Perceptions of Secure Life Space in Informal Urban Zimbabwe
Kathryn Ewing BAS
(UCT), BArch (UCT), PhD (Glasgow)
kathrynewing@telkomsa.co.za or katie@visionplan.co.za
The objective
of this paper is to readdress the term ‘security’ in the context of
contemporary
By
investigating the spatial occupation, consolidation processes and use of the
home and the home-based enterprise, offers a valuable insight as to how people
claim their right to land, involving the concept of ‘start-up’ or
household formation. This reveals how families express their social identity
and produce democratic personal and community spaces within the built
environment regarding complex levels of perceived ownership.
Accordingly, this can further enhance our understanding of the meaning of household
security, which should lead to more sensitive and supportive housing policy
responses concerning urban land systems.
Research
is based on hearing the voice of the urban poor themselves (
This paper is organised
into three interrelated sections. Firstly, it presents the background
discourse, questioning theories on low-income housing and land security in the
developing world today. This presentation sets the tone for the following
section, which narrows the field to the assessment of changing spatial
implications of physical living conditions of households in
1. Theoretical
airings from the past
The land-shelter problem in developing countries is by no means a novel phenomenon. Low-income housing, informal settlements and urban land tenure have been hotly debated in the past four decades. Despite the many critiques of Turner (1972, 1976) (e.g. Burgess, 1982), housing theorists have continued to use the examination of informal settlements to learn from survival systems of people living in poverty. Previous theoretical writings[3] mention the inability of governments to supply adequate quality and quantity housing and land for the urban poor (Angel et al., 1983; Hamdi, 1985; Hardoy & Satterthwaite, 1989; UNCHS, 1987). “Households have, therefore, taken their own initiatives to house themselves… but such initiatives are often considered illegal” (de Souza, 1999: 20).
Friedmann and
Douglass (1998: 5) argue, “Access to environmental life space, access to land,
housing and a life supporting environment is a primary good for which even very
poor households will make an exceptional effort and sacrifice to secure.” Friedmann
(1992: 67) regards defensible life space where it, “includes the physical space
in which household members cook, eat, sleep and secure their personal
possessions… It extends beyond the space called ‘home’ to the immediate
neighbourhood where socialising and other life-supporting activities take
place… Gaining a secure and permanent foothold in a friendly and supportive
urban neighbourhood is the most highly prized social power of all...” Douglass
(1998: 124-125) explains that the importance of secure life space centres on
the perception of a secure
community environment. Social mechanisms of the household are fundamental
in the utilisation and development of different economic functions within the
physical setting. Such mechanisms allow members of a household to form
strategies, make decisions, allocate resources, manage the household, produce
their livelihood, and maintain their habitat both at an individual and
community level.
Yet why do
people still risk investing in improving households and community environments
on illegal land? The answer is far more complex than basic necessity to provide
shelter. “Land is frequently a scarce resource…” (Turner, 1976a). Urban land
once occupied, whether it is legal or illegal, has an exchange value
(Ward, 1989). Combined with this factor, land that is occupied or invaded by the
urban poor has a use value for both reproductive and productive
activities. Evidence reveals that people invade vacant land with the intention
to occupy and build a house for their personal daily living (Payne, 2002).
Households invest in all kinds of processes and commodities to improve their
plots and businesses, which inevitably change their perceptions of security
(Assies, 1994).
Perceived land tenure
relates to how the people view their situation with regards to the
household and security and their experiences as a past, present or future
resident of a neighbourhood (Razzaz, 1993: 349). De Souza (1999: 23) defines perceived
tenure as the household’s perceived rights to own, buy, sell or use their
houses. By using the term ‘perceived tenure’ avoids the requirements to
ascertain legal proof of property rights (de Souza, 2001: 179; 1999: 19). More
importantly it establishes the term ‘perceived’ to emphasize the
dynamic, energetic process of tenure security depending on who perceives
it (Doebele, 1987). Payne (1989: 44) notes, “Perceived security of tenure is
more critical in releasing investment for housing consolidation than legal
status as such, and clearly the provision of public utilities is regarded by
residents as strong evidence that they are officially accepted and enjoy de
facto security of tenure.” To confirm Payne’s statement, Douglas (1998:
125) points out that many people consider their security on other factors, “The
overall result of the mixed messages arising from de jure and de
facto land tenure and state policies and actions is that residents of
low-income communities without tenure may look to other indicators of stability,
such as the length of time that the community has existed, the household’s
position in the ethnic or religious mix of the community, the appearance of
significant numbers of new migrants representing new rural origins or household
types, the extent of government investment in the community infrastructure and
services, or whether previous efforts to avoid eviction have been successful.” De
Souza (2001: 178) further argues along similar lines to that of Douglass where,
“perceptions of tenure are also related to the housing process, since all
incremental investments to build shacks informally to provide households with a
certain degree of tenure.” Payne (1997: 9) suggests that informal areas that do
not have access to secure tenure with the threat of eviction are generally of a
‘low standard’. Contradictory to this, de Souza (2001: 178) disputes that the quality
of housing increases as a result of housing consolidation, despite
tenure legality. However, there may be variations on the perceptions regarding
informal claims of tenure. This is dependent on the property that is being
claimed, whether that may be the house or the land. There is a clear
distinction between household and land security. This is related to the
household’s perceived right to possess the dwelling, the materials and personal
possessions. It relates to how such security has been gained and what
is perceived as secure (de Souza, 2001: 176). A perceived right may not
be seen as only the right to occupy land but the actual dwelling itself.
In many cases land invasion or land (re)distribution may cause spatial upheaval. Different families have various priorities and reasons for building their home in a certain way or occupying a distinct space, or even developing the home over a short or long time period. Consolidation processes are linked to the surrounding local forces and perceived security of the household. What is interesting in the housing process is how the people initially ‘start-up’ their ‘home’, either legal or illegal, and how do physical living conditions influence the process of locational choice and change. The occupation of space of the home reveals the importance placed on the security of socio-spatial relationships. Families form an attachment to new places giving identity and belonging. The importance of development on virgin land is vital in the spatial understanding of how people form the home. Dwellings may have been taken down from previous locations and reconstructed on the new site or plot of land (Kellett, 1997: 5). Ownership may also be declared by growing vegetables, constructing a dwelling, informing your neighbours that you ‘belong’ or sweeping the ground to claim possession. It is interesting to note the importance placed on the stage of development of the home in terms of spatial use and time of development from the beginning. This helps in understanding the consolidation process and time-space relationship of households. It informs the use of space in the household dwelling and relationship of user to dwelling.
However, even with preceding discourse, there is still insufficient understanding of what security means to individual households or the nature of households perceptions to security of tenure (de Souza, 1999, 2001; Payne, 1989; Ward & Macoloo, 1992). Despite numerous initiatives during the last decade to improve land systems and tenure security, limited results have centred on empirical evidence of individual household security on the ground (Fourie, 2001: 2).
2. Mukai
mu
Land
and housing for the urban poor is a fundamental problem throughout the
developing cities of the world (Angel et al., 1983; Auret, 1995; Payne,
2002a). Urban
“Mukai muZimbabwe. That means, ‘wake up
long, so much has happened to us and we
just sit back and watch” (Betty Mukora, Hatcliffe New Stands, October 2002).
2.1
Setting the Context…Contested Ground
The area researched in
However, with recent
land reform policies implemented by government in the past four years, a
section of virgin land (previously council farmland) on the urban periphery
called Hatcliffe New Stands was allocated to certain households from Hatcliffe
Extension Holding Camp in February 2002. The new stands are located
approximately 4 kilometres from the existing Holding Camp. Eviction orders were
issued in September 2003, but by October 2002 903 families had relocated using
their energy to demarcate boundaries and claim land. There is no legal paperwork
involved in the land accord except verbal agreement. Nevertheless, the people ‘believe’
that they now ‘own their piece of land’. There has been phenomenal
spatial change between the existing Holding Camp and people that moved to new ‘allocated
plots’. From March 2002 to March 2003, a new, organised but informal
settlement developed on the new plots of 200m². There is no water, no sewerage
and no electricity on the allocated land, but people have moved their ‘plastics’
and ‘cabins’ [4]
to the new land. The open spaces now carved within the Holding Camp are being
invaded by existing residents for further extension or new people searching for
a space to build a home on the city’s edge.
2.2 Musha wedu… ‘our home’, but should we
stay or should we go?
The following two families are presented to reveal the occupation of space; firstly an elderly couple Paul and Janet Hamandawana. They support the family through chickens, selling meat and eggs. Their home reveals an adaptable, spatial environment changing the settings daily to suit their activities and their needs. The Hamandawana family have moved their home and livelihood to their new stand. Secondly, Peter and Rose Makuyana manage and operate the grinding mill in Hatcliffe Extension Holding Camp. It is the only grinding mill in the settlement. Peter started the mill many years ago through profits from selling ‘temba’ (small dried fish) to the local community. They have been ‘allocated’ a new stand, but the Makuyana family move between their two homes in the New Stands and the Holding Camp, uncertain of the outcome of security on either.
2.2.1 The spatial
development of the Hamandawana and Makuyana households
Figure
1 Drawings to represent
the different stages of spatial development of the Hamandawana household
in Hatcliffe Extension Holding Camp
Paul
Hamandawana explains the spatial development of his home in Hatcliffe Extension
Holding Camp,
“You find we were dumped in the bundu
(grassy over-grown area) just out at the Extension there […] From there we
started to build again some other shelter. Tall grass and snakes, animals were
there, but the people we stayed until the government started to allocate and
put us in lines, because we just stay scattered. They decided no, that people
must stay in the lines, as we know where we are. That is when they started
again to give some people some cabins, wooden huts… and then we were given a
cabin, number, 604 (stage 1). The first use was in this little space here.
Here, at the back of the house, there was a road to go to clinic, so this place
was a little bit bigger, a little bit open, so we managed to put up, because we
built there at the back of the cabin. I first build a small room for bathroom
[…] Second, after that we find out that still we decide to put another small
one for the chickens at the back to make some for the people, to sell (stage
2). Then we put another chickens at the side, a long one, and the one that
remains there all the time that you, Kathryn, saw long time ago, that we used
for many things (stage 3). So then there was all one big chicken (chicken run 1
and 2 combined). That was a small one we use for a dining on the front, because
it was joined to the cabin… The third stage, then we staying here a long time,
then we decide that people move to Dzivaresekwa, but we first got the cabin in
’95. But it stayed like that until people moved to Dzivaresekwa by Ministry in
’97. No, it was like that until we moved here (discussion with his wife,
Janet). But still we had a neighbour who was staying next door to us here and
she went to Dzivaresekwa. That is when we built another chicken for layers
(chicken run 3), but the house was the same (stage 4). We just take the floor
that was there (concrete slab) and build up with the floor... From there, we
put a fence around the chickens, but only a door and a small passage there
only. That was the last to go when we moved (stage 8), but by then it was for
the storage of our property and not for the chickens, because we moved those on
wheelbarrows and baskets and walked to the New Stands in that August holiday
after the time I saw you there at that Holding Camp. But then we decided to
move everything then to here.”
Figure 2 Drawings
to represent the different stages of spatial development of the Hamandawana
household in Hatcliffe New Stands
Paul continues with his explanation of the development on his new
stand,
“…We moved the cabin in March,
a day after elections. There was no transport but it was cheaper that day as
transport was going up and up, like today you cannot expect to move, it is too
hard. We did not expect that the stand would be taken away. We did not expect
it to be like that. Anyway, my house was built in different stages because of
all this up and down and not knowing, but also because we have no money and now
the chickens are no more, I am not sure. But, I still built it like that. So
when we moved here (New Stands), we started with the cabin first and the dining
to the New Stands and then the bathroom came too as it was attached. On the
stand we first put, this cabin was just there (stage 1), yes, same as where the
chicken is now. The dining was not yet built, but the material was here on the
stand. We were just laying it on the floor, but now it is that one (points to
kitchen on New Stands- stage 4), because at that time we could not have started
to build to join more because we were told that you people are going to move
here, you are going to go back […] That is why chicken is there, that’s why we
were sleeping there and the chicken staying there for a long time because we were
told we were going to move (Holding Camp) [...] We spend the day here and in
the afternoon go for these birds. Then I eat here and go and sleep there, in
this house (chicken run 2 of Holding Camp) and still my chickens there. Then we
had to remove it (chicken run 2 of Holding Camp) and then put it here waiting
to be built. I used to go and sleep
there every night to keep all that property. There was a lot of property as
there is security wire and all the planks and plenty of stuff and bricks there
(Holding Camp).When we stayed here (New Stands), we stayed for the time before
doing anything. There was a big heap of soil here, like right at the front,
then I started to spread it all over here until this place here, you can see by
yourself, this floor is now on the position. That is when I take the cabin from
there and remove it and put it here (stage 2). That was in about May
(discussion with Janet about dates) […] So I decide to build the brick one like
this, for the chickens (stage 3). In the meantime, my children were staying in
the cabin. Once I have finished building, that is when we start moving the
chickens […] When we moved the chicks, that one stay there (chicken run 2 and
chicken run 3 at Holding Camp). It stay there for two to three months
(confirmation from Janet) […] So what we do is that we join this cabin in a
position and put the kitchen on the corner there like it is now. Then we had
some African chickens, which we had, so I have to join this chicken (chicken
run 2). Lastly we join another chicken again (chicken run 3) (stage 5 and 6).
