Heights, Jacob Hut
29 Hayes, Corn Piece
30 Hosey Property, Spaulding
31 Infirmary Land
32 James Hill
33 Joshua Ville
34 JRC Line Clarendon
35 Juno Crescent, May Pen
36 Land Lease
37 Lionel Town, King Street
38 Long Gully, Effoortville
39 Manchester Avenue, Denbigh
40 Methodist Church Lands
41 Muirhead Avenue
42 On The Rocks, Hazard Dr. (Sunshine Gardens)
43 Overline May Pen
44 Paisley Pen-West Of Hazard Drive
45 Palmyra
46 Peace River
47 Portland Cottage
48 Public Lemilcs Yard (Sommerfield)
49 Pusey Hall
50 Race Course, Logwood District
51 Railway Lands, Lincola Avenue
52 Railway Line
53 Rasta Gully, Free Town
54 Raymond's/ Capture Land
55 Reagan City, Juno Crescent
56 Rectory Lands, May Pen
57 Rhules Pen District, Palmers Cross
58 Rhules Pen, Unity Farms
59 Rhymesbury, P.L.L, York Town
60 Ritches Land Settlement
61 Rocky Settlement
62 Rose Hall, Free Town
63 Rose hall, Race Track,May Pen
64 Salisbury, Brixton Hill
65 Salt River
66 Scheme Agronomy
67 Seven Heights
111

68 Sevens Bush
69 South Coast
70 Springville
71 St. Toolies, Tollgate
72 Unity Farms
73 Verman Field
74 Water Wells
75 Western Park, Harris Street
76 Windsor Avenue, Heights
112

APPENDIX IX
Agencies that participated in the data collection
Forestry Department
Jamaica Railway Corporation (JRC)
National Works Agency (NWA)
National Water Commission (NWC)
National Land Agency (NLA)
Housing Agency of Jamaica (HAJ/NHDC)
Portmore Municipal Council
National Housing Trust (NHT)
The Anglican Diocese
The Jamaica Baptist Union
Jamaica Bauxite Institute
Urban Development Corporation (UDC)
Ministry of Water and Housing
Jamaica National Heritage Trust
113

APPENDIX X
114