I
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING
SCHOOL OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
TITLE:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTORS AFFECTING VIABILITY OF A
SUSTAINABLE SLUM UPGRADING PROCESS.
CASE STUDY: KIBERA
BY
MWANGI, ANGELA MUTHONI
B66/52899/2012
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
DEGREE IN BACHELOR OF REAL ESTATE.
2016
II
DECLARATION
I, MWANGI ANGELA MUTHONI, hereby declare that this is my original work. To the best
of my knowledge the work has not been presented before for award of a Degree or Diploma
in this University or any other University.
MWANGI ANGELA MUTHONI B66/52899/2012
Signature…………………….
Date………………………….
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
This Research Project has been submitted for examination with my approval university
Supervisors.
DR(QS) ISABELLA WACHIRA TOWWEY
Signature…………………….
Date………………………….
AND
IRENE N WAMUYU
Signature…………………….
Date………………………….
III
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my parents Mr. Peter Mwangi Kuria and Mrs. Josephine Kabura
Mwangi, My siblings, Carolyne Munyutha Mwangi and Brian Kuria Mwangi. Not forgeting
the input of my young and supportive nephew Rick Mwangi. Their continued encouragement,
support and advice as I grew up made me appreciate the virtue of hard work.
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Foremost, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisors Irene N. Wamuyu and
Isabella Wachira Towwey for their selfless, professional guidance and support during the
Project period.
More thanks goes to my friends and classmates who stood by me during the lows and highs
that I encountered during the course.
I also wish to thank all the teachers that taught me including my university lecturers
because they have enabled me reach this far education wise.
Without the support and encouragement that my family accorded me, it would have been
harder to endure up to the end. Thank you for being there for me.
Last but not the least; I thank the Almighty God for keeping me alive and for giving me the
strength to hold on to the end.
God bless you all.
V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SUD-Slum Upgrading Department
GoK-Government of Kenya
KENSUP-Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme
KISIP-Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project
Kibera Project- Kibera Soweto East, Nairobi Rehabilitation Project
VI
Table of Contents
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................ II
DEDICATION............................................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................. IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... XI
LIST OF CHARTS ........................................................................................................ XI
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................XII
CHAPTER ONE .............................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 The Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 3
1.2 Study hypothesis ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Objectives of the study ........................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Area of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 6
1.7 Definition of key terms ........................................................................................... 6
1.8 Limitations to the study .......................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................. 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 7
VII
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Slum/ informal settlement ....................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Factors that lead to emergence and growth of informal settlements. ..................... 8
2.2 Slum upgrading ...................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Initiatives of slum upgrading in Kenya ................................................................. 11
2.3.1 Eviction ............................................................................................................. 11
2.3.2 Site and Service Scheme .................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Redevelopment .................................................................................................. 11
2.3.4 Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP) ..................................................... 12
2.4 Factors affecting the viability of slum upgrading project in Kenya ........................ 12
2.4.1 Government efforts ............................................................................................ 12
2.4.2 Donor's role ....................................................................................................... 13
2.4.3 Community participation ................................................................................... 13
2.4.4 Corruption ......................................................................................................... 13
2.4.5 Politics ............................................................................................................... 14
2.4.6 High rent............................................................................................................ 14
2.4.7 Loss of jobs ....................................................................................................... 15
2.4.8 Slum dwellers‟ ignorance and illiteracy ............................................................. 15
2.4.9 Lack of employment among slum dwellers ........................................................ 16
2.4.10 Inadequate approach ........................................................................................ 16
2.5 Impacts of these factors on the viability of the project........................................... 17
VIII
2.5.1 Government efforts ............................................................................................ 17
2.5.2 Community participation ................................................................................... 17
2.5.3 Donor's role ....................................................................................................... 17
2.5.4 Corruption ......................................................................................................... 18
2.5.5 Politics ............................................................................................................... 18
2.5.6 High rent............................................................................................................ 18
2.5.7 Lack of employment among slum dwellers ........................................................ 19
2.5.8 Slum dwellers‟ ignorance and illiteracy ............................................................. 19
2.5.9 Loss of jobs ....................................................................................................... 19
2.5.10 Inadequate approach ........................................................................................ 19
2.6 Ways through which the identified factors may be addressed for slum upgrading
project to be viable. .................................................................................................... 20
2.6.1 Slum upgrading in Sao Paulo, Brazil .................................................................. 20
2.6.2 Slum upgrading in Cairo, Egypt. ........................................................................ 21
2.6.3 Slum upgrading in South Africa ......................................................................... 22
2.6.4 Slum upgrading in Tunisia ................................................................................. 22
2.7 Conceptual framework .......................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................. 25
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 25
3.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................... 25
IX
3.2 Target population .................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques ........................................................................ 26
3.4 Sources of data. .................................................................................................... 28
3.4.1 Primary sources .............................................................................................. 28
3.4.2 Secondary data................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Data analysis and presentation .............................................................................. 29
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................... 30
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION................................................................. 30
4.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Response Rate ...................................................................................................... 30
4.2 BioData (General Information of the respondent) ................................................. 31
4.2.1 Residence of the before relocation ..................................................................... 31
4.2.2 Ownership of the unit. ....................................................................................... 32
4.3 Factors affecting the viability of slum upgrading and and possible impacts of these
factors. ....................................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Govenment efforts. ............................................................................................ 33
4.3.2 Donor roles ........................................................................................................ 33
4.3.3 Community participation ................................................................................... 34
4.3.4 Corruption ......................................................................................................... 35
4.3.5 Politics .................................................................................................................. 36
4.3.6 Slum dwellers ignorance and illetracy ................................................................ 37
X
4.3.7 Lack of employment among slum dwellers ........................................................ 37
4.3.8 High rent............................................................................................................ 40
4.3.9 Inadequate approach .......................................................................................... 42
4.4 Impacts of the factors on viability of the project ................................................... 43
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................... 44
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ............. 44
5.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 44
5.1 Summary of findings ........................................................................................... 44
5.2 Test for Hypothesis ............................................................................................... 45
5.3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 47
5.5 Areas of Further Study .......................................................................................... 48
Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 49
XI
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Slum growth in selected developing countries………............................................9
Table 4.1: Funds meant for the slum upgrading project were optimumly used…………….26
Table4.2: There was corruption and misappropriation of funds meant for the slum upgrading
project………………………………………………………………………………………...36
Table4.3 : Delayed completion of the project was due to corruption and misappropriation of
funds meant for the slum upgrading project………………………………………………….36
Table4.4: How much they earn……………………………………………………..……….36
Table 4.5: How the project affected their daily life…………………………………………39
Lklkjkk
Hhkk
Hhuy
Jjlljlkn
XII
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4.1: Presents the response rate………………………………………………….…….30
Chart 4.2: Presents residence of the respondents before relocation…………………..…….32
Chart 4.3: Ownership of the unit……………………………………………………………33
Chart 4.4: Were they involved……………………………………………………………....34
Chart4.5: Involved in what capacity……………………………………………………...…35
Chart 4.6: Comparison between education level and willingness to return to slum……….37
Chart 4.7: Income status………………………………………….…………………………38
Chart: 4.8: Amount of earning dedicated to rent……………………………………………40
Chart: 4.9: Rent paid……………………………………………………………………..….41
Chart 4.10: rent before relocation………………………………………………...…………41
Chart 4.11: rating of the rent………………………………………………………………...42
XIII
ABSTRACT
To survive, human beings depend on basic need which are food, clothing and shelter or
housing. Poverty however drives most city dwellers to informal settlement which are
overcrowded and lack basic facilities to sustain a minimum level of living. The Kenyan
Constitution (2010), under article 43 states that every citizen has a right to access decent
housing; but the dwellers of informal settlement lack decent housing.
The Government over years has used many interventions to curb the proliferation of informal
settlements including; evictions, site and service schemes and redevelopment although the
methods proved unsuccessful. The current intervention in place is the Kenya Slum Upgrading
Program (KENSUP).
The general objective of this study was to look in to the factors affecting the viability of
sustainable slum upgrading in kibera slum and recommend ways to resolve this factors hence
increasing chances of success in improving lives of slum dwellers and curbing growth of
kibera. The aim of this research study was not to criticize the slum upgrading project but to
analyze the factors (both positive and negative) affecting its viability in order to ensure a
timely, viable and sustainable slum upgrading project.
The research project reviewed literature from different sources and discussed several and
their impacts on viability of sustainable slum upgrading in kibera slum. The factors included;
government efforts, donor's role, community participation, corruption, politics, high rent,
corruption, Loss of jobs, slum dwellers‟ ignorance and illiteracy, lack of employment among
slum dwellers and Inadequate approach.
The target population was Soweto residents and KENSUP officials but due to time and
resource constraints, the study was limited to some portion of the target population and was
selected through sampling of the target population. Data was collected through interviews
and questionnaires. Raw data acquired from the field through interviews and questionnaires
was transformed into a format that aided analysis. Data analysis involved interpretation in
correlating independent and dependent variables with a view to answering the research
questions. Results of analysis were translated into tables, pie – charts and bar graphs.
Findings from the study revealed that successful and sustainable slum upgrading is possible if
the factors were either encouraged or mitigated. Areas of further studies suggested were;
XIV
slum upgrading using alterntive building materials as a way to reduce building cost and as a
result make the new housing affordable to the beneficiaries; ways to prevent growth of
already existing slums and emerge of new slums and a relocation policy for slum upgrading
to prevent slum dwellers from letting out the entire unit.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the Study
Survival of human beings will forever depend on the provision of basic needs, which include
food, clothing and shelter or housing, Ochieng' (2015). According to Syagga (2011), a house
does not consist of just the 4 walls and a roof; one must also consider the community and the
surrounding environment. The Kenyan Constitution (2010), under article 43 states that every
citizen has a right to access decent housing; but the dwellers of informal settlements lack this.
An informal settlement (a slum) is described as an unhygienic and congested informal
settlement characterized by low standards of living, poverty and social disorganization. Many
residents of the informal settlements in developing countries lack access to adequate and
affordable housing and basic housing services. In fact most city dwellers in Kenya live in
poverty and reside in overcrowded informal settlements that lack basic facilities to sustain
minimum level of living.
The expansion of informal settlements has become visible in developing countries as the rate
of urbanization increase. This is coupled by the speedy population growth in these countries.
Their economies are however not growing in the same speed as the rise in population. It is a
social evil which grows along with urbanization (Bane and Rawal, 2002).
There are approximately 3.54 million people residing in Nairobi County. Rapid and
uncontrolled population explosion has led to proliferation of informal settlements in Nairobi,
with between 60 and 70 percent of Nairobi residents estimated to be living in slums, with
50% living in Kibera slum alone (APHRC, 2015). Going by this estimation, 50% of 3.54
million is 1.77 million which represents the number of slum dwellers residing in Kibera
which is just 2.5 sq. kilometers. Kibera is located southwest of Nairobi city centre and is sited
approximately 5 km away from the city centre. It is the largest slum in Kenya and comprises
of 12 villages; Kianda, Soweto, Gatwekera, Kisumu Ndogo, Lindi, Laini Saba,
Siranga/Undugu, Raila, Makina and Mashimoni. It holds more than a quarter of Nairobi‟s
population.
2
According to New Oxford Dictionary of English viability means ability to succeed. Viability
of slum upgrading therefore means the ability of the project to succeed. Viability of the
project can be determined by how much the goals of the slum upgrading have been achieved.
Alfred (2010), successful achievement of the slum upgrading project can only be meaningful
if beneficiaries enjoy sustainable occupation of the upgraded houses. According to cities
alliance (1999), viable slum upgrading is linked with the following goals: Poverty alienation,
permanent rehabilitation of beneficiaries, infrastructure and transport improvement and
expansion, provision of health and education centers, environmental and sanitation
improvement, provision of social amenities to encourage social activities between the
rehabilitated residents
Slum upgrading consists of physical, social, economic and environmental enhancements
undertaken to improve the poor living standards of slum dwellers. It is a process of
intervention for economic, organizational, social and environmental improvement to an
existing human settlement undertaken collectively among citizens, community groups,
governments (national/local) and any other development partners (Non-governmental, multi-
lateral/bilateral organizations), Syagga (2011).The Government of Kenya, in collaboration
with other stakeholders, initiated two programs: the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program
(KENSUP) in 2004 and the Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) in June
2011 aimed at improving the livelihoods of people living and working in slums and informal
settlements. This entails providing security of tenure, housing improvement, income
generation and physical and social infrastructure. The actual target is to improve the
livelihoods of at least 1.6 million households living in informal settlements (5.3 million slum
dwellers) by the year 2020 (GoK, 2005).
According to (Rosa Flores 2013), the establishment of KENSUP in 2004 marked an
important date for the new National Housing Policy in Kenya because from this date
onwards, the Kenyan Government adopted a better proper approach to slum upgrading as it
stopped viewing informal settlements as areas to be demolished but as areas to be
rehabilitated. It is also noteworthy that a specific department, the Slum Upgrading
Department (SUD), within the Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development was
created to specifically address the issue of informal settlements, strengthened by the
commitment of this Ministry to finance and manage slum upgrading. The Ministry of land,
Housing and urban development adopted a participatory approach in slum upgrading projects
3
in a way that informal settlers were engaged during the process as a way of involving and in
some cases even creating employment opportunities for them.
The specific objectives of the slum upgrading project were to promote and facilitate the
provision of secure tenure, improved housing, permanently rehabilitating informal settlers,
income-generating activities, and physical and social infrastructure.
Slum upgrading was to be rolled out in Nairobi, owing to the fact that it has the biggest
informal settlements in Kenya, and then would be replicated with higher chances of success
in other counties. The City of Nairobi and other urban centers in the newly created 47
counties are supposed to contain the growth of urban slums and reduce urban poverty and
prevent the emergence of new slums in Kenya. Before the Kibera project, quite a number
slum upgrading projects have been undertaken to solve the housing shortages problems,
including Mathare 4 A, Pumwani Phase II. The prior projects could not be termed as viable
owing to the fact that the beneficiaries rent or sold the upgraded housing and moved back to
the informal settlement hence this did not solve the problem.
Soweto village of Kibera was chosen to pilot the project for KENSUP because of a number of
characteristics, such as: clear land ownership (nearly the whole Kibera lies on government
land), good community cohesiveness which usually kept it more peaceful than other areas
when skirmishes or violence breaks out in Kibera and organization, mostly related to the fact
that it is ethnically heterogeneous and there was no particular dominant group (Binacchi,
2009).
Basically, if slum upgrading is successful it would eradicate slums and lead to a 'slum free
Kenya' and also prevent the emergence of new slums. The factors affecting the viability of
the sustainable slum upgrading project form the basis of this report.
1.1 The Problem Statement
Ministry of Planning and National Development (2005), Kibera Slum Upgrading Project was
Kenya‟s key initiative towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals to improve the
lives of significant proportions of slum dwellers by 2020. However, a few years shy of the set
target 2020, this has not been enough to counter the growth of the slums or permanently
rehabilitate slum dwellers.
4
One of the major goals of KENSUP, according to GoK(2005), was to improve the livelihoods
of at least 5.3 million slum dwellers countrywide by 2020. This however cannot be achieved
when rehabilitated residents make a mockery of the government's efforts by renting out their
units and moving back to the slum(Daily nation, June 25, 2015). Slum upgrading initiatives
have however not been successful and they have faced couple of challenges let alone the
ironical opposition from the slum dwellers themselves (Ochieng' Kennedy Oludo, 2015).
Daily nation July 25, 2015, captioned that it was noted that despite efforts to eradicate the
slum in certain areas, the people rented out the houses meant for them and went back to the
slum hence informal settlements usually cropped up in a different locality.
According to Chege, Ezekiel, Ndukui (2013), national and local print and electronic media
consistently reported that the Kibera slums upgrading project faced problems of
abandonment, disregard of agreed rules of occupation, affordability of rents and resultant
defaults thereon, forced eviction and displacement of beneficiaries.
According to Ochieng', Kennedy, Oludo (2015), slum upgrading programs have been faced
by a big challenge in solving of slum expansion problem in Kenya but has not been
successful yet. According to the UN-Habitat (2008), the progress made on slum improvement
had not been enough to counter the growth of slums. According to Rosa Flores(2010), six
years after launch of KENSUP, both the quantitative and qualitative results of slum
upgrading are not very satisfactory, especially in terms of permanently housing for residents
of informal settlements but certainly KENSUP has succeeded in building the houses schools,
some roads, clinics and other facilities.
This report highlights that the efforts to reduce the number of slum dwellers or improve their
living standards sustainably have not been adequate. Some success has been achieved in other
fronts, for example according to Greg Scruggs (August 7 2015), KENSUP first investment in
Kibera was manifested in the form of pay-per-use toilets and shower facilities which were
desperately needed in a community plagued by 'flying toilets' but reducing slum population
and improving lives of informal settlers is yet to be achieved.
This study looks at factors affecting the viability of the sustainable slum upgrading in Kibera
slum and recommends ways to resolve or encourage this factors hence increasing chances of
success in improving lives of slum dwellers sustainably and curbing growth of Kibera.
5
1.2 Study hypothesis
Null hypothesis (HO): Sustainable slum upgrading process has been viable meaning the
beneficiaries are not returning to the slum.
Alternative hypothesis (HA): Beneficiaries returning to the informal settlement after
rehabilitation is the main hindrance to the viability of a sustainable slum upgrading process.
1.3 Objectives of the study
(i) To identify the factors affecting the viability of a sustainable slum upgrading process
(ii) To determine the impacts of these factors on the viability of a sustainable project.
(iii) To recommend ways through which the identified factors may be addressed for a
sustainable slum upgrading project to be viable.
1.4 Research Questions
(i) What are the factors affecting the viability of a sustainable slum upgrading process?
(ii) What are the impacts of these factors on the viability of a sustainable project?
(iii) Which ways can be recommended to address the identified factors for a sustainable
slum upgrading project to be viable?
1.5 Area of the Study
The investigation was carried out in Soweto East Village In Kibera, County Of Nairobi. The
Soweto East village was born in 1978, when people were evicted from Stephen's place and
relocated in Soweto east due to floods (Binacchi,2009). It was selected as a pilot project for
KENSUP and was launched in 2004 aimed at rehabilitating and eventually eradicating slums
nationwide to make slums better living and working environments for the urban poor, and to
achieve the inseparable task of reducing urban poverty. This estate was designed for the
rehabilitation of slum dwellers and was preferred for the study because it was developed for
slum upgrading hence would help investigate why even with the rehabilitation expansion of
slums is still eminent.
6
1.6 Significance of the Study
Even though the capacity of cities to deal with the population growth is challenged by the
structural problems of low development and poverty, this study hopes to identify the factors
that hinder the success and the level of influence of these factors in sustainable slum
upgrading. Addressing these factors will then be critical in ensuring the success of the slum
upgrading by the year 2030.
This research study is not to criticize the slum upgrading project but to analyze the factors
(both positive and negative) affecting its viability in order to ensure a timely and viable slum
upgrading project.
1.7 Definition of key terms
Beneficiary- one who benefits from a distribution or receives advantage especially of an
estate.
Informal settlement- used in place of slum.
Upgrading- The word upgrading usually refers to an effort to improve living conditions in
particular urban areas characterized by poor-quality housing and inadequate infrastructure
and service delivery (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite, 2001: 222).
Slum Upgrading- Slum upgrading consists of physical, social, economic and environmental
enhancements undertaken to improve the poor living standards of slum dwellers.
1.8 Limitations to the study
Some of the limitations stumbled upon during the undertaking of this study include: bad
weather conditions as it was raining thus hard to work comfortably; unwillingness by
respondents to give information and this might have contributed to loss of important
information and some respondents claimed to be busy while others wanted to be paid prior to
giving the information;
7
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter provides information in relation to informal settlements and slum upgrading
processes globally and locally that have been done and have been successful in eradicating
informal settlements in those areas and improving standards of living of the urban poor. It
explores housing-health relationships and further outlines the efficient and effective strategies
that can be used in provision and supply of affordable housing that can be used by the urban
poor hence eventually eradicating informal settlements in Kenya. It also explores how other
countries have dealt with factors affecting sustainable slum upgrading to make the project
viable.
2.1 Slum/ informal settlement
The term slum or informal settlement varies from country to country according to the
conditions of the slums or informal settlement in that country. Whatever the definition, the
term slum still relates to poor living conditions. According to the New Oxford Dictionary of
English a slum is either “a squalid and overcrowded urban street or district inhabited by very
poor people. According to UN-HABITAT (2003), slums are defined as contiguous
settlements where the inhabitants are characterized as having inadequate housing and basic
need. Cities Alliance Action Plan (1999) describes slums as neglected parts of urban towns
where the state of the housing conditions and living conditions are appallingly poor.
According to UN-HABBITAT (2003), a slum household is defined as a household that lacks
any one of the following five elements: access to improved water; access to improved
sanitation; security of tenure (the right to effective protection by the state against
arbitrary, unlawful eviction); durability of housing (including living in a non-hazardous
location) and sufficient living area (no overcrowding).
Even though there are many definitions of slum or informal settlement, once the word is
mentioned, a dark image is painted in our brains in which we see it as a dirty, congested, poor
neighborhood full of misery.
8
2.1.2 Factors that lead to emergence and growth of informal settlements.
The urban areas have constantly been alleged to be a hive of commercial and industrial
activities, especially after the industrial revolution. This encouraged extraordinary rural-urban
migration which many urban areas were not able to cope with. The rate of construction of
new units cannot match the rate of urban migration hence the growth of housing shortage
especially for the low income earners. As the rate of urban migration increases, the demand
for housing increases, hence the price of housing rises. This follows the basic rule of demand
and supply. As the price of housing rises, the urban poor move to slums where houses are
affordable but have poor services and poor environmental conditions. The worldwide
explosion of slums in the late 20th century was mainly driven by the urbanization process
(Oxfam, 2009). Many migrants from rural to urban areas solve their shelter problems by
building or renting homes in the peripheral areas where land or houses are cheaper and more
readily available (Dogan, 2009).
Horton (2000), considered four steps which they felt leads to the conversion of an area into a
slum: older houses are subdivided so that some units lack even facilities for cleanliness like
bathrooms or with sub-division there is an enormous increase in overcrowding and
congestion. Buildings deteriorate through heavy use and lawns are worn bare or Building
owners neglect maintenance or improvements due to rent control and taxing policies which
penalizes improvements or People who have always been poor and lived in old houses
generally take poor care of their property.
Other factors that may cause proliferation of slums include poverty, high land prices that are
beyond urban poor and unemployment. Slums are both a response and a witness to extensive
urban poverty, (Huchzermeyer, 2011). Syagga (1987), felt that since housing problems are
caused by rural-urban migration, 'it therefore makes little sense to embark on massive
development of low-income housing and upgrading of squatter settlements in urban areas, if
the population influx from the rural areas would turn these houses into slums due to over-
crowding
9
Table 2.1 Slum growth in selected developing countries
COUNTRY
SLUM
ANNUALGROWTH
RATE %SLUM
POPULATION
SCENARIO
2020 WITH
NO CHANGE
Angola 5.28 3,918 10,677
Kenya 5.88 7,605 23,223
Nigeria 4.96 41,595 76,749
South Africa 0.19 8,376 8,677
Uganda 5.32 3,241 8,904
Tanzania 6.16 11,031 35,561
Brazil 0.34 51,676 55,074
UN-Habitat (2010/2011). State of World Cities: Bridging the urban divide.
2.2 Slum upgrading
Slum upgrading consists of physical, social, economic and environmental enhancements
undertaken to improve the poor living standards of slum dwellers. It is a process of
intervention for economic, organizational and environmental improvement to an existing
human settlement undertaken collectively among citizens, community groups, governments
(national/local) and any other development partners (Non-governmental, multi-
lateral/bilateral organizations) (Syagga, 2011). The word upgrading usually refers to an effort
to improve living conditions in particular urban areas characterized by poor-quality housing
and inadequate infrastructure and service delivery (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite, 2001: 222).
According to the reports by UN-HABITAT (2006), slum upgrading has a major objective of
improving the livelihoods of the people living and working in the slums within the urban
areas.
According to the National Development Plan, 'To upgrade unplanned settlements, it will
involve the preparation of physical lay-out plans, regularization of land tenure by issuing
titles, and provision of basic services to encourage beneficiaries to improve their housing
structures and the environment through self-help efforts. Assistance will be offered through
material loans, technical advice, provision of water-points and toilet blocks.
According to De Soto (2000), his perception is to stimulate people‟s activity is by ensuring
secure land tenure first. However, the titling approach has already achieved considerable
10
momentum, which recent studies suggest needs to be challenged Payne (2001). If the slum
residents recognize the price of the land is higher than the price of a plot may attract them to
sell it and move to reside somewhere else inside a slum. Payne (2005) states that „such
actions may therefore actually result in an increase in informal settlements rather than a
decrease‟. Davis (2007) sums up that titling also impose higher prices on slum upgrading and
value of land and building materials in general.
Slums upgrading is supposed to go beyond house improvements and include other expressed
requirements that are key to better livelihood such as infrastructure, security of tenure,
cultural aspects and addressing the challenge of social segregation. Slum improvement is
achieved with the active involvement of slum communities during the planning,
implementation, monitoring and management process, and through contribution of part of
their own resources required for development, operation and maintenance (Ndukui, 2012).
The upgrading should cause minimal displacement and it involves securing land tenure,
rehabilitation of existing housing structures, development of housing where necessary,
planning and provision of social and physical infrastructure, and improving livelihoods
through income generating activities (Republic of Kenya, 2005).
According to United Nations Economics and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific,
Shelter for All, (UNESCAP, 2000), slum upgrading can play an important role in improving
existing housing stock and ensuring that complete reliance is not placed upon new investment
in low-income housing.
UNESCAP (2000), emphasizes that to be successful, slum upgrading projects require careful
design and management. According to the Centre for Housing Rights and Eviction (COHRE,
2005), slum upgrading also requires huge resources, plus long-term political will and stamina
to see the process through in spite of the setbacks, dissatisfaction and conflicts that will,
inevitably, occur along the way.
11
2.3 Initiatives of slum upgrading in Kenya
2.3.1 Eviction
This was the first initiative used. The government did not officially recognize slums as a form
of settlement hence slum dwellers were evicted and their homes were demolished. Syagga
(2011), states that at first it majorly involved demolition and eviction of the slum dwellers.
This however to be very unsuccessful because demolitions and evictions only increases the
deficiency of alternative accommodation and it encouraged growth of slums because the
people would just relocate to other part of the slums and the landlord would replace the
demolished houses to be occupied by new tenants.
2.3.2 Site and Service Scheme
After the epic failure of eviction and demolition, the government was forced to acknowledge
slum as an informal settlement in Kenya. A new approach was hatched. It was associated
with contribution of the World Bank, UNSAID and other NGO's in bringing shelter within
the economic reach of the poor. In Kenya it was first done in Dandora, Nairobi where 6,000
serviced plots were provided on a cost recovery basis (World Bank, 1999).
2.3.3 Redevelopment
Redevelopment of slums and informal settlements involves the demolition of the dilapidated
housing structures and construction of new ones (GOK, 2006 ).The reconstruction of
Pumwani Majengo Project was put into operation by the National Housing Corporation
where Phase 1 saw the erection of 284 three roomed flats. The rooms were designed to allow
for sub letting of one or two rooms at about KSh. 3,500 per room against the repayment of
Ksh.1,700 per month which provided an option for affordability (Abrahams, 1977).This
approach raises the question of housing affordability, programmed financing and negotiation
with the affected community prior to the relocation process (GOK, 2006).
12
2.3.4 Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP)
Cities Alliance (1999), Cities without Slums Action Plan was formulated. The Action Plan
challenges “the donors, government and the slum communities to improve the lives of 5-10
million slum dwellers by 2005 and 100 million by 2020“ (Cities Alliance, 1999). It was
sanctioned by the world‟s heads of state at the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000
which yielded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The goal of the program is to improve the livelihoods of at least 5.3 million people living and
working in the slums and informal settlements of Kenya by 2020 (GOK, 2004). The vision of
the program is; to have improved and sustainable urban environments in Kenya together with
its stated goal, to improve the livelihoods of people living and working in the slums, all
reflect the wish of the program to be community centered.
This method is still being used in Kenya currently.
2.4 Factors affecting the viability of slum upgrading project in Kenya
Factors are both positive and negative therefore they are the elements contributing to or
getting in the way viability of the project. The factors include;
2.4.1 Government efforts
The Kenyan government has made a tremendous effort to upgrade slum dwellers. It has
donated the land to the beneficiaries of the upgraded houses, it has given financial support to
the project and it has also provided an enabling environment for non-governmental
organizations (NGO's) to operate. According to Kennedy(2015), On 16 September 2009 the
Kenyan government, which claims ownership of the land on which Kibera stands, began a
long-term movement scheme which would re-house the slum dwellers, the government of
Kenya then provided land for a decanting site near Lang`ata and another piece of land in Athi
River for sustainable neighborhood program and to re-house the slum dwellers while
construction of the new units was ongoing.
13
2.4.2 Donor's role
Donors have offered financial support for the project. Donors in Kenyan case include non-
governmental, multilateral and international organizations. According to UN-HABITAT
(2008), international donors provide the most financial assistance to the government because
the private sector is resistant to invest without expecting returns. In similar sentiments, Mark
and Keziah (2013,) stated that role of international donors more visible than that of local
NGOs especially in relation to funding and human rights activism.
2.4.3 Community participation
The slum upgrading in Kenya involve the slum dwellers in the slum upgrading process. .
According to Qs.Wafula (2016), KENSUP employs a more holistic approach in the
participatory process that takes cognizance of all stakeholders operating within the settlement
area. In similar sentiments, UN-HABITAT (2008), states that slum dwellers living and
working in the slum are involved in the process. For the slum dwellers to be involved, they
were offered free training by the government in manual skills that would be used during the
upgrading process. Rahman (2002) observes that capacity building should prioritize women
who form the bulk of informal economy. Appadurai (2001) observes the need to promote
local initiatives which address the expressed needs of slum dwellers.
2.4.4 Corruption
Corruption is a major problem affecting most institutions in Kenya. In the case of programs
set to run the slum upgrading project, programs like KENSUP KIISP and SEC, corruption
mainly occurs in the form of embezzlement of money. Rosa Flores (2011), despite these
milestones, corruption and lack of political will are still serious obstacles to programs such as
KENSUP. According to James (2015) life of the slum dwellers is made even worse by poor
governance, corruption, stigma and social segregation.
Another form of corruption presented itself in the way that some residents who benefited
from the slum were not really slum dweller but they just paid their ways into owning some of
the homes. Alfred (2013), reports that
14
Although these claims have been denied, Arch. Martin Tairo ([email protected]),
provided pictures as evidence, questioning ' who benefits from these house allocations?' if the
number of parked cars in these upgraded houses are taken into account.
2.4.5 Politics
Politics is one of the major factors that lead to slum proliferation. Amis and Kumar (2000)
link poverty in slums to political marginalization. The slum population represents an
increasingly significant vote bank (Baken, 2003). The large scale upgrading implementation
was influenced by the recognition of slum dwellers as an important electoral base for a
politician to be (re) elected (Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite, 2001: 221)
Elmhirst (1999) relates slums improvement programs to political survival strategies meant to
manipulate the slum poor for selfish ends. Slum dweller participation has been more likely
perceived as a tool to control them and to legitimize a government policy (Botes & Rensburg,
2000: 45).
2.4.6 High rent
According to Amnesty International (2009a) the respondents criticized the size and cost of
each unit. According to Rosa Flores(2010)The apartment rent is KShs 3,000 (32.2 USD) per
month, which includes all basic services of which KShs 300 is for electricity and KShs 200
15
for water. If we take into consideration that 75% of Soweto East residents do not have
permanent employment, this rent is very high for the vast majority who were used to paying
an average of KShs 500 per month for a room in Kibera and for these households, the cost of
housing has increased six-fold, Rosa(2010). Aware of this exorbitant increase in housing
costs, the Housing Ministry approved the renting out of each of the three rooms to different
families who have to share any additional services (kitchen, bathroom and veranda). In this
case, the rent for each room amounts to KShs 1,000 per month (11 USD) which totals to
KShs 3,000 for a 3-roomed apartment
This access to sub-letting gives a whole new opportunity to slum dwellers. They simply take
sub letting as a means to earn a living. They let out their units and go back to living in the
slums. (Daily nation July 25, 2015), captioned that it was noted that despite efforts to
eradicate the slum in certain areas, the people rented out the houses meant for them and went
back to the slum hence informal settlements usually cropped up in a different locality.
2.4.7 Loss of jobs
Moving out of slum area meant that for some of the slum dwellers that they were living the
slum areas of businesses behind. Cuervo and Hin (2002) observe that slum dwellers are
characterized by inadequate economic resources, factors that endear them to the informal
labour market. As they are moved to the new houses provided they cannot practice their
informal labour in the market stalls provided. This forces them to register their businesses
with the government in order to be allocated market stalls. However according to Payne
(2002), legality as undesirable to the poor due to the fear of taxation. This then means slum
upgrading causes them to loose their jobs hence lack of employment hence unable to pay for
the new houses.
2.4.8 Slum dwellers’ ignorance and illiteracy
Warugoro (1998) affirms that a belief has developed that the best way to speed up the
processes of 'unslumming' a slum is to speed up economic and educational opportunities.
U.N. HABITAT(2003), stressed out that without education opportunities slums will remain
as they are despite of physical improvements. Ignorance and illiteracy hinders makes the
slum dwellers ready to rent out their units and move back to the slum without analyzing the
effects of living in the slum keenly. This derails the efforts to upgrade slums.
16
2.4.9 Lack of employment among slum dwellers
U.N. HABITAT(2003), stressed out that without employment and education opportunities
slums will remain as they are despite of physical improvements. This is because without a
source of income slum dwellers cannot pay for the new houses provided to them. Clinard
(1998) , urged that provision of economic opportunities enabled some members to move out,
'as each group rose up the economic scale and became acculturated to the general values of
society, many of its members have tended to move to better areas. Lack of employment may
force the slum dwellers to move back to the slum since they are unable to pay the rent and
this hinders viability of the slum upgrading efforts.
corruption has the potential to arise under a variety of circumstances, including, in the case of
slum upgrading, influencing access to privileged or subsidized housing and real estate.
2.4.10 Inadequate approach
Slum upgrading in Kenya involves improving physical aspects like buliding but it ignores the
social and economic aspects. According to Rosa Flores(2011), she stated that to begin with,
the interviewees raised the negative socio-economic impact of the relocation, such as loss of
social networks (“I do not want to share the flat with people I do not know”; “I will lose my
neighbors and friends”); loss of income sources (“I will lose my job, I will lose my
customers”).
U.N. Habitat 1977 report urged, 'slums are composed of people not just buildings. Physical
upgrading of the surroundings without concurrently strengthening the self-respect of the
residents will not generate long-lasting improvements. Gong and Van Soest (2002) observes
that apart from house improvement, slum upgrading should also prioritize the socio-economic
improvement of the poor.
Clinard (1968), urged that not upgrading socio-economic aspect hinders community
development which he defined as, 'organized efforts to improve the villages. It also involves
overcoming the residents apathy through emphasis on self-help. A similar observation has
been made by Erdogan et al (1996) who recommends sustenance of social-cultural aspects as
prerequisites to slum improvement. On a different perspective, Torstensson (1994) describes
the upgrading program as guided by Western norms. Seeming to offer a solution, (Leckie:
17
1995) notes that slums upgrading should integrate behavioral aspects of slum dwellers to
enhance sustainability
2.5 Impacts of these factors on the viability of the project.
2.5.1 Government efforts
The government owns most of the land in Kibera and in order to make the slum upgrading
process possible, it donated the land on which the improved houses have been built on. This
has a positive impact on the slum dwellers because it makes them believe in the process of
slum upgrading and security of tenure also makes the slum dwellers improve their
relationship with the government which was otherwise wanting. According to IQSK (2016),
On 8th July 2016 keys were handed over to beneficiaries of Kibera Soweto East Zone A. The
commitment of the government on slum upgrading made it possible for the completion and
handing over of the houses to the beneficiaries
2.5.2 Community participation
According to Qs.Wafula (2016), involving the slum dwellers in the slum upgrading process
inculcated a sense of ownership, created synergy and reduced conflicts through creation of a
more consensual decision making climate. According to Bukachi (2013), by providing free
training to kibera slum dwellers, it gives them a chance of finding employment in future
when the slum upgrading process is completed. This therefore ensure that the slum dwellers
can be able to afford the new lifestyle.
2.5.3 Donor's role
Donors give the government financial support which is used in construction of the new
houses for the slum dwellers hence makes the slum upgrading process possible to begin with.
According to Karari (2008), NGOs can be described as necessary evil in the social economic
dynamics of the slums because they promote the much needed social activism. De Zoysa et al
(1998) referring to New Delhi slums notes that the NGOs sector plays a significant role in
providing local technical assistance and financial support in the informal sector. In Kenyan
situation, Barasa and Kaabwe (2001) attribute the thriving jua kali sector in Kenya to NGOs
that provides a source of livelihood for the slum dwellers.
18
Karari (2008), also states that as much as NGOS have positive impacts, they are also evil
because some are not genuine hence posing a challenge in slum improvement initiatives. In
similar opinion Edwards and Hulme (2000) describes NGOs as products of neo-liberal
economics and liberal democratic agenda. In same citing they refer to NGOs activities as
questionable, as propagating dependence and as a failing to reach the target groups. This line
of thought is supported by Halliday(2001) who describes NGOs not only as products of
decentralization but also as representatives of the west.
2.5.4 Corruption
Rosa Flores (2011), despite these milestones, corruption and lack of political goodwill are
still serious obstacles to programs such as KENSUP. Corruption leads to misappropriation of
already scarce funds and the project benefiting the wrong people hence slum dwellers will
remain in slums. The other form of corruption is where some people who did not initially live
in Kibera slum are allocated houses and this way disrupt the slum upgrading process.
2.5.5 Politics
Karari (2008), states that politicization of development has also nurtured perpetuation of
slums in Kenya. Same citing states that the slum has become a political resource for votes in
exchange for the much needed basic needs. In similar sentiments, Elmhurst (2000) relates
slums improvement programs to political survival strategies meant to manipulate the slum
poor for selfish ends. If the slum dwellers are manipulated, they loose trust in the government
and the slum upgrading process is made even harder hence negatively affect the viability of
the project.
2.5.6 High rent
Rosa Flores, (2010), vast majority of slum dwellers are used to paying an average of KShs
500 per month hence paying a stardard rent of 3000ksh a month may be too high and this
might encourage them to rent out their units and go back to the ways of the slum they are
already used to. High rent for them might be lower rent to middle class earners and once they
realize this they might increase the rent and move back to the slum using the improved
houses as their source of income.
19
2.5.7 Lack of employment among slum dwellers
The upgraded houses are rented out to the slum dwellers therefore they should have a source
of income to be able to raise the rent. Without a steady source of income, the slum dwellers
will not be able to live in the upgraded houses and will go back to the slum hence derailing
the slum upgrading project.
2.5.8 Slum dwellers’ ignorance and illiteracy
Rosa Flores (2010), many people in Soweto East who were relocated to these new buildings
returned to the slum after subletting the houses provided for them. This is may be viewed as a
business opportunity because by letting out their units but out of ignorance and illiteracy,
they fail to see the adverse effects the slum has on them especially healthwise. According to
SIDA(2006), renting out units and returning to slums is so rampant that even in the initial
efforts to build low income houses for the poor benefited the middle class instead of the slum
dwellers. This factor hinders viability of the project.
2.5.9 Loss of jobs
The fact that most slum dwellers practiced informal businesses, they then cannot practice
they businesses in the new estate. This is supported by Rosa Flores (2011), who states they
were not allowed to do business in the new estates hence lack of employment hence unable to
pay for the new houses.
2.5.10 Inadequate approach
Kenyan approach used so far is to upgrade the surroundings of slum dwellers by providing
better housing. But it also involves overcoming the residents apathy through emphasis on
self-help Clinard (1998). If just physical evironment is upgraded and the beneficiaries still
wait to rely on the government or sympathisers, they will not be able to pay the rent and will
eventually end back in the slums again.
20
2.6 Ways through which the identified factors may be addressed for slum
upgrading project to be viable.
The 2030 vision on housing and urbanization hopes to provide "an adequately and decently
housed nation in sustainable all inclusive environment". Vision 2030 contains relevant
aspects such as access to adequate social amenities, including housing, water and sanitation
infrastructure, in addition to the need to improve human settlement systems in general. Slum
life contradicts Kenya‟s vision to build a just and cohesive society enjoying equitable social
development in a clean and secure environment and realising the factors affecting the
viability of the slum upgrading and addressing the factors may bring successful slum
rehabilitation like other countries in Africa such as Tunisia. By 2010, Tunisia had eradicated
slum populations completely, and Egypt, Libya and Morocco had nearly halved the numbers.
In sub ‐Saharan Africa, Nigeria recorded a 25% drop and South Africa dropped the
proportion from 46% to 28.7%, while Uganda, Ghana and Senegal had reduced slum
populations by up to 20% (United Nations, 2010). By analyzing how success in some of this
countries was achieved, we could be able to have a viable slum uprading project in Kenya. It
could be a guide of what to do and what not to do. Countries include:
2.6.1 Slum upgrading in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Cities Alliance (2008) reports that Slum upgrading in Brazil especially in Sao Paulo has
proved a success since slums aren‟t scattered all over the city, they tend to be concentrated in
seemingly predetermined localities. According to the same citing, housing policy of Sao
Paolo gave priority to the upgrading and title (tenure) regularization of slums. The main
method was improving in situ conditions because qualities of the existing slum housing in
Sao Paulo are superior to those in Kenya. In Kenya slum upgrading requires new houses
hence it was easier for Brazil to achieve their slum upgrading success.
21
Sau Paulo before slum upgrading efforts (www.blogs.worldbank.org)
Some banks in Brazil also assisted greatly in the upgrading process by financing the
rehabilitation processes. A balance was struck between financial viability and quality of the
urban and architectural project .Connecting roads to the surrounding area was a priority
which reduced organized crime due to street lights which were built along the road.
Sau Paulo after successful slum upgrading.(city alliances,2008)
2.6.2 Slum upgrading in Cairo, Egypt.
According to Cities Alliance (2008), Egypt adopted slum upgrading policies in the early
1990's. In Egypt they majorly redressed the deficit in urban services in large informal
settlements even though it never considered community participation and an integrated
community-physical development. Slum dwellers were relocated to temporary sites where
they were until reconstruction was complete then the same residents were brought to the new
22
units. The factor that greatest contributed to the success was due to the fact that the slum
dwellers were given the houses for free and that the private sector covered all the costs.
Before and after slum upgrading in Egypt Cairo (UN-HABITAT 2010)
2.6.3 Slum upgrading in South Africa
According to city alliances (2008), South Africa used three approaches; physical
development, economic development and social development.
This approach turns to be successful because it improves the surrounding and housing of
slum dwellers as well as improving their productive activities to generate income hence
making the slum dwellers afford the new housing and be able to maintain the lifestyle.
2.6.4 Slum upgrading in Tunisia
Tunisia is famous in Africa for being a city without slum. Tunisia became 'slumless' by the
year 2010. The factor that greatest contributed to the success was because1978 slum
upgrading was a national policy. The government also made it possible by making financial
resources available.
23
Reconstructed houses in Tunisia (UNHABITAT, 2011)
24
2.7 Conceptual framework
Positive factors
Encourage
Negative factors
Correct/avoid ddoorand
Viable slum upgrading
project
Government efforts
Donors role
Community
participation
Slum upgrading
Corruption
Politics
Slum dwellers‟ ignorance and illiteracy
Lack of employment among slum
dwellers
High rent Loss of jobs
Inadequate approach
25
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter conveys the procedures that were applied and followed in carrying out the study.
It also discusses the population, sampling techniques and the data collection methods that
were exercised by the researcher. The data collected was used in testing the hypothesis as
well as to fulfill the objectives of the study.
3.1 Research Design
The research design is the theoretical structure within which research is carried out. It is made
up of the outline for the collection, measurement and analysis of data. Kothari (2004),
described research design as the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data
in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in
procedure.
In this study both quantitative and qualitative research design were used to analyze data
obtained from the field. The two approaches were used to analyze both numerical and
descriptive data. The quantitative method was used to measure data numerically and is to be
based on a representative sample of the population within predictable level of accuracy. The
qualitative metod was concerned with achieving an in depth understanding of a subject
matter. It also included designs techniques and measures that do not produce continuous
numerical data and it is mostly inform of words.
3.2 Target population
Target population involves groups of persons, objects or events with similar observable
characteristics that can form significant basis for research data collection. Target population
is the aggregate of all that conforms to a given specification, (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003).
Accessible population is the representative portion of the target population and is available at
the disposal of the researcher but largely representative to the target population.
26
Target population therefore included the occupants of the newly upgraded houses and five
KENSUP OFFICIALS experts in Kenya. The table below gives elaborate information on the
upgraded houses built for a section of the Kibera residents;
Table 3.1 Sections of the Kibera
Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Total
Area(Ha) 6.9 6.6 3.6 4.6 21.3
Population 6288 4709 3256 4331 19318
No.of
structures
876 522 410 588 2396
No.of
structure
owners
945 409 941 551 2419
No.of Tenants 5545 3004 4361 3989 16899
Source: UN-HABITAT (2008b), Soweto East Redevelopment proposal.
3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques
Sampling is selecting a representative group among a population (Kothari, 2004). According
to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), sampling refers to the selection of a subset of a population
to act as a representative of the whole population. Advantages of sampling are reduced cost,
greater scope, greater speed, and greater accuracy.
Due to time and resource constraints, the study was limited to some portion of the target
population and was selected through sampling of the target population. Mugenda and
Mugenda (2003) states that 10% of the target population is a bare minimum for a sample .A
27
bigger sample population is more representative of the target population hence improves
validity by minimizing sample error however due to limited resources and time constrains.
Kibera Soweto East is divided into four zones of the same characteristics with plots in every
zone. Due to limited resources and time the study concentrated on zone A. Zone A is the
largest in size and accounts for 37% of the houses in Soweto East (UN-HABITAT, 2008). It
is also the zone where kibera residents occupied first after its completion.
A stratified random sampling technique was adopted giving each resident an equal chance of
being selected. This was meant to guard against biased data. According to Qs.Wafula (2016),
there are 822 housing units in zone A which is used as the population size. The sample size is
calculated using the Fisher's formulae below:
n= Z2pqN
e2(N-1)+Z
2pq
(Chava and nachmias, 1996)
Where:
N= Population size
n= Sample size
p = Sample population estimated to have characteristics being measured. Assume a 90%
confidence level of the target population.
q = 1-p
e = Acceptable error( e=0.05, since the estimated should be 5% of the true valu.
Z = The standard normal deviate at required confidence level=1.96
28
n = 1.962
× 0.9× (1 - 0.9) × 822
0.052
× (822-1) + 19.62
× 0.9 × (1 - 0.9)
n = 118.53
n= 119 residents after rounding off.
3.4 Sources of data.
Data is classified as primary and secondary. Primary data is first hand data which is directly
from researchers study. Secondary data is second hand data that was collected by another
researcher previously
3.4.1 Primary sources
Questionnaires
Questionnaires with close ended questions were given to the sample population which is
households from the 119 housing units. Some of the questions were in form of Yes or No
format. These questionnaires were administered to the residents of upgraded housed to give
their views on affordability and to determine whether they are the intended beneficiaries of
the project.
Interviews
An interview is an oral administration of a questionnaire. The researcher must establish a
good relationship with the responder in order to acquire accurate information (Mugenda &
Mugenda, 1999). Enquiries were made to KENSUP officials through direct conversation.
The interview questions were mostly open ended and were mainly on the role of government
and donors, corruption allegations and approach used during slum upgrading process.
29
3.4.2 Secondary data
The secondary data was evidenced in chapter two which is the literature review done by the
researcher. Secondary data was obtained from books, published theses and dissertations,
journals, internet citations and government books.
3.5 Data analysis and presentation
Raw data that was acquired from the field through interviews and questionnaires was
transformed into a format that aid analysis. The raw data was classified and tabulated prior to
analysis. Data analysis involved interpretation by correlating independent and dependent
variables with a view to answering the research questions. Response from close ended
questions was assigned numerical values and analyzed quantitatively while those from open
ended questions was categorized and analyzed qualitatively. Descriptive statistics was
adopted to analyze data while the grounded theory technique was applied to qualitative data.
Results of analysis were translated into tables, pie – charts and bar graphs.
30
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the study, analysis of the findings, interpretations and a
discussion of the various responses gathered from the questionnaires and interviews. The data
is presented descriptively by use of table graphs and charts.
4.1 Response Rate
During the field study 119 questionnaires were prepared and issued to the sampled
population. 104 questionnaires out of 119 were returned which is a representative of 87%
meaning the response rate was good. Higher response rate increases representativeness of
data therefore minimizing errors.
Chart 4.1 presents the response rate.
Source: Author, 2016
Returned Questionnaire 87% Unreturned Questionnaire 13%
31
4.2 BioData (General Information of the respondent)
In this section, the KENSUP experts were interviewed to determine who the upgraded houses
was ment to benefit and what the project was meant to achieve. Residents of the upgraded
houses were asked about their prior residence to ascertain whether they were the intended
beneficiearies of the house as dictated by the experts. They were also asked if they were the
original beneficiaries of the upgraded houses to ascertain if the beneficiaries are the ones
occupying the units. This information was relevant because for slum upgrading to be
considered viable, it has to benefit the intended beneficiaries and those beneficiaries are to be
living in the units provided. To ascertain they are the original beneficiaries, the occupants had
to give the registration number of the house to avoid untrue answers. A summary of the
information that was obtained is represented below;
4.2.1 Residence of the before relocation
The Kibera Soweto East, Nairobi Rehabilitation Project was developed for slum
dwellersfrom Kibera slum as confirmed by the KENSUP experts. According to the experts
the project was meant to achieve better, affordable and more permanent housing with a
healthier environment for the Kibera slum dwellers.
As pertaining to prior residence before relocation to the new housing, 82% of the respondents
lived in the Kibera. 17% did not live in kibera and 1% did not answer the question.
32
Chart 4.2 Presents residence of the respondents before relocation
Source: Author, 2016
4.2.2 Ownership of the unit.
As relating to ownership of the units, most of the residents (76%) declared that they were
original beneficiaries of the units while 24% were not the original beneficiaries to the houses.
Out of the 76% who declared that they were the original owners, only 63% could provide the
registration number to the house while 13% did not know the registration number.
Surprisingly 2% of the respondents who were not the original beneficiaries of the housing
provided the registration number of the house. As much as the registration number could
verify ownership, the 2% that did not own yet provided the registration number nullifies the
assumption that only original beneficiaries knew the registration numbers.
those who resided in Kibera before relocation
those who did not live in Kibera before relocation
those who chose not to answer
33
Chart 4.3 ownership of the unit
Source: Author, 2016
4.3 Factors affecting the viability of slum upgrading and and possible
impacts of these factors.
4.3.1 Govenment efforts.
The KENSUP experts interviewed praised the government for making tremendous efforts in
the slum upgrading project. The experts went ahead to say the whole project was made
possible by the government bacause they donated the land on which Kibera slum lies for
slum upgradind efforts. The effects of the government efforts according to the KENSUP
experts include producing a conducive environment for the donors to contribute, increase
residents trust in government and completion of the housing units.
4.3.2 Donor roles
According to the KENSUP officials, the donors contributed the most money towards the
project. One went ahead to say that donors and NGO's substituted to the the private sector
who were unwilling to help where the are no returns or the returns were minimal. The donors
help made the construction process possible.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
provided regnumber
didn't provide regnumber
63%
13%
2%
24%
original owners of the unit non original owners
34
4.3.3 Community participation
According to the KENSUP officials interviewed, the slum dwellers were involved during the
project in different capacities. When respondents were asked whether they were involved in
the slum upgrading project and at what capacity, 64% of the respondents were involved
during the project while 36% were not involved. Out of the 64% of the respondents who were
involved, 47% were trainees, 33% casual workers, 2% contract employees, 8% full time
employees and none were involved as commission employees while there were(10%) others
involved in other ways. Those that were involved in other ways stated they participated as
registrars of the slum dweller, others were providers of food to employees working during the
contruction process and others were involved in educating the slum dwellers in order to
register. That data was represented as:
Chart 4.4 Were they involved
Source: Author, 2016
64%
36%
Were they involved
yes no
35
Chart4.5 Involved in what capacity
Source: Author, 2016
4.3.4 Corruption
When asked if the fund meant for the slum upgrading project were used optimumly,
KENSUP experts interviewed disagreed. In fact 1 of the experts strongly disagreed while the
other 4 disagreed. When asked if the there was corruption and misappropriation of funds, one
of them disagree saying the money was handled well although it could have been used to
build more houses. 3 of the experts interviewed agreed there was corruption and
misapropriation of funds while none of them strongly agreed with that statement.
When asked whether the delays in completion of phase one of the project was due to
corruption and misappropiation of funds, most of the KENSUP experts agreed although they
stated some of the delays were due to court injunctions taken by the landlords who previously
owned houses that Kibera residents lived in, delayed payment to the contractor who in turn
stopped work several times till payment was offered and also the weather affected the
construction proccess hence delaying completion of the project.
KENSUP experts in their opinion affirmed that there were people who benefit from the
project but were not initially slum dwellers
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
%
Axi
s Ti
tle
Axis Title
trainees
casual workers
contract employees
full time employees
others
36
Table 4.1 Funds meant for the slum upgrading project were optimumly used
Strongly disagree disagree neutral Agree Strongly agree
1 4 0 0 0
Table4.2 There was corruption and misappropriation of funds meant for the slum
upgrading project
Strongly disagree disagree neutral Agree Strongly agree
0 1 0 3 1
Table4.3 Delayed completion of the project was due to corruption and misappropriation
of funds meant for the slum upgrading project
Strongly disagree disagree neutral Agree Strongly agree
0 1 0 2 2
4.3.5 Politics
During the interview, the experts were asked whether there were external forces affecting the
project. They stated there were but could not mention any. They however disagreed with the
fact that politics slowed down the slum upgrading process. One went ahead to clarify their
statement saying yes some politicians promised a 'Canaan' for the slum dwellers but did not
deliver however, this only made the slum dwellers lose faith in promises made to them by the
government but the slum upgrading process was not affected.
37
4.3.6 Slum dwellers ignorance and illetracy
The respondents were asked what the highest level of education they have attained and if
they would consider to go back to the slum. This was to compare the level of education with
the willingness to go back to the slum. 39% of the respondents had no education and most of
them in this level were very willing to go back to the slum
Chart 4.6 comparison between education level and willingness to return to slum
Source: Author, 2016
4.3.7 Lack of employment among slum dwellers
In this section respondents were asked about their working status to determine whether they
will be able to pay for the new housing. They were also asked how much income they
dedicate to their rent. This was to find out if by living in the news house they are living
within their means. According to one KENSUP experts, for the residents to be living within
their means, he/ she has to spend less than 30% of his/her salary on rent, 30% on other needs,
30% on fees and loans if any and save 10%. Out of the respondents, 53% had a steady source
of income either from jobs, hawking or small businesses. The remaining 47%, 22% were
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
none primary secondary university masters
percentage
willing to return to slum
not willing to returm
38
unemployed and therefore could not be paying for rent at all while 25% were unwilling to
share about their income status and when asked why some of them got defensive and almost
violent. As presented in the chart below (chart 4.4) most of the respondents have a reliable
source of income so most of them are able to pay for the housing
Chart 4.7. Income status
Source: Author
The results (as presented in table 4.1) show that most of the respondents(52%) receive
between 5000Ksh and and 10,000Ksh, while the least of them earns only 5% received more
than 20,000. 13% earns less than 5000Ksh, 21% earns between 10,000Ksh and 15,000Ksh
while 9% earns between 15,000Ksh and 20,000Ksh.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
have a source of income have no source of income unwilling to share their incomestatus
Series 1
39
Table4.4 How much they earn
Amount per household(Ksh) Percentage
Below 5,000 13%
Between 5,000 and 10,000 52%
Between 10,000 and 15,000 21%
Between 15,000 and 20,000 9%
Above 20,000 5%
Source:Author
The respondents who are have a steady income source, most of the respondents (43%) pay
rent more than 1/3 of their salary but less than 1/2. 20% of the respondents pay more than
half while 37% pay less than 1/3 of thier salary. But according to the standard of the
KENSUP expert, most of the respondents(63%) are living above their means because they
pay more than 1/3 of their earnings. These data is presented in:
40
Chart: 4.8. Amount of earning dedicated to rent
Source: Author, 2016
4.3.8 High rent
Here, the respondents were asked how much rent they are paying currently and how much
they were paying befor relocation. They are also asked in their opinion on how high the rent
is to pick their to determine how the residents felt about the rent.
42% of the respondents pay 1000Ksh, 30% pay 3000Ksh, 11% pay 2000 while only 11% pay
more than 3000Ksh. The respondents who were paying more than 3000Ksh were tenants and
not the original beneficieries because according to the field study the original beneficieries
paid 3000Ksh at most depending on the size of the unit. The data is presented as:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
less than1/3 between 1/3 and1/2
morethan 1/2
Axi
s Ti
tle
amount dedicated to rent
amount dedicated to rent
41
Chart: 4.9 Rent paid
Source: Author, 2016
4.3.8.1 Rent paid before relocation
The respondents paid less amount when living in the slum, in fact 17% were paying below
500Ksh, 38% paid between 500 and 800Ksh, 42% were paying between 800 and 1000Ksh
while only 3% paid above 1000.
Chart 4.10 rent before relocation
rent paid
1000
2000
3000
above 3000
Sales
below 500
between 500 and 800
between 800and 1000
above 1000
42
Source: Author, 2016
4.8.2 Rating of the rent
Most of the respondents rated the rent as affordable while the least rated it as too low. The
data has been presented in chart 4.11
Chart 4.11 rating of the rent
Source: Author, 2016
4.3.9 Inadequate approach
During the interview, the KENSUP experts were asked which method was used during the
slum upgrading process and they all agreed it was the construction of new housing for the
slum dwellers. When asked if the approach was sufficient, 4 of them believed it was but one
believed it as not. He went ahead to say that building new and better housing for the slum
upgrading is effort in the right direction but for this residents to be self sefficient and to
beable to afford their new housing units, they have to be counselled and trained if possiblrei
in order to avoid the 'begging' mentality. He also went ahead to add that with new housing, a
big burden has been lifted from their shoulders in terms of health and security so they should
be willing to pay more to live better.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
too high high affordable low too low
rating of the rent 10% 34% 36% 13% 7%
Axi
s Ti
tle
rating of the rent
43
4.4 Impacts of the factors on viability of the project
In these section, the respondents were asked how they were affected by the project in general.
The respondents could have been affected by the project in different ways. The following
presentation shows the response of the respondents.
Table 4.5 How the project affected their daily life.
HOW RESPONDENTS WERE
AFFECTED
NUMBER OF THE RESPONDENTS
Training provided during the project helped
the respondent secure a job
47
Loss of customer base or job due to
relocation
81
Boosted trust in government 33
Proud of their new home 97
44
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION
5.0 Introduction
This study set out to investigate the factors affecting viability of a sustainable slum upgrading
in Kenya using the Kibera slum upgrading project as a case study. The research problem
came up from the fact that slum upgrading efforts have not been enough to counter the
growth of the slums or permanently rehabilitate slum dwellers. The purpose of the study was
to identify the factors affecting the viability of a sustainable slum upgrading and the impacts
of those factors on viability of slum upgrading. The ensuing sections provide a summary of
the findings and arguments presented in the body of the report; a conclusion providing a
logical ending to issues discussed in the study; recommendations arising from the results of
the study; and recommendations for further study based on arising questions.
5.1 Summary of findings
From a hypothetical standpoint, the array of factors that were assumed to affect the viability
of upgrading of informal settlements included: (1)Government efforts (2) donors role (3)
community participation (4)corruption (5) politics (6) slum dwellers‟ ignorance and illiteracy
(7) lack of employment among slum dwellers (8) high rent (9) loss of jobs and (10)
inadequate approach. The study therefore focused on examining the actuality of these factors
and their impacts on viability of slum upgrading.
This study adopted a case study research design which was cross-sectional in nature. A
sample survey approach was used to collect data from 119 heads of households or their
spouses and 5 KENSUP officials . During the analysis of the data, it was revealed that most
of the respondents were the rightful beneficiaries of the project but some had rented out theirs
meaning that slum upgrading could not be considered completely viable. On the factors
affecting viability of slum upgrading, government effort, donors role and community
45
participation were the positive factors. If these 3 factors are encouraged the viability of slum
upgrading will have higher chances.
The negative factors highlighted were corruption, slum dwellers‟ ignorance and illiteracy,
lack of employment among slum dwellers, high rent and loss of jobs. The impacts of the
above factors are severe and they derail the success of the slum upgrading process. In the
case of corruption, the misappropriation of funds meant for slum upgrading lead to delays in
the completion of the project and also due to corruption, some people who were not meant to
benefit ended up benefitting hence denying several chances to deserving beneficiaries. Lack
of employment, high rent and loss of jobs for some residents meant that the residents do not
have a source of income hence could not afford their new lifestyle and would force some of
the residents to move back to the slum.
It was also established that the method used for slum upgrading is sufficient although helping
slum dwellers overcome self sympathy would help a great deal to ensure viability of slum
upgrading. Politics did not affect the slum upgrading process hence the factor was nullified.
5.2 Test for Hypothesis
Null hypothesis (HO): Sustainable slum upgrading process has been viable meaning the
beneficiaries are not returning to the slum.
Alternative hypothesis (HA): Beneficiaries returning to the informal settlement after
rehabilitation is the main hindrance to the viability of a sustainable slum upgrading process.
The probability that a beneficiary would live is the new units or return to slum is a 50%-50 %
chance therefore:
Ho:p=pHo=0.5
Ha:p≠pHo
Hence the probabilit that a resident would live in the new unit is 50% and the probabiliy that
the resident would return back to the slum is also 50%.
46
The study established that 76% of respondents(104) were the original beneficiaries. Therefore
the sample portion is 0.76 and the sample population 104.
Using the statistic Z =
√
Where :
p^ is sample portion
p is the null hypothesis value
q is the alternative hypothesis value
n is the sample population
therefore; =
√
=5.302
Application of a two-tailed test at 5% level of confidence. The rejection region R is given by:
R: |z| > 1.96
The observed value of z is 5.302 which does not fall in the acceptance region since R: |z| >
1.96. As such the null hypothesis is rejected. This then means that beneficiaries returning to
the informal settlement after rehabilitation is the main hindrance to the viability of a
sustainable slum upgrading process.
In this study, beneficiaries returning to the informal settlement is caused by different reasons
for example lack of employment, high rent, loss of jobs, illiteracy and corruption. If this
factors are not resolved it will continue resulting into subletting by the beneficiaries to the
middle income groups and more reports and cases of them moving back to slums will
continue being witnessed. This will in turn derail viability of a sustainable slum upgrading
process in the long run leading to growth of slums.
47
5.3 Conclusions
It is a reality that slum upgrading in Kenya has come a long way in terms of continuing
changes in progress and developments. Ambush, eviction and demolitions are not often
heard of unless it is an imposition on a private land. There are forward steps made and the
construction of new and improved housing is the most significant step made. Considering the
houses have been constructed on the land previous occupied the beneficiaries of the new
housing, it is important to ensure that the beneficiaries can be able to sustain themselves in
the new units to avoid them moving back to the slum which will eventually be occupied by
new housing units. From the research findings, it is apparent that a viable slum upgrading is
possible if the positive factors are encouraged and negative factors mitigated.
Viable slum upgrading is not an easy task however a lot more can be done through
encouragement of community participation and the inclusion of the beneficiaries in the
design stage since they are the users or consumers in the long run. Their inclusion can result
into better results as they are sensitive to housing design, infrastructure and social needs. The
private sector could also assist in terms of funding the project in order to ensure a faster and
better slum upgrading process.
5.4 Recommendation
The researcher recommends the following to be done not only in Kibera Soweto slum
upgrading project but to all upcoming slum upgrading projects in order to achieve the success
of the process;
In as much as rent in the of the new units is relatively low, it is expensive for the
beneficiaries, even a sixth fold for some. To lower the rent the construction could be done in
the optimum period to avoid cost of construction going up in turn affecting the rent. The
government could also consider using alternative building solutions such as expandable
polystyrene which are relatively cheaper to construct hence the rent can be even lower.
48
The government could also consider giving special consideration for slum dwellers to get
loans so that they can be able to start businesses that can earn them a living. Training could
also be provided to slum dwellers on important of business permits so that they can be able to
conduct their businesses legally.
Funds meant for slum upgrading should be used in the most favourable way and transparently
in order to avoid the situation where the funds are misused causing delays.
Slum dwellers could also be invited to participate in design meetings to help come up with a
design best suitable for them since they are the end users. They could also be trained on the
usage of the house to ensure durable life of the building. Slum dwellers should also be
counselled on self sufficiency before relocation to avoid depending on others to help them;
self sufficiency is important because it will motivate slum dwellers to be able to look for jobs
or businesses in order to afford their new lifestyle.
Sustainable practices that can be implemented in the area to for example, rainwater
harvesting through guttering should be used to transport water from rooftops to the storage
vessels to be used for multiple household purposes and also using a sustainable energy
efficient designs like use of energy saving bulbs for lighting or installation of solar systems to
help the slum dwellers in lowering the cost of living hence in turn making their new lifestyle
affordable for them.
The private sector could also be consulted in order to offer help in terms of construction cost
or even in services such as architecture services at a lower cost as part of their contribution
towards the project.
5.5 Areas of Further Study
1. Slum upgrading using alterntive building materials as a way to reduce building cost and as a
result make the new housing affordable to the beneficiaries
2. Ways to prevent growth of already existing slums and emerge of new slums.
3. A relocation policy for slum upgrading to prevent slum dwellers from letting out the entire
unit.
49
Bibliography
(www.innercitypress.org).
Amis, P., (1984) Squatters or Tenants: The Commercialization of Unauthorized Housing
in Nairobi, World Development.
Bane, R and Rawal, A (2002). Indian Cartographer- A case study of Anand City, Gujarat,
India, M.S. University of Baroda.
Banes. 2002, Senegal: Country Assessment Repor, Washington, DC, The World Bank.
Bell C, 1973 the informal Sector and Marginal groups. ' I.D.S. BULLETIN'
Binacchi, T. M. (2009). Slums and Shelter Policies in Kenya: The Case of Kibera,
Soweto East Slum Upgrading Project. Torino: Universita Degli Studi di Torino.
Blong, R., 1992,'Some perspectives on geological hazards' in G McCall, D Laming and
Scott (eds) Geohazards Natural and Manmad Chapman and Hall, London.
Chege Ezekiel Ndukui (2013), Challenges of slum upgrading for urban informal
settlements. Case study Soweto East Village in Kibera Informal Settlements, City of
Nairobi
Cities Alliance (1999), Action Plan for Moving Slum Upgrading to Scale, 'The Slum
Upgrading Action Plan' www.citiesalliance.org
Clinard M.B. 1968 slums and Community Development. Experiments in self-help. The
Free Press New York.
COHRE. (2005). Listening to the Poor? Housing Rights in Nairobi, Kenya: Consultation
Daily nation July 25, 2015
Davis, M. (2007) Planet of slums. London: Verso
50
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital. London: Transworld Publisher
Dogan, S. (2009). Transformation of Housing in Slum Upgrading Areas: Lessons from
Turkey. California : The Faculty of the Graduate School University of Southern
California .
Etherton D (1976) Mathare Valley A Case Study of Uncontrolled Settlement in Nairobi.
Housing Research and Development Unit, University of Nairobi P. 39
Fapohunda O.J. et. al. (1975) lagos urbanisation, Income 'Distribution and Employment:
Geneva, ILO.
Ford J. (1936) Slums and Housing; History, conditions, Policy. Hayward University.
Press
Government of Kenya [GOK]. (2005). Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP):
Implementation Strategy. Nairobi: Ministry of Housing.
Greg Scruggs (August 7 2015),
Hardoy, J, D Mitlin and D Satterthwaite (2003) Environmental Problems in Third World
Cities. Earthscan: London.
Horton Paul B (2000) Sociology Singapore; McGraw Hill book.
Huchzermeyer, M. (2011). Cities with „Slums‟: From informal settlement eradication to a
Karanja .I (2010), An enumeration and mapping of informal settlements in Kisumu,
Kenya, implemented by their inhabitants‟.
Karari, Peter Mwaura 2008: The Challanges Facing Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme i
n Realizing the Internatiohnal Elements of the Right to Housing.
Keziah and Mark 2012: Housing Governance and Participation in Slum Upgrading
Programsm policy
Kothari, C. 2004, Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques‟, (2nd Edition).
Mumbai: New Age International Limited Publisher
Mabogunje (1970), Absorption • of Newcaners into African cities, UN Habitat
Conference Background Paper New York. (70/RPC/BP/12, 1970)
51
Ministry of Planning and National Development. (2005). The MDGs Status Report for
Kenya, 2005. Nairobi: Republic of Kenya
Mugenda OM and Mugenda AG (2003), Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative
Mulcahy, M., & Chu, M.-R. (2007). Kibera Soweto East: a Case Study in Slum
Upgrading
Njathi M (2011). The challenges of housing development for low income market. Project.
Submitted for the fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of
Commerce, Strathmore University. Nairobi, Kenya.
Noppen AV (2012). The ABC‟s of Affordable Housing in Kenya, Acumen Fund,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Ochieng' Kennedy Oludo(2015). Evaluation of beneficiaries/occupants' satisfaction with
the housing with the housing provided in slum upgrading projects. Case study of Kibera
Soweto East, Nairobi.
Omuta A A (1984), 'The Urban Informal Sector and Environmental Sanitation: The
Needless Conflicts.' Habitat International
Oxfam GB (2009), Urban Poverty and Vulnerability in Kenya. Nairobi.
Paul M. Syagga (2011), Land Tenure in Slum Upgrading Projects, Nairobi.
Paul M. Syagga (2011), Land Tenure in Slum Upgrading Projects, Nairobi.
Paul M. Syagga (2012), Housing and Land Rights, Unpublished journal, Nairobi, Kenya.
Paul Syagga (1987) Housing Policy and Systems in Kenya: Nairobi experience.
International workshop on Housing, Nairobi.
Payne, G. (2001) Urban land tenure policy options: titles or rights? Habitat International .
Payne, G. (2005) Getting ahead of the game: A twin-track approach to improving existing
slums and reducing the need for future slums. Environment & Urbanization
Report Fact-Finding Mission to Nairobi. Centre on Housing Rights & Eviction
52
Republic of Kenya. (2007). The Kenya Vision 2030: The popular Version. Nairobi: The
Government of Kenya (UNESCAP, 2000), right to the city in Africa . Cape Town: UCT
Press .
Rosa Flores Fernandez, Bernard Calas. The Kibera Soweto East Project in Nairobi,
Kenya. Les cahiers d‟Afrique de l‟Est, IFRA Nairobi, 2011
Ruel, M T, L. Haddad and J. L Garrett. 1999, „some urban facts of life: Implications for
research and policy World Development‟ 1917–1938.
SOLZBACHER, R.M 1970 "East Africa's Slum Problem: A Question of Definition" in
Josef Gugler (ed.) Urban Growth in Subsahara Africa. Kampala, Nkanga, Editions.
The American Housing Act(1937)
The British Housing Act (1930)
The Kenya Government (2010), Constitution. Government printers.
The Kenya Government (2010), Constitution. Government printers.
UN-HABITAT (2006), The State of the World‟s Cities 2006-07, Nairobi, Kenya.
UN-HABITAT (2008) UN-Habitat and the Kenya slum upgrading programme strategy
document. UN.
UN-HABITAT. (2003). Guide to Monitoring Target 11: Improving the lives of 100
million slum dwellers. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
Van Vliet, W. 2002, Environment and Urbanization Cities in a globalizing world: From
engines of growth to agents of change‟, 30–39
Wingo, L. (1966), urban renewal, a strategy for information and analysis." Journal of the
American Institute of Planners.
Yuksel and Yuksel (1996), Consumer satisfaction theories, Adnan Menderes University,
Turkey.
53
RESIDENTS QUESTIONAIRE
(Targeting Residents of Kibera Soweto East Sampled Houses)
My name is Angela Muthoni Mwangi, an undergraduate student at the University of Nairobi
undertaking a study on An Investigation Into The Factors Affecting Viability Of Slum
Upgrading in partial fulfilment of my bachelors degree in Quantity Surveying in the school of
built environment. The information given is for academic purpose only and will be treated as
very confidential Any assistance accorded in answering this questionnaire will be highly
appreciated. Thank you.
Please fill the questions according to the instructions given.
Section A: BioData (General Information of the respondent)
1.Before relocation did you leave in Kibera? (tick where applicable)
Yes No
2 .Are you the original beneficiary of this house? (tick where applicable)
54
Yes No
(b) if yes what is the registration number of the house?
Section B: Factors affecting the viability of slum upgrading and possible impacts of
these factors.
3. Do you have a steady source of income per household?
Yes No
(b) How much income do you receive per household? (tick where applicable)
(i) Below 5,000
(ii) 5,000
(iii)10,000
(iv) 15,000
(v) 20,000 and above
(c) What fraction of your income do you use as rent? (tick where applicable)
(i) Less than 1/3
(ii) Between 1/3 and 1/2
(iii)1/2 or more
55
4. How much rent do you pay?
(i) 1000
(ii) 2000
(iii) 3000
(iv) Above 3000
(b) How much rent did you pay before relocation?
(i) Below 500
(ii) Between 500 and 800
(iii)Between 800 and 1000
(iv) Above 1000
(c)Rate the rent you are paying now?(tick where applicable)
(i) Too high
(ii) High
(iii)Affordable
(iv) Low
(v) Too low
56
5. What is your highest level of Education you have ? (tick where applicable)
(i) None
(ii) Primary
(iii)Secondary
(iv) Tertiary
(v) University
(vi) Masters level
(b) Would you ever rent out your unit and go back to live in the slum?
Yes No
6.Were you involved in the slum upgrading project? (tick where applicable)
Yes No
(b) If yes what was your occupation? (tick where applicable)
(i) Trainee
(ii) Casual worker
(iii)Contract employee
(iv) Full time employee
(v) Commission employee
57
(vi) Other
Section C: Impacts of these factors on the viability of the project.
7. How has the project affected your daily life? (tick where applicable. You can tick several
questions.)
(i) The training/working experience provided during this project has helped me secure a
job.
(ii) Loss of customer base/ job due to the relocation.
(iii) It has boosted your trust on the government.
(iv) I now have a place to proudly call home.
58
AN INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR HOUSING EXPERTS
My name is Angela Muthoni Mwangi, an undergraduate student at the University of Nairobi
undertaking a study on An Investigation Into The Factors Affecting Viability Of Slum
Upgrading in partial fulfilment of my bachelors degree in Quantity Surveying