Complementing or Conflicting Rationalities? How Self-Production Practices in Collective Spaces Can Shape Urban Planning: Insights from Maputo City

Abstract

Spatial planning and governance in African cities are often framed and conceived through the formal-informal binary. This view has been responsible for negative connotations that increase urban populations’ vulnerability. Moreover, it has been heavily criticised as presenting a reductive view of urban development. Alternative framings such as “alternative informality” and “self-production” have recently contested such views by proposing process-oriented approaches that recognise the legitimacy of informal praxis. However, research on self-production practices has tended to focus on the household or municipal level, neglecting what can be termed “collective space”. This chapter explores the production and use practices within collective spaces based on research conducted in two peripheral neighbourhoods in Maputo in 2019. The findings highlight the role and legitimacy of self-production practices in collective space to provide services, consolidate local governance and substantiate urban development. It finds that the role of local residents and authorities in urban planning has only tentatively been accepted by official municipal-level planning agencies. The chapter will reflect on how collective space can better overcome local challenges beyond the household level and represent potentialities for inclusive and democratic planning. However, there are still many challenges in collective space that remain poorly addressed.

1 Introduction

As cities in the Global South have evolved into diverse urban landscapes, informality has become a fruitful field for urban theorisation (Acuto et al. 2019: 476). Urban informality has its most significant expression in the Global South. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), an average of 53.6% of the urban population lived in the so-called slums or informal settlements in 2018 (World Bank 2021). This condition is predicted to increase with current population and urbanisation projections. SSA is expected to experience population growth of over a billion people by 2050, with the urban population accounting for 48 and 59% in 2030 and 2050, respectively (UNDESA¹ 2018, 2019). With most of the population expected to be urban by 2050, planning practices are at the centre of debates concerning urban resilience and sustainability.

Conventionally, however, debates regarding planning practices are often framed in dichotomous and segmented ways. This is partly due to entrenched institutional cultures, but more importantly, because of the long-conceived formal-informal urban divide in spatial development (McFarlane and Waibel 2016; Acuto et al. 2019). This dual conception of space is more explicit in post-colonial cities, such as Maputo, where the “officially-planned” colonial centre is considered formal and the periphery “informal”.

Additionally, most debates on informality, whether “structuralist” or “legalist” approaches (Acuto et al. 2019: 477), gravitate thematically towards housing and economy. For a long time, planning practices have concentrated on either the household or broader municipal level, avoiding what can be termed collective spaces. Collective space (CS) was first proposed by Sola-Morales as spaces “not strictly public or private, but both simultaneously. These are public spaces that are used for private activities, or private spaces for collective use” (Sola-Morales 1992 quoted in Gheysen et al. 2019: 118). Researchers have argued that informality is a crucial lens to understand CS (Sadiq et al. 2020) as informal practices are often collective practices.

However, little work has been done to document CS’s in cities of the Global South. Research on CS’s has typically focused on Global North contexts, focusing on spaces such as car parks and shopping centres (Gheysen 2018; Gheysen et al. 2019). In Global South cities, CS arguably has distinct attributes.

Efforts to improve post-colonial urban peripheries, such as slum-upgrading programmes, have often focused on housing and infrastructure interventions, with recent integrated approaches systematically failing to address spaces of collective infrastructure use and production, ecosystem services and social networks in collective spaces.

This article explores recent debates on urban informality and collective space, to challenge the formal-informal approach to urban planning in post-colonial cities such as Maputo. Specifically, it aims to contribute to a more nuanced interpretation of these realities through a systematic and holistic understanding beyond binaries. The study focuses on the production of collective spaces in two neighbourhoods in Maputo. The discussion is developed in three main parts. Firstly: a conceptual framework on how informality as a concept has been challenged, and the emerging alternative framings attempting to transcend the binary and emphasising the importance of CS are discussed. Secondly: a background of Maputo planning and governance as a support for the understanding of practices. Finally, an examination of practices producing CS centred on self-production of housing, service provision and co-produced initiatives and the challenges posed by governance issues and the spatial result, are presented in four empirical sections.

1.1 From Informality to New Approaches Transcending the Formal-Informal Binary?

In the last two decades, notions of “informality” are being questioned and challenged. The formal-informal binary, presumed as distinct and opposed realities, has proved fluid and continuous. While many institutions and practitioners look at the “informal” as an exception and the “other” of the formal (Acuto et al. 2019: 476), many scholars have shown that the situation is more heterogeneous. Indeed, many post-colonial cities with a strong history of spatial segregation (Andersen et al. 2015a, b; Melo 2016), have grown into diverse realities characterised by overlapping planning practices, uneven urban morphologies and heterogeneity in infrastructure and service provision.

Despite this, many post-colonial countries and cities inherited “formal” planning regulations and principles, which, in many cases, have continued almost unchanged or with minimal development through time (Watson 2009). Additionally, slums and informal settlements, as lexicons used to describe human settlements in the Global South, have proven to emphasise negative connotations, solidifying preconceived perceptions and overlooking potentialities and inherent capacities. Critiques of such views have given space to alternative framings, aiming to contribute to more open and context-specific, southern-based urban theory. This section presents new conceptualisations challenging the formal-informal binary. It leads to a debate on CS as an interface of multiple urban systems, where the formal-informal continuum is apparent.

1.1.1 Urban Informality Questioned

Urban informality is an ambiguous notion. Its definition is diverse in “specific epistemological frameworks, disciplines, time and place” (Banks et al. 2020: 225). For this discussion, I adopt the term as defined by Roy (2005) as a “system of norms that govern the process of urban transformation” (Roy 2005: 148). Urban informality concerning land use and urban services has been central in the ongoing shift to the Southern perspectives in planning theory. Here, many academics have critically questioned the binary view through several propositions.

For instance, Roy (2005: 148) argues that formal and informal are not isolated sectors but a series of transactions that connect different economies and spaces. Additionally, Huchzermeyer (2011) elaborates on how globally legitimated political discourses surrounding informality can be subversive and increase the vulnerability of urban populations. She criticises how campaigns like “Cities Without Slums”, based on a “misunderstood target to achieve cities free of slums” (Huchzermeyer 2011: 10) impact interventions by governments and international agencies. Others argue that informality is a politically based “act”, to treat certain territories as an “exception” (Pratt 2019). Such perceptions imply notions of what is desirable, superior and globally accepted (Acuto et al. 2019: 476).

The second proposition is that in contexts of rapid urbanisation where the state lacks capacity, informal practices are, or should be considered as, “legitimate”. Jenkins (2008), for example, by exploring the concepts of legality and legitimacy concerning urban development in Maputo, argues that “illegal” and “informal” practices are, in reality, more socially legitimate than “formal” practices of the state and market. Moreover, such practices happen due to a noticeable discrepancy between state interests and capacities and those of the private sector and civil society. According to Jenkins, such discrepancy results from:

A weak state attempting to control growing market forces unsuccessfully, and with relatively long term legacies of ignoring urban development interests of the majority of urban dwellers, who resolved their situation through “informal” solutions, with links to the private sector, albeit exploitative. (Jenkins 2008: 178)

Furthermore, Ahlers et al. (2014) contend that discourses surrounding informality “say more about the authority to legitimate certain practices than describe the condition of that particular practice” (Ahlers et al. 2014: 2). She relates legitimacy with public authority, suggesting fluidity in how practices can shift from formal or informal through legitimisation by authorities, sometimes to “safeguard” interests (Ahlers et al. 2014: 7).

Both perspectives are closely related. They explore informality beyond generalisations, acknowledging urban diversity. Moreover, a central reflection from such discourses is imperative to move beyond a material-focused approach that has become a spatial metaphor and ignores other urban processes co- or collectively-produced or ambiguously situated.

1.1.2 Alternative Framings of Informality and the Relation to Collective Space

Following recent debates on informality, academics have put forward alternative framings of urban morphology and planning in cities of the Global South. The first is what Andersen, Jenkins and Nielsen refer to as alternative formality (Andersen et al. 2015b: 424). Alternative formality emerges from a reality where “informal” practices have, in fact, high social legitimacy. Such practices are legitimate because they are, in part, “collective forms of sociocultural organisation” which “orientate and guide land-use practices in many ‘unplanned’ areas” (Andersen et al. 2015a: 329). According to Andersen, Jenkins and Nielsen [2015b], such practices relate to the state and are dominant in spatial transformation in cities such as Maputo.

The second conception is what Raposo (2012) refers to as self-production, a process-oriented approach view that primarily sees urban transformations as based on incremental interventions by communities. This concept is rooted in Lefebvre’s (1991) ideas surrounding the production of space, where space is socially produced, and involves three interrelated aspects: “representations of space”, “spatial practices” and “spaces of representation” (Lefebvre 1991: 38). This approach centres on understanding territories through how they are transformed, considering both individual and collective contributions (i.e., both tangible interventions such as collective infrastructure and how such spaces are represented, perceived and lived). By using “self-produced” as an alternative lexicon, Raposo intends to build on the capacities of local communities while acknowledging the existence of material and functional challenges such as the lack of basic infrastructure and services. Underlying this is the ambition to emphasise the positive aspects as opposed to a pejorative perspective. According to Melo (2016), self-production is the major way in which the peripheral areas of Maputo have developed through processes typically established by the inhabitants, such as land sub-division and occupation.

Hence, self-production relates to processes where residents build their houses, and often infrastructure, largely outside of “formal” regulations. Here, a certain level of self and collective planning shapes the space (broadly conceived as “public”) beyond the household. On the one hand, these territories are products of precarity, ineffective planning, legislation and policies and weak institutional capacity. On the other hand, it shows the resilience and imagination of poor communities to organise themselves. While inhabitant’s autonomy and capacity to build and transform their habitat may be limited, their agency transcends the household scale to the “public” space where there are multiple infrastructures and everyday interactions occur—the CS. This dimension is relevant for a systematic and holistic view of urban areas.

Therefore, these new perspectives on informality emphasise the relevance of collective spaces as critical to understanding peripheral territories’ production in the Global South. Here, private interventions are often interventions in “public” spaces, which subsequently have a collective value. It is this collective value that often secures the legitimacy of such urban morphology.

1.2 Collective Space: The Place of Conflicting and Complementing Rationalities

Collective space (CS) is said to play an “essential role in the development of urban areas” (Sadiq et al. 2020: 267). Conceptually, CS has been discussed largely in architectural studies when questioning the relationship between public and private spaces (Avermaete et al. 2006; Belingardi 2012; Gheysen et al. 2019). The term denotes an ambivalence and “lack of vocabulary” (Gheysen et al. 2019: 111) to describe public spaces that are re-appropriated by citizens and/or “private” spaces with inherently collective use-value. The authors addressing CS have been concerned about how such spaces are “represented” by practitioners and governance actors, and secondly how to describe the use and value of such spaces.

However, such analyses have largely been based in Western contexts where collective spaces have been considered in relation to pedestrian areas, car parks, shopping centres, etc., typically in “urbanised” areas. Little research has considered CS in cities of the Global South and particularly in “semi urbanised” peripheries. In Western contexts, CS’s are typically seen as already provided with infrastructure, with debates focused on collective reappropriation. However, in cities of the Global South, collective spaces are often produced in the absence of state infrastructure provision, between the formal and informal interface. Thus, CS’s are a crucial means for residents to access infrastructures and services. Arguably, collective production occurs in far greater diversity in cities of the Global South, such as Maputo, than observed by authors such as Prendergast (2013).

Building on alternative conceptualisations of informality, CS in contexts like Maputo is where individual and “collective” self-production practices encounter the practices of actors such as infrastructure/service providers. Furthermore, CS can be considered an interface of “conflicting rationalities” (Watson 2003). These rationalities, mainly of the state and population (Melo 2016), interplay or coexist, sometimes complementing one another, creating an ambiguity in the perception of responsibilities in CS’s. CS is therefore understood in this article as spaces of collective use/interactions and production. This relates to collective infrastructure, mobility and housing and social goods such as leisure, education, culture and commercial activities. The approach to CS focused on self-production practices can move beyond the binary view and increase the inclusivity of urban planning processes.

In some sense, “collective space” speaks to the fragmented understanding of the urban landscapes and allocation of governance responsibilities. CS traverses the boundaries of private household practices and collective social services/infrastructures and their interactions. In practice, CS is (i) a space of shared (often poorly outlined and overlapping) responsibilities, (ii) heterogeneous and collectively managed infrastructure and (iii) a broader site of socio-ecological reproduction.

This chapter, therefore, aims to examine self-production practices, as an important mechanism of CS production in Maputo’s peripheral neighbourhoods. By framing the analysis from a process-oriented perspective, the chapter seeks a more impartial and constructive approach to these territories. The chapter focuses on three aspects of CS in particular: (a) self-production of housing and its relation to CS, (b) collective service/infrastructure provision and (c) wider urban improvement interventions. The central question is: what can we learn from the production and use of CS in shaping urban planning in cities of the Global South? This discussion is presented in four empirical sections preceded by a background section: (1) perceptions about CS by different actors, (2) self-production practices concerning public services, (3) the local (municipal and neighbourhood) governance system and their potential role in articulating all practices and finally (4) a qualitative assessment to CS to identify challenges through materialities.

1.3 Methodology

This study is based on primary research conducted from January to March 2019 in two peripheral neighbourhoods in Maputo city, Bagamoyo and George Dimitrov. The research took a qualitative approach, including interviews of households and key informants, transect walks and participant observation. This approach was taken to (a) observe and document spatial characteristics, (b) identify spaces of collective production/use, (c) to elicit (different) perceptions concerning CS and (d) to document and understand the responsibilities and self-production practices of various actors in CS’s. A total of thirty-three interviews were conducted: twenty with residents (ten in each neighbourhood) and thirteen with key informants from relevant urban service providers (such as water, electricity, solid waste management utilities/agencies) and also local management and neighbourhood leadership (including neighbourhood secretaries, senior members of the community, etc.). Additionally, transect walks were conducted in each neighbourhood with local leaders and informed inhabitants.

The choice of these neighbourhoods as a case study was based on three main criteria: a visible spatial diversity in spatial configurations (i.e., infrastructure, housing development), that they have existed through most phases of the city’s spatial development, and that they continue to experience significant transformations. Multiple cases were chosen to compare local governance arrangements relating to collective spaces. Thus, the research is intended to build up from/build on different actors’ perceptions of self-production in collective space.

2 Background

2.1 Urban Development in Maputo City: Spatial Transformations

Maputo city, the capital of Mozambique, is integrated into a metropolitan region which houses over three million people, nearly 30% of the national urban population (INE² 2017, 2019). While the spatial extent of self-produced areas has, so far, not being fully mapped, it is estimated that, until 2008, 87% of the residential territory in Maputo was self-produced, “partially developed and semi-urbanized” (Henriques 2008: 70). This area corresponds to the municipal periphery, where about 89% of the population lives (INE 2017). Here, the expansion of self-produced neighbourhoods has occurred over decades of profound socio-political and economic changes (Oppenheimer and Raposo 2007; Melo 2013).

Since independence, Maputo has seen a rapid expansion and consolidation of self-produced areas. Such growth has replaced or encroached upon previously semi-rural agricultural land, green and ecological areas, including sensitive ecosystems, such as the mangrove on the east coast (Beja da Costa and Faria Ribeiro 2017; Beja da Costa and Jorge 2019). During the colonial period, the duality between the cidade cimento-caniço (cement-reed city) was established by the Portuguese colonial government, which intended to consolidate their control partly through the reinforcement of a highly unequal planning system (Melo 2013; Andersen et al. 2015a). According to Melo, at the end of the colonial period, the peri-urban area experienced a considerable expansion. As shown in Fig. 10.1, between independence (1975) and the end of the civil war (1992), land occupation in the so-called caniço city, experienced an enormous expansion. The following decade was marked by the consolidation of these new residential areas until the 2000 floods led to a rapid occupation of the northern territory.

Fig. 10.1

(Source Image edited by the author, from the land use maps by Henriques [2008: 127])

Land occupation and the expansion of residential areas in Maputo between the 1960s and 2000s

Two main factors influence more recent spatial transformations. Firstly, large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the “circular” road on the outskirts of Maputo and the Maputo-KaTembe Bridge, have encouraged land occupation in surrounding areas with high ecological value and environmental risk. Secondly, the more incremental and continuous home-making processes across self-produced neighbourhoods, as examined by Jenkins (2012) and Andersen (2013) in the homespace project.

2.2 Planning and Local Governance

Urban development in Maputo has been influenced only in a limited sense by official planning documents and practices. This is exemplified by a history of failed attempts to implement land-use planning, limited by “human resources, institutional capacities and lack of political will” (Andersen et al. 2015a: 339). In practice, complex forms of overlapping planning practices (Andersen et al. 2015a), along with a normalised illegal land market (Perriard 2017), dominate land-use development. This reality creates conditions for unofficial planning practices, sometimes replicating official patterns, termed “inverse governability” by Nielsen (2011: 332). The current municipal planning system remains a legacy from the colonial period characterised as rigid, expensive, lacking reference to sustainable development and detached from local contexts of urban change. While this conundrum in Maputo seemingly discredits the value of “formal” planning, planning systems have been said to work in the interests of groups such as the ascending middle class (Mazzolini 2016) and others that see the opportunity for forms of real estate speculation.

In 1996, Mozambique adopted a decentralised process to achieve “good governance” and increase service delivery, a strategy heavily promoted by international organisations and donors. However, implementation has been uneven, with many services remaining centralised (Silva 2016). Structurally, the municipal authority is constituted of the “urban”, “district” and “neighbourhood” levels, as shown in Fig. 10.2. While neighbourhood authorities are the primary interface with residents and have mobilisation power, they play an insignificant role in urban planning. Crucially, debates on decentralisation have often disregarded or failed to address the emergence of bottom-up governance arrangements emerging through collective agency and the blurred lines between broader governance actions/institutions and alternative practices.

Fig. 10.2

(Source Author)

Local administrative structure

Nevertheless, the city has allowed research and experimentation from various actors, increasingly recognising the inhabitant’s participation; many of them attempting context-based, bottom-up solutions for housing, infrastructure and commerce. Interestingly, in recent upgrading interventions, authorities are experimenting with participatory processes of recovering public land for infrastructure development, for instance, in the Chamanculo C requalification project [interview 13, 30].

2.3 Case Study: Bagamoyo and George Dimitrov

The case study is of two adjacent neighbourhoods, Bagamoyo and George Dimitrov, located on the periphery of Maputo city along one of the main national arterial roads. They are also both in the Infulene basin, an important area or urban agriculture. The areas existed before independence and were jointly known informally as “Benfica”. According to an individual who has lived in the area since 1950, in the late 1960s, a Portuguese investor named Custódio da Graça developed infrastructures, housing and services close to what is today known as George Dimitrov. Later, colonial buildings to house some public institutions were built in the area. However, the most significant development in land occupation took place during the civil war between 1977 and 1992, when refugees were looking for safer areas to live while the conflict prevailed. They established themselves in the area with intermediation, or as indicated by one community leader, “permission from the Regulo and Secretários de Bairro” [interview 33].³ The first is a traditional authority, and the second is a community authority established by FRELIMO,⁴ later legitimised as an intermediate figure between the state and citizens (Meneses 2009).

Spatially, the neighbourhoods are interesting territories to study CS due to their morphological and functional diversity, particularly concerning the mobility system and areas with high (although neglected) ecological/economic importance. Figure 10.3 shows the location of both neighbourhoods. In Maputo, the spatial dimension of self-produced territories is distinguished (by the municipality) in two categories: “planned” and “unplanned”. “Planned” settlements represent areas with an ordered (although not regularised) morphological structure, whereas “unplanned” areas are spontaneous and more organically structured (CMM⁵ 2016: 23). Here, the planned areas are related to unofficial planning practices described by Nielsen (2011).

Fig. 10.3

(Source Adapted by the author from António 2019—images on the right; Author, based on aerial photographs taken in Google Earth—image on the left)

Case study location and some important urban pre-existences

3 The Production of Collective Space in Maputo

Collective space (CS) in the context of Maputo is broadly produced through three related processes. Firstly, the self-construction of housing, a process through which individuals (inhabitants), through cooperation with local neighbourhood authorities, shape and reshape public spaces’ broader spatial/material condition. Secondly, through service/infrastructure provision, whether by public or private service providers, who consolidate such spaces through characteristically heterogeneous infrastructures. Thirdly, through co-produced improvement actions through which various actors (including central and municipal governments, international agencies, and residents) experiment with urban solutions.

In the following section, I explore critical aspects of the production and use of CS, including how inhabitants, planners and service providers perceive these spaces, the social practices and processes shaping CS, and how such processes are governed.

3.1 Conceiving Collective Space: Perceptions and Responsibilities

Recognising the perceptions of actors producing and using CS is a crucial way to understand their agency. As a starting point, I examine perceptions surrounding the self-production of housing. Self-production practices in housing are relevant to perceptions of CS because housing development in Maputo is largely an incremental, unlicensed process driven by inhabitants. Residents are responsible for constructing houses, initiating the administrative procedures for accessing land (ultimately owned by the state), and establishing the urban form and functional patterns. These processes are decisive in producing CS. While, in principle, housing development should follow “ordered” rules, there is, in practice, great diversity in how houses are built and, therefore, how space is configured, as can be seen in Fig. 10.4. This is partly a result of how residents perceive CS. Such perceptions critically influence housing construction decisions in confrontation with CS.

Fig. 10.4

(Source Author)

Distinct public space morphologies resulting from self-production of housing

Inhabitant’s perceptions of CS are evident in the initial arrangements of land occupation. A common theme among the household interviews was the land occupation processes concerning the space beyond households. Here, the agency and the intermediary role of local leaders and informal land market agents also influence occupation processes. For instance, most residents from “planned” areas stated that they (and their neighbours) respected CS because “when occupied, the area was already parcelled out, thus everyone built their construction/fence within the established limits” [interview 10]. Furthermore, some understand that “the land subdivision was undertook by the municipality” [interview 11], others acknowledged that when they “exceed the limit, the municipality might come, sometimes to the point of demolition” [interview 9]. Thus, although there is a broad understanding that “the authorities” control spaces beyond the boundaries of houses, most factor CS into house building decisions, and as one respondent indicated, such space “belongs to their backyard” [interview 11, 12]. So, if “a person intends to use it [the area in front of the house], they must ask the owner [the house owner nearest to the collective space] for permission” [interview 13].

Concerning residents in “unplanned” areas, there was a broad agreement among many interviewees that official boundaries were not respected: “not everyone considers public space and space for other infrastructure, some even wrap the electricity pole inside the backyards” [interview 13]. Respondents typically equated such phenomena to the land occupation process:

My backyard will be partially demolished in the future rehabilitation of the road. It is the fault of the person who (re)sold the space who was not careful and indicated an area within the road. [interview 13]

Referring to the same case, a separate interviewee described, “perhaps there was a lack of information from those superior to me [local neighbourhood leaders] why today some houses are destroyed to make room for the road” [interview 2].

Such perceptions highlight a crucial dynamic in how the governance and land occupation process influences inhabitants’ perceptions of CS. Uncertainty over the limits between private and public space can lead to “conflicts over plot limits” [interview 15, 16]. Moreover, residents actively make “interventions” in such spaces. As one interviewee described, when “everyone decides to put obstacles on the street” [interview 6], it changes the spatial dynamic of public spaces over time. Such “obstacles” are typically built features, mostly for security or accessibility. Residents tend to portray the area beyond houses as an infrastructure and “car-oriented” place, meaning that considerations must be made to leave just enough space for cars and other infrastructures when building houses. Thus, although there are in principle definite limits to demarcate private houses and public spaces, in practice, there is some degree of negotiation and ambiguity in how these spaces are produced.

When asked about the importance of CS concerning mobility and leisure, a common theme across interviews was that such spaces were “very important” for “health” [interview 10], the “development of certain physical and mental abilities” [interview 8], and because they “serve many purposes, be it meetings, or any kind of socialising” [interview 2], and especially “for children to have fun” [interview 14]. One respondent stressed that collective spaces were important for “young people who are in a bad life” [interview 3]. Respondents emphasised, however, certain risks in CS’s such as “being overrun by cars” [interview 11], because, although they valued such spaces, they were managed poorly. Interestingly, there is an understanding that historically, the authorities failed to preserve relevant areas for CS. As one respondent stated, “the municipality only preserved public land for football fields” [interview 4].

Municipal level planning authorities and service providers had different perceptions of collective space, more grounded in the formal-informal dichotomy. Overall, there is tacit acceptance or toleration of “unlicensed” activities in collective spaces among most service providers and planning authorities, except for the municipal commerce department that has a more regulatory, anti-informality position. I also found evidence of an “eradication” discourse common across planning bodies that see practices outside their regulation as needing to be converted/eliminated [interview 21, 23, 25]. Interestingly, many interviewees stated that the formal authorities are responsible but largely absent in practice when asked who is responsible for self-produced spaces. Key informants acknowledged how actors such as residents, land market mediators and neighbourhood leaders had, in practice, taken on many responsibilities for some “planning” actions [interview 21]. This view differed for those responsible for service provision (water and electricity), who generally had a more tolerant and practical idea about self- and collective-production interventions to infrastructure. As such, while planning bodies should, in principle, coordinate practices in CS, a much more fragmented approach to spatial development and planning is evident.

3.1.1 Responsibilities and Collective Space

Residents understand responsibilities surrounding CS in as many different ways as they conceive of them. When asked about responsibilities for the provision and maintenance of public services, although many indicated that residents had a level of responsibility, it is widely understood that “this is the subject of local leaders” [interview 20]. Very few residents were able to indicate the corresponding actor responsible for different services, except for potable water and electricity, which were more clearly seen as the responsibility of FIPAG’s,⁶ and local (private) providers and EDM’s,⁷ respectively. In their uncertainty, many residents ascribed a general responsibility to local leaders.

Furthermore, neighbourhood leadership is central to how residents perceive their collective responsibilities and participate in or contribute to local development. As shown, there is a considerable density in the number of community representatives. If we consider chefe de quarteirão (block chief) and chefe das dez casas (chief of ten houses), there is approximately one leader for every fifty residents. Neighbourhood leaders act as mediators for residents on formal procedures and for gaining access to services, and represent the community’s voice in local development matters.

However, according to some local leaders, there are challenges concerning land occupation because residents, when overreaching their temporary limits to build permanent fences, frequently and knowingly take common land [interview 32 and 33]. According to one leader, many residents ignore directions and build quickly because they recognise the authorities’ dilemma regarding the destruction of individual infrastructures. Concerning participation, all interviewed leaders acknowledged that residents are widely involved in local decision-making processes. However, residents, especially the youth, often feel excluded. For example, they feel that “meetings that are held in the neighbourhood are to inform or discuss specific problems, rather than ideas” [interview 18]. In summary, the perception of diverse responsibilities, with an emphasis on the role of local leaders, shapes local planning practices and contributes to understanding power dynamics in CS.

3.2 Diverse Self-Production Practices Concerning Public Services

Collective space (CS) is a product of self-production processes and practices that respond to the need for various public services. One service is security. Wealthier and more resourceful residents were observed to be less open concerning collective space, in that they often built large walls and other security features that served as a barrier. While household security is the dominant underlying rationale, security in collective spaces themselves was also an important concern among respondents. Individual interventions are made, such as lighting within people’s plots that also light surrounding areas, which impact collective safety.

Moreover, residents build infrastructure in CS to address challenges such as drainage (Fig. 10.5). Other infrastructure and built interventions include modifying roads to improve access to commercial establishments or providing better access for vehicles. Many of these interventions are collectively organised, financed at a community level and solve collectively experienced issues. Consequently, there is a dynamic interplay between accessibility and safety in common areas. The quality of such interventions reflects the profile of the residents involved. They are often temporary solutions. Neighbourhood authorities typically support such interventions, as they understand community needs and acknowledge the lack of resources at the municipal level to provide key services.

Fig. 10.5

(Source Modified by the author from António [2019: 80–93])

Individual and collective interventions on CS by residents

Services such as water, electricity and solid waste management, are provided by “official” agencies. They are relevant not only to individuals but also to collective spaces. Firstly, water provision was, until 2007, dominated by boreholes, private vendors and shared water taps (Macucule 2018). These provision methods are typically situated in collective space. Importantly, such water provision was technically “informal” until legitimised by the state in 2015, and today represents a recognised, sometimes favoured, option for residents [interviews 4, 11, 13, 16 and 33]. Existing decentralised water taps are increasingly recognised by water authorities as “an infrastructure that belongs to no one” [interview 25]. Recently, demand is mainly met by private providers whose local residents viewed to offer a more reliable and efficient service. Moreover, water infrastructures are managed by multiple actors.

Regarding electricity, street lighting is one of the most critical components in collective spaces. In both neighbourhoods, the distribution and availability of street lighting is uneven. Spatially, areas of “spontaneous occupation” are generally less well served than those of “ordered occupation”. This is relevant to neighbourhood security, one of the most pressing challenges. When asked what aspects are in need of urgent improvement in the neighbourhood, half of the interviewed residents highlighted street lightning, some based on the security imperative [interviews 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14], others concerned with quality [interviews 2, 13, 16 and 20]. Residents have long practised self-producing and self-maintaining electricity infrastructures themselves, including installing polls/wire, building/repairing lampposts and lamps. Others produced their own street lighting (Fig. 10.6).

Fig. 10.6

(Source Author)

Self-produced (potential) solutions for street lighting

Solid waste management is an iconic case of self-production practices that have been legitimised and recognised by many actors, including the municipality. In principle, the municipality manages solid waste. This includes two levels of services: the neighbourhood level, the primary collection (from houses and public spaces), and the secondary collection from the containers to the municipal dump. The first is operated by a local microenterprise chosen through public tender. The second is a larger company, which operates at the municipal level. Both are contracted by the municipality (Macucule 2018). Essentially, this waste collection system mimicked and incorporated aspects of self-production practices that already existed.

This service is considered innovative because of the financial sustainability that has been achieved [interview 22]. Taxes are collected through electricity bills to fund the service. In addition to the public service, which is viewed as satisfactory, residents, along with neighbourhood leaders, enforce the maintenance of the neighbourhood through “sporadic block cleaning days” [interview 33] (Fig. 10.7).

Fig. 10.7

(Source Modified by the author from António [2019: 83])

Microenterprise operating in a neighbourhood

It is clear that self-production of services is crucially important for collective space, where residents and local leaders play a key role. What is shown is a predisposition of residents to contribute to local development through providing and managing public services. The service provision dynamics described above show a fragmented but increasing proliferation of efforts by the public actors to capitalise on, mimic and legitimise creative self-produced practices in CS.

In the context of this reappropriation and legitimisation of practices by the authorities, co-production (mostly experimental) initiatives have been tested in these territories. For instance, the “George Dimitrov neighbourhood improvement project” (Projeto de melhoramento do bairro George Dimitrov 2015), an intervention that attempted to integrate informal commerce, inspired by informal practices. Also, an ongoing (since 2015) university-led initiative named Kaya Clínica offers technical assistance (as mediators for the municipality) to residents of George Dimitrov to gain access to DUATs⁸ through regularisation, and therefore a potential platform to ensure the balance between individual and common land.

The above interventions represent attempts by the state to address issues in self-produced areas. However, such initiatives primarily depend on foreign funds and have an insignificant territorial impact, as they fail to be replicable.

3.3 Governance of Collective Space

As argued, there is a “dense” system of governance and control at the local level. This system has benefits and downsides that became evident in the research. Among the benefits, neighbourhood leaders are locally recognised figures. This gives residents a high degree of mobilisation power, which provides convenient conditions for engagements. For instance, in co-produced interventions where residents have to give up part of their plots for public space, the existent trust between these authorities and residents results in fewer conflicts.

However, although considered legitimate, local authorities are not formally bound to the municipal planning and management system, nor are they trained to assume spatial planning tasks. One of the constraints is their direct/indirect involvement in some unofficial land occupation processes, including the occupation of public reserves and ecological areas. Another obvious constraint is uneven management. The “expected mediation” role relies on the understanding of the leader representing residents, which largely impacts how residents participate in local development. When residents were asked about their involvement in improving living conditions, opinions split between those who did not believe they had a voice regarding existing space [interviews 4, 5, 8, 17, 20] and those who indicated that local authorities are those who represent them on such occasions [interviews 11, 13, 19].

One critical governance challenge relates to the perception of responsibilities. The state often uses the complexity of responsibilities to avoid their obligations. Another key challenge concerns power dynamics. Despite the decentralisation process, authorities at the neighbourhood level have little power in relation to some centralised services, adding complexity to the governance.

3.4 Assessing Challenges in Collective Space

To assess the practices in the production and use of collective space (CS), a transect walk was conducted across neighbourhoods with local leaders to identify major challenges in CS (Fig. 10.8). The following discusses the dynamics between different services in distinct geographical areas in the neighbourhoods, allowing for some critical observations. The first is the interdependency between different infrastructure systems within collective space, including those with high ecological value. The mismanagement or inefficiencies of one infrastructure can affect another. For example, I observed that the lack of adequate sanitation and drainage systems in one part of the neighbourhood directly impacts the water quality in another part. Moreover, there are critical social challenges in CS. For instance, uneven distribution creates social challenges such as security with regard to public lighting and other social goods. Additionally, for some infrastructural deficiencies, residents sometimes develop only short-term solutions.

Fig. 10.8

(Source Modifyed by the author from António [2019: 101])

Results from transect walk in Bagamoyo and George Dimitrov neighbourhoods

These challenges suggest the need for better understanding of the problems to address challenges within CS. However, at the institutional level, common issues are addressed in a segmented way. Therefore, municipal authorities need to take a more flexible approach to self-production practices beyond individual household needs. In fact, there is an urgency for a more systematic approach that realises the potentialities of self-produced practices in CS so as to meet current needs and aspirations.

This is an initial assessment of the reality of collective spaces, and is based on the assumption that self-production practices play a significant role in the dynamics of urban life in Maputo. Here, I argue that self-production practices transverse the household level in response to service needs, heavily shaping the importance and need for CS. It is important to stress that, through this case study, the ambiguity of the formal/informal binary takes shape through those who hold responsibilities and the way CS is perceived, lived and governed. Although its practices are highly legitimate, this does not negate the importance of the challenges faced.

4 Conclusion

In conclusion, alternative framings of informality are a useful starting point for a less pejorative understanding of urban peripheries in the Global South. They offer a lens through which to understand collective space. Lefebvre’s (1991) triadic conception of space opens up potential frameworks that embrace the complexity of these spaces and their production practices, as underlined by the concept of self-production. I used self-production as a lens to identify, outline and assess practices that create and transform CS in Maputo, from which I made some critical reflections. While this is a valuable lens, we might also consider collective-production, which emphasises actions that are rarely self-referential but emerge because of, and have repercussions for CS.

Self- and collectively-produced practices are more extensive than previously understood. Such practices allow for the survival of inhabitants as they use their imagination to find solutions for everyday challenges such as access to services, safety, building more liveable neighbourhoods and navigating a complex landscape of political and planning “authority”. Through self- and collective- production practices, residents address individual, “private” concerns as well as collective concerns. The case of Maputo suggests that such a situation arises partly because planning is not a political priority, and authorities are passive (or reactive) towards improving CS with limited capacity. Although there has been some recent legitimisation of self-produced service provision practices, there remains an ambiguity concerning responsibilities in CS’s, which to a certain extent allows the state to ignore their role in this domain.

This study shows that CS is a product of alternative use and production practices. This may speak to an alternative understanding of CS in cities of the Global South, which contrasts with previous research focused on Western contexts (see Gheysen 2018). Practices such as local solutions to street lighting, provide clues for necessary regulatory adjustments to shape planning based on the realities “on the ground”. Focusing on CS shifts debates on informality from the housing and economy scale, and indeed dichotomous understandings of the production of space, to the interface and interaction between different social, technical and governmental (complementing) processes. To further understand how such practices in CS can shape urban planning, further case studies are needed on collective spaces, particularly in Global South contexts.