Some those for the chicks from the Extension now made up these ones joined up
to that fresh one (brick chicken run). I made those over a period of time, from
March until now, and we are still building. We don’t know what is exactly happening
[…] We were very busy so it gives us time to rest by working in these stages.
We build today and then give us time to rest and think what to do. Now there is
nothing in the Extension. Everything is here.”
The Hamandawana
household is flexible in the use of space. Different spatial settings
accommodate constantly changing activities. This was experienced in both the
Holding Camp and the New Stands. The actual dwelling structures have been built
up in both settlements according to materials available. Their home-based
enterprise functions in separate structures, being the flexible ‘chicken runs’.
Such spaces are not rigid in their use, but adapt to the needs of the family.
The space initially intended as a chicken run has changed its nature to being a
space that is multifunctional and diverse. In the Holding Camp, the
Hamandawana’s maximised the yard space and increased the area by claiming the
neighbour’s space. Their home in the New Stands lends itself to similar
changes. The brick chicken run recently functioned as storage for drying their
maize stock. Within the Hamandawana household the separate structures for
business dominate approximately half of the dwelling structures as a whole.
This was experienced in both settlements, which places importance on the
business within the home and the values attached to the economic space.
The
Hamandawana’s contemplated moving all their property from Hatcliffe Extension
Holding Camp to Hatcliffe New Stands over a 10 month period. Their perceptions
of security changed over time. This had implications on their home-based
enterprise. In June 2002, Paul explained that the lack of water was the main
problem in the New Stands. Therefore, they kept the chicken run in the Holding
Camp in order to continue business. However, by October 2002, the Hamandawana’s
had gradually moved a large proportion of their belongings to their new stand. Paul
and Janet have certain doubts about the future of the land. Nevertheless, they
made a concerted effort and a decision to develop a home on the newly,
‘allocated’ piece of land. By December 2002, they had relocated all their
materials, implying a perceived sense of safety on the new land. Despite the
expansion of the dwellings on the stand, they still maintain that they will
wait for the official ‘go-ahead’ to build their ‘big house’, but they believe
the stand belongs to them and are willing to develop the main chicken run in
brick. The Hamandawana’s have subconsciously consolidated their household. They
agree that life on their new stand is more comfortable than that in the Holding
Camp. However, their financial difficulties give a certain level of insecurity
to the household in order to support the ever-growing family of grandchildren
and continuation of the business, let alone the cost of the construction of a
house to meet Government standards and building regulations on the new land.
The Makuyana
household is now described.
Figure 3 Drawings
to represent the different stages of spatial development of the Makuyana
household in Hatcliffe Extension Holding Camp
Peter Makuyana describes his story,
“When I came here, I first
stayed just on top near the offices (ZRP), just 500 metres from here. I just
built two rooms for the plastic with two doors, yah that was in January 1994
when we came to the Holding Camp... After they had finished building, I was
allocated and given a cabin (Stage 1). That was in ‘95 (confirms with his wife,
Rose). Right, there is a road here and a road here, so I am on the corner. That
was when I first was given a cabin. Then we stay there with my family and I
bought my grinding mill in ’96. I operate that from ’96 up until now. First
after getting a cabin, so I get that grinding mill just near to here but that
did not work, you see […] There was a war for it to be where it is […] People
are pleased and saying ‘please don’t leave, your grinding mill is good to us’,
but before they used to curse and shout saying ‘you must move’ […] It was
serious! That is why they want me away but that is why I must stay here…”
“…The house, after that, I put
a kitchen opposite (stage 3). Then after that I put some chickens next to that
kitchen after I put another room to it for the cooking and storing (stage 4).
So then I could carry on using that one room for selling my temba and have a
separate space for my wife to do the cooking next door. I sell that temba out
the front because I am on the corner so it is good for business. But you know,
that room is used for many things you see, so it changes, but I can call it the
tuckshop, but I don’t sell that temba anymore. Then, there is a bathroom on
corner. Then I put my toilet next to that bathroom that was in ’99 when the
donors give us those prefabricated ones. The toilet and the bathroom they are
together. I have some peach trees and some avocado pear trees there now. It is
good, because now they can give us some food because they are old enough, not
like in the New Stands there are no trees there, no food…Then, we went to those
New Stands in March 2002 after the elections (confirms with Rose). It was
Davious who was first on 1 March and then Chikwire on 8 and then me on 9 March.
We were fast moving, but we were the first, like at Churu Farm we are the
first! […] I removed the cabin (stage 5 of Holding Camp and Stage 1 of New
Stands), and it goes there, on my new stand, and the toilet there and this is
the grinding mill here (Holding Camp). The kitchen remains; it is the same one
(Holding Camp). Then, at that time, we were sleeping in the small kitchen
because there I had made two compartments in the kitchen there. […] At that
time, sometimes I used to go there (New Stands) myself to stay in the cabin. I
used to wake up in the morning and come back here. Sometimes I leave at about
twelve
Figure 4 Drawings
to represent the different stages of spatial development of the Makuyana
household in Hatcliffe New Stands
“Then,
we were lucky. The new cabin again comes in the same place, yes, exactly the
same place as the previous one (at the Holding
The Makuyana household
in the Holding Camp has parallel characteristics to the Hamandawana households
in the use of space. In the Holding Camp, their tuckshop functions not only as
a selling space, but also as a flexible living, sleeping, storing and cooking
space. The function has changed over the years, dependent on the demand of the
family and the business. The grinding mill however operates in a separate
structure, although more of a semi-open structure. This space is used only
for keeping the machinery employed for grinding. Customers normally wait
outside in the yard.
In comparison to the
Hamandawana’s, the Makuyana’s have divided their home between Hatcliffe
Extension Holding Camp and Hatcliffe New Stands. They have managed to claim
space in both settlements. There is always ‘another option’ should there
be eviction orders in either of the settlements. The Makuyana’s have relocated only their cabin to the New Stand, which
his children occupy. Peter regards the stand as safe for habitation. This shows
a certain level of perceived security. Yet Peter feels it is better that he
occupies their household with the grinding mill in the Holding Camp. The
business is seen to be the fundamental future survival of the family. Peter is
not willing to give up his business regardless of the outcome of the legality
of the land, but he has decided that their business is dependent on remaining
in the Holding Camp. It is revealed that the grinding mill was seen to be the
vital focal point in spatial consolidation of the small surround at the Holding
Camp. However, Peter is finding the difficulties of access to finance and food
a security risk. This may affect the continuity of his business and the
livelihood of those involved.
2.2.2
Analysis of case studies
A statement
made by UNCHS (1996: 371) claims, “Significant housing investment does not make
sense unless tenure is secure and assistance in securing land is generally the
first step in a process of consolidation.” In contradiction to this theory,
based on empirical findings from Hatcliffe, my argument agrees with de Souza
(1999) where many households consolidate their homes and businesses despite their
apparent lack of land tenure security. Households improve the family living
conditions to enhance their quality of life they have reason to value, relying
on their capabilities and personal assets (Sen 1999). I found that
space on newly occupied and contested land is constantly (re)negotiated and
dependent on the level of perceived security
to the consolidation process. Households that have relocated to Hatcliffe
New Stands from the Holding Camp have increased their quality of life
considerably. People have established their homes even with eviction orders and
the threat of removal. The legality of land tenure is not the main
anxiety for households when concerning the daily survival of the family.
Nevertheless, there is importance placed on access to title deeds, even though
the majority of the people interviewed perceived that they had been ‘given’
the land by Government. They believe they were entitled to their rights to own
land in urban
Even though the people
in Hatcliffe have used the opportunity of access to land, there are many
problems that are associated with this spatial disruption. Social network and
community ties are now in conflict and the whole question of the struggle for
land continues. What remains unknown to the households in Hatcliffe is the
future outcome of the legal question of urban land tenure and ownership rights,
future housing possibilities and financial assistance. To gain legal land
tenure usually requires money, something that the people of Hatcliffe severely
lack. Market forces may push the families back into uncertainty (Angel et
al., 1983; Gilbert & Ward, 1985; Jones & Ward, 1994; Varley, 1994).
Home-based enterprise forms a possible route towards a sustainable livelihood
for individual households (Kellett & Tipple, 2000: 213). However, in the
context of Hatcliffe New Stands, legal tenure would mean strict regulations
regarding working from the home premises combined with strict building
regulations and standards, and in many cases, closure of the business. In
short, the formalisation or legalisation of land may jeopardize rather
than improve household security in the specific social context. The importance of addressing and assessing
an alternative concept of security is needed in order to comprehend sound urban
land and housing policies.
3. Conclusion:
Positive ingredients for urban change
Housing and
land policies should push towards coexistence in an African city that has been
subjected to exclusion and dominant urban colonisation processes. An
alternative theory to land security involves indirect, local actions of the
poor, and their relationship with the authoritarian system. This is reviewed in
correlation to how people have made a spatial claim to a piece of land on the
urban edge of
a) LAND TENURE
·
A focal starting point would recognise that
alternative approaches should emerge from specific contexts where no
legal tenure or land rights are present.
·
In order to propose a new approach of household
security, the concept of legal tenure needs to be addressed from an individual
household perspective.
·
Legalisation of land tenure is not
necessary for both individual household and settlement consolidation. People
choose to improve their households for personal well-being and increase assets
incrementally to their needs, despite illegal occupation.
·
The aspect of tenure security is imported from
conventional planning and land tenure practice, relating primarily to freehold
property rights, as in the Zimbabwean context. However, many individual household’s
perceptions of security do not involve similar principles of the formal
understanding. This includes the influence of customary relationships to land
tenure and the occupation of space.
b) HOUSEHOLD SECURITY
·
Individual household security, economic resources
and capabilities, assets incurred, building capacity, personal gains and
consolidation processes are as important as perceived
levels of security.
·
Household security is a relevant aspect in local
decision-making in the home, which has an influence on the reasons for
consolidation of the home environment, especially development of
income-generating activities. People’s perceptions of security change according
to the local forces. Allowances in policy formation and implementation must be
acknowledged and included.
·
Realism about household differentiation, where each household is
dependent on varying security factors and local forces both at household and
community level. Housing is seen as heterogeneous. Conventional urban land
tenure implies homogenous settlements of ordered plots of land where housing
complies with strict building regulations.
·
Household security increases with the mobilisation
of the urban poor. Terms related to everyday practice should be used and adapted within
land and housing terminology in the presentation and formulation of land and
housing policies.
A positive ingredient
for change centres on the influence of careful planning and low-income housing
design in informal contested areas. There is a need to push towards
appropriating urban space in such a way that it is valued and preserved, accommodating
for change over time, growth and most importantly the freedom of choice for the
people.
Angel
Shlomo, Archer Raymon W., Tanphiphat Sidhijai & Wegelin Emiel A. (1983). Land for Housing the
Poor.
Assies Willem (1994). ‘Reconstructing the meaning of
urban land in
(Eds.) (1994). Methodology for land and
housing market analysis.
Auret
Diana (1995). Urban Housing: A National
Crisis.
Buckle Tony (1995). ‘Ndihlala e
Burgess
R.D. (1982). ‘Self-help housing advocacy: a curious form of radicalism. A
critique of the work of
John F.C. Turner’, in P. M. Ward (Ed.)
(1982). Self-Help Housing. A Critique,
de Souza Flavio A. M. (1999). Land Tenure Security and Housing
Improvements in
Habitat
International, Vol. 23, No. 1: 19- 33.
de Souza Flavio A. M. (2001). Perceived security of land tenure in
25 (2001): 175- 190. (Also see Habitat
International, 23 (1): 19-33.)
Dialogue
on Shelter for the Homeless of
urban poor and homeless in
Doebele William (1987). The evolution of concepts of
urban land tenure in developing countries. Habitat
International, 11 (1): 7- 22.
Douglass Mike (1998). ‘
Civil Society and Environmental Management’, in J. Friedmann & M.
Douglas (Eds.) (1998). Cities for
Citizens: Planning the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age.
2002: Regenerating
http://www.saplanners.org.za/SAPC/papers/PaperEwing.pdf
Urban
Fourie Clarissa (2001). Land property registration at
the crossroads: A time for more relevant
approaches. Habitat Debate, UNCHS. September 2001, Vol. 7, No.3.
www.unhabitat.org/hd/hdv7n3/16.htm.
Friedmann John (1992). Empowerment: The politics of Alternative Development.
University Press.
Friedmann John & Douglas Michael (Eds.) (1998). Cities for Citizens: Planning the Rise of
Civil Society
in
a Global Age.
Gargett E.S. (1971). Welfare and Services in an
African Urban Area. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 1971,
Gilbert Alan & Ward Peter M. (1985). Housing,
the state and the poor: policy and practice in three Latin
American Cities.
Hamdi
Nabeel (1985). Low Income Housing: Changing Approaches. Architectural Review,
Vol. 178, No.
1062, August 1985.
Hardoy
Jorge E. & Satterthwaite David (1989). Squatter citizen: life in the
urban world.
Earthscan publications.
Jones G. R. (1983). ‘Life history methodology’, in G.
Morgan (Ed.) (1983). Beyond Method: Strategies
for Social Research.
Jones Gareth & Ward Peter. M. (Eds.) (1994). Methodology
for land and housing market analysis.
Kellett Peter (1997). The Concept of Home in Informal
Housing. International symposium on Culture
and Space in Home Environments: Critical Evaluations and New Paradigms,
Kellett
Peter (2000). Voices from the Barrio.
Kellett Peter & Tipple A. Graham (2000). The home
as workplace: a study of income-generating
activities within the domestic setting. Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 12, No. 1, April: 203- 213.
Lewis
Oscar (1976). Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty.
Books. Also Thesis submission, Master of
Arts, April 1985,
Payne Geoffrey (1989). Informal housing and land
subdivisions in Third World Cities: a review of the
literature.
Payne Geoffrey (1997). Urban land tenure and
property rights in developing countries: a review.
Payne Geoffrey (Ed.) (2002). Land, Rights and
Innovation. Improving Tenure Security for the Urban
Poor.
Payne Geoffrey (2002a). ‘Tenure and Shelter in Urban
Livelihoods’, in C. Rakodi with T. Lloyd-Jones
(Eds.) (2002). Urban Livelihoods: A People Centred Approach to
Reducing Poverty.
Peattie
Lisa (1983). Realistic Planning and Qualitative research. Habitat International, Vol. 7, No. 5/6:
227- 234.
Razzaz
O.M. (1993). Examining property rights and investment in informal settlements:
The case of
Rubin H. J. & Rubin I. R. (1995). Qualitative
Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
Publications.
Sen
Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom.
Slim
H. & Thompson P. (1994). Listening for a Change: Oral testimony and
Development.
Panos.
Turner
John F.C. (1972). ‘Housing as A Verb in Turner’, in John F.C. & Fitcher
Robert (Eds.) (1976)
Freedom to
Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process.
Company: (7): 148-175.
Turner
John F.C. (1976). Housing by the People:
Towards Autonomy in Building Environments (Ideas in
Progress, Open Forum)
Turner
John F.C. (1976a). Approaches to government- sponsored housing. Ekistics, 242, January 1976:
4- 7.
United
Nations (1976). Declaration of Principles,
Guidelines for Action No. 8, June,
UNCHS (1987). Land for Housing.
UNCHS (1996). (Habitat II) An Urbanising World.
Global report of human settlements.
University Press.
UNCHS
(2000). (Habitat Agenda) The Global Campaign for Good Urban Governance. Environment
and
Urbanization, Vol. 12, No. 1, April 2000: 197- 202.
Varley Ann (1994). ‘Housing the household, holding the
house?’, in G. Jones & P. M. Ward (Eds.)
(1994). Methodology for land and housing
market analysis.
Ward
Peter (1989). Land values and valorisation processes in Latin American cities:
A research agenda.
Bulletin of Latin American Research,
Ward
P.M. & Macoloo C. (1992). Articulation theory and self-help housing
practice in the 1990’s.
International Journal of Urban and
regional Research,
6(1): 60-80.