From the Field to the Theory

  • Jérôme Chenal
  • Yves Pedrazzini
  • Jean-Claude Bolay
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 119)


Based on the typology developed previously, this chapter will demonstrate how it is possible to create solutions that take into account differences between slums. Multiple possibilities exist for doing so. The typology serves to highlight similarities and differences between settlements, so as to distinguish the characteristics of each slum and its place in the urban environment. For each case study differences appear at several levels (land use, urban housing, etc.), which makes proposing a single solution for all settlements impossible, forcing us to define specific configurations that can be adapted to the specificities of each slum.

In this chapter, we will identify the levers and methods that can be used to “upgrade” slums. Our main objective is to make these precarious neighbourhoods more liveable (in terms of habitation quality) and friendly (in terms of safety and diversity).

To conclude, the chapter will offer pragmatic and realistic recommendations that take into account the context, stakeholders and past failures for the development and restructuring of slums based on the methodology we have developed.


Road Network Urban Sprawl Urban Form Slum Area Urban Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bartoli, S. (2011). “Eliminer les bidonvilles = Eliminer la pauvreté”, ou les charmes pervers d’une fausse évidence. L’Economie Politique, 49, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chenal, J. (2013). La ville ouest-africaine. Modèle de planification de l’espace urbain. Genève: Métispresses.Google Scholar
  3. Chenal, J. (2014). The West African city: Urban space and models of urban planning. Lausanne/Oxford: EPFL Press/Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Craig, D., & Porter, D. (2003, January). Poverty reduction strategy papers: A new convergence. World Development, 31(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
  5. Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, L. (Eds.). (2002). Holding their ground secure land tenure for urban poor in developing countries. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Farrell, D. (2004). The hidden dangers of the informal economy. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 27–37.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, B. G. (2012). ‘Bankable Slums’: The global politics of slum upgrading. Third World Quarterly, 33, 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Louiset, O. (2011). Comment appréhender les slums indiens? Normes sociale et scientifique. L’Information Gèographique, 75, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Payne, G., Durand-Lasserve, A., & Rakodi, C. (2007). Social and economic impacts of land titling programs in urban and peri-urban areas: A short review of the literature. In S. V. Lall, M. Freire, B. Yuen, R. Rajack, & J. J. Helluin (Eds.), Urban land markets. Improving land management for successful urbanization (pp. 133–161). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Pedrazzini, Y. (2005). La violence des villes. Paris: Editions de l’Atelier.Google Scholar
  11. Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. UN-Habitat. (2003). Slums of the world: The face of urban poverty in the new millennium. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.Google Scholar
  13. Witter, R. (2012). Public urban transport, mobility patterns and social exclusion: The case of Santiago de Chile. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Chenal
    • 1
  • Yves Pedrazzini
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Bolay
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations