Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can informality help create smart, sustainable cities? The vibrancy of self-organised informal settlements in Cape Town

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study critically evaluates the sustainability of informal settlements in terms of smart growth principles. There is an irony that informal settlements have more of the ideal attributes of smart development, including mixed-use development, high densities, compact affordable housing, modal accessibility, and dense local employment opportunities, than sprawling, low-density single-use developments in surrounding formal developments. Yet, despite their smart characteristics, these informalised settlements are not regarded as ideal spaces to live in due to their informal nature and thus are regarded as unsustainable modes of living. This study critically investigates these assumptions, analysing how informal mixed-use spaces are produced, organised, and regulated organised outside formal planning in a customary land use management system in Cape Town, South Africa, and whether this mode of urbanism is smart, i.e., sustainable. The research results indicate that customary self-regulation of informal settlements creates very liveable, polymorphic spaces in the marginalised townships despite the severe lack of resources. Its smart characteristics are not for aesthetic reasons but to make space functional and personal for the residents. However, the unregulated nature of this new mode of urbanism also limits the accumulation of wealth within the township, and it creates dangerous and unhealthy living conditions for residents in terms of litter, noise, flooding, fire risks, environmental degradation, and anti-social behaviour, especially in public areas not adequately regulated by customary regulatory bodies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agheyisi, J. E. (2020). Informal land delivery and tenure security institutions in Benin City, Nigeria. Urban Forum, 31, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-019-09365-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, A. G., & Santos, C. (2011). Informal settlements needs and environmental conservation in Mexico City: An unsolved challenge for land-use policy. Land Use Policy, 28(4), 649–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (2009). Toward a non-ideal, relational methodology for political philosophy: Comments on Schwartzman’s Challenging Liberalism. Hypatia, 24(4), 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organised criticality. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. E. (2020). Peri-urbanization as “quiet encroachment” by the middle class. The case of P&T in Greater Accra. Urban Geography, 41(4), 524–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredenoord, J., & van Lindert, P. (2010). Pro-poor housing policies: Rethinking the potential of assisted self-help housing. Habitat International, 34(2), 278–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovey, K. (2015). Sustainable informal settlements? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 179(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle, L. (2014). Stepping out of the Twilight? Assessing the governance implications of land titling and regularisation programmes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 628–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. M., & Haines, A. (2007). Evaluating smart growth: Implications for small communities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjama, R., & Motlaq, S. M. H. (2019). Does urban mixed use development approach explain spatial analysis of inner-city decay? Journal of Urban Management, 8(3), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, D. (2014). DIY urbanism: Implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism, 7(4), 381–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandin, J., Haarstad, H., Kjæras, K., & Bouzarovski, S. (2018). The politics of rapid urban transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31(1), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, K. T., & Vaa, M. (2004). Introduction. In K. T. Hansen & M. Vaa (Eds.), Reconsidering informality: Perspectives from urban Africa (pp. 7–24). Nordic Africa Institute: Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. (2018). Modes of informal urban development: A global phenomenon. Journal of Planning Literature, 33(3), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, C. (2014). Competing interests and the political market for smart growth policy. Urban Studies, 51(12), 2503–2522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirt, S. (2012). Mixed use by default: How the Europeans (don’t) zone. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(4), 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huchzermeyer, M. (2014). Use and utility of the term ‘slum.’ In S. Parnell & S. Oldfield (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on cities of the global South (pp. 86–97). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infranca, J. (2019). The new state zoning: Land use pre-emption amid housing crises. Boston College Law Review, 60(3), 823–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabareen, Y. (2014). “Do it yourself” as an informal mode of space production: Conceptualizing informality. Journal of Urbanism, 7(4), 414–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, H. A. E. E. (2010). New urbanism, smart growth and informal areas: A quest for sustainability. Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development, 35(1), 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudva, N. (2009). The everyday and the episodic: The spatial and political impacts of urban informality. Environment and Planning A, 41(12), 1614–1628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusumastuti, D., & Nicholson, A. (2018). Mixed-use development in Christchurch, New Zealand: Do you want to live there? Urban Studies, 55(12), 2682–2702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, I. (2019). Introduction: Re-spatialising urban informality: Reconsidering the spatial politics of street work in the global South. International Development Planning Review, 41(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K. (2017). Rural-urban interaction in the developing world (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, R. T. (2014). Exploring counter-conduct in upgraded informal settlements: The case of women residents in Cape Town South Africa. Habitat International, 44(2), 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, C. (2012). Rethinking informality: Politics, crisis, and the city. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(1), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, M., Vinodrai, T., Revington, N., & Seasons, M. (2018). Planning for mixed use: Affordable for whom? Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(1), 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemira, M. P. (2007). The concept and drivers of mixed-use development: Insights from a cross-organizational membership survey. Research Review, 4(1), 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Onyebueke, V., Walker, J., Lipietz, B., Ujah, O., & Ibezim-Ohaeri, V. (2020). Urbanisation-induced displacements in peri-urban areas: Clashes between customary tenure and statutory practices in Ugbo-Okonkwo Community in Enugu Nigeria. Land Use Policy, 99(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L. (2011). Informality, the commons and the paradoxes for planning: Concepts and debates for informality and planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 12(1), 115–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raman, R., & Roy, U. K. (2019). Taxonomy of urban mixed land use planning. Land Use Policy, 88(4), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasol, M. (2014). On resistance in the post-political city: Conduct and counterconduct in Vancouver. Space and Polity, 18(1), 70–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, A. (2009). Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence, and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatkin, G. (2018). The city and the bottom line: Urban megaprojects and the privatisation of planning in South-east Asia. Environment and Planning A, 40(3), 383–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D., McGregor, D., & Thompson, D. (2012). Contemporary perspectives on the peri-urban zones of cities in developing countries. In D. McGregor & D. Simon (Eds.), The peri-urban interface: Approaches to sustainable natural and human resource use (pp. 26–40). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syagga, P. (2011). Land tenure in slum upgrading projects. Les cahiers d’Afrique de l’Est (pp. 103–113). IFRA: Nairobi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E. (2013). Zoning for and against sprawl: The case for form-based codes. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Assche, K., Beunen, R., & Lo, M. C. (2016). Place as layered and segmentary commodity: Place branding, smart growth and the creation of product and value. International Planning Studies, 21(2), 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasudevan, A. (2015). The makeshift city: Towards a global geography of squatting. Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 338–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. C. (2008). Beyond necessity-driven versus opportunity-driven entrepreneurship: A study of informal entrepreneurs in England, Russia and Ukraine. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9(3), 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wily, L. A. (2012). The status of customary land rights in Africa today. In L. A. Wily (Ed.), Rights to resources in crisis: Reviewing the fate of customary tenure in Africa (pp. 4–17). Rights and Resources Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiftachel, O. (2009). Critical theory and ‘gray space’: Mobilization of the colonized. City, 13(2–3), 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenou, Y. (2005) The Todaro paradox revisited. Working Paper No. 652. Stockholm: The Stockholm Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to personally thank Ronnie Donaldson for his insights and guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Centre for Regional and Urban Innovation and Statistical Exploration (CRUISE), Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1 Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa

    H. S. Geyer

Authors
  1. H. S. Geyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HG solely contributed to the conception and design of the article: Can informality help create smart, sustainable cities? The vibrancy of self-organised informal settlements in Cape Town, contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the said article, drafted the manuscript and critically revised the manuscript. The author gives final approval and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. S. Geyer.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards

All research occurred with proper informed ethical consent following the ethical research protocols of the university.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geyer, H.S. Can informality help create smart, sustainable cities? The vibrancy of self-organised informal settlements in Cape Town. GeoJournal 88, 2471–2489 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10758-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10758-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation