9. Survey of two high density suburbs in Bulawayo In January 2006, the authors conducted a survey of two suburbs in Bulawayo affected by demolitions.87 1. In the first suburb, the authors relied on lists compiled by the Bulawayo City Council of houses that had had illegal structures demolished. Out of a total of 1,000 stands for this suburb, the BCC had listed 266 stands - or approximately 27% - on which a backyard structure had been demolished. 2. In the second suburb, the authors relied on lists supplied by the churches, who had been approached to take property into safe-keeping by families who had had backyard structures destroyed. The churches had listed 620 properties all in the same suburb on which a structure had been demolished. The city council reports that 10,867 properties were affected by demolitions citywide: the addresses in these two suburbs amount to 8% of all properties affected by OM. Methodology 1. In the first suburb, a random number system was used to select 40 properties, constituting 15% of the total of 266 properties alleged by BCC to have had demolitions.88 2. In the second suburb, every tenth property on the church lists was selected. This totalled 63 properties, or 10% of the total of 620 addresses on the list. In total 103 properties were therefore included in the survey, constituting 12% of addresses where demolitions had allegedly taken place in these two suburbs. A questionnaire was designed [see appendix], and residents at these addresses were invited to take part in the survey.89 1. In the first suburb, six addresses were found not to have been affected by the demolitions. At one address, there was rubble, but the turnover in the house had been complete: nobody there had been resident prior to demolitions and as the major focus of the inquiry was to establish where people had gone to, and to compare floor space per person before and after demolitions, this property was therefore excluded from the survey. 2. A total of 33 stands were therefore included in the survey from this suburb, and 7 excluded. 87 In June 2006, we conducted an update survey on 10% of properties originally sampled in this January survey, to monitor any marked changes; the situations remained either much the same or in some cases, congestion had worsened. 88 40 slips were drawn from a box that contained slips numbered from 1 to 266. 89 Five specifically trained researchers conducted the survey. Collecting all the necessary information meant more than one interview and more than one visit in most cases. It also meant (see question 4) going to more than one property in order to find families/individuals who had moved away from primary address as a result of the demolitions, for full details of where all those once on primary property are now. 38