as Urban "Trade-offs"
These communities are shaped by a set of trade-offs in which residents accept certain disadvantages, such as insecure tenure or poor housing quality, in exchange for critical advantages like proximity to jobs, affordability, and flexible service arrangements. Understanding the logic behind these choices is key to reframing policy: from a mindset of clearance and eradication toward one of upgrading, integration, and environmental improvement.
1. Poor housing quality versus proximity to jobs, markets, and servicesFor many low-income urban residents, location is the most valuable asset they can secure. Even if housing is overcrowded, poorly built, or lacking basic facilities, its closeness to employment, transport hubs, markets, and public services can outweigh the disadvantages. The daily savings in time and transport costs often make the difference between subsistence and falling deeper into poverty. Residents accept lower-quality housing in order to live close to economic opportunities
2. Minimal investment in construction versus affordability for low income householdsIn cities where formal housing is unaffordable, families often build with the least expensive materials they can find, adding improvements gradually as resources allow. This incremental approach keeps entry costs low, enabling even the poorest households to gain a foothold in the city. Over time, homes may evolve from temporary shacks into more durable structures, reflecting residentsf growing economic stability. Self-built, incremental construction keeps entry costs low.
3. Insecure tenure versus access to otherwise unaffordable urban landWhen formal land markets exclude the poor, informality becomes a pathway to urban land. Residents may occupy unused, marginal, or disputed areas without legal title, accepting the constant risk of eviction in exchange for the chance to live in locations that would otherwise be unattainable. For many, the potential benefits of location outweigh the legal uncertainty. When formal land markets exclude the poor, informality becomes the gateway.
Policy implication:move from zero or one views of legality to a tenure spectrum. Interim instruments such as certificates of occupancy, community land trusts, and block level regularization can reduce eviction risk and unlock private investment without triggering immediate land price spikes.
4. Lack of formal infrastructure versus informal, flexible service arrangementsWithout official connections to water, electricity, or sanitation systems, slum residents often rely on informal networks and providers. These arrangements are typically more expensive per unit and less reliable, but they offer flexibility and immediacy where formal systems are slow to extend coverage. Such services are often deeply embedded in the communityfs economy and social fabric. Where pipes and grids do not reach, informal providers step in.
Policy implication: partner with the informal to extend the formal. Map providers, organize them into associations, set basic quality standards, and co invest in last mile connections. City utilities can use community managed standposts, pre paid kiosks, and simplified network standards to reach dense settlements at lower cost. What this means for urban environmental managementRecognizing these trade-offs is only the first step. The harder task for urban managers is to respond in ways that protect the advantages residents gain while reducing the hazards, vulnerabilities, and environmental burdens they face. Slum upgrading, when done thoughtfully, can strengthen livelihoods, improve health, and enhance environmental resilience without forcing people out of the places that connect them to the city. The following principles can help translate this understanding into practical action.
The core messageSlums and squatter settlements are a response to urban opportunity under conditions of exclusion. People rationally trade structure quality and legal certainty for location, affordability, and flexibility.
Environmental management succeeds when it aligns with these choices, lowers the risks they create, and expands the set of better options. The goal is not to erase informality but to make cities safer, healthier, and more productive for the people who already keep them running.
|
In Mumbai's Dharavi, cramped housing and shared sanitation coexist with unbeatable access to jobs in leather, pottery, food processing, and recycling. Travel time is money, and location is a wage booster.
In Nairobi's Kibera, many residents work in adjacent middle and high income neighborhoods as domestic workers, guards, and service staff, leveraging short commutes to manage irregular incomes.
In Rio's Rocinha, hillside risk and substandard structures trade off against ready access to the wealthiest job markets in the city. Location is the amenity; structure is the sacrifice.
In Lima's periferia, families start with lightweight materials, then upgrade walls, roofs, and floors as incomes permit.
Karachi's Orangi Town demonstrates another path: residents financed and built internal sanitation networks at a fraction of formal costs, while houses improved incrementally over time.
In Manila's estero communities, households use recycled materials to keep initial shelter costs near zero, trading durability for affordability.
Makoko in Lagos rests on the water's edge with disputed rights, yet offers access to central markets and fisheries based livelihoods.
In Jakarta's kampungs along rivers and rail corridors, residents accept eviction risk to gain urban access.
In Mexico City and Guadalajara, irregular subdivisions have long supplied de facto affordable plots before formal regularization programs catch up.
In Accra and Kumasi, water vendors and sachet markets trade reliability for price and quality variability.
In Port au Prince, tanker trucks fill storage drums, making water available, albeit expensive.
In Dhaka and Phnom Penh, illegal electricity connections and shared meters reduce unit costs but increase safety risks.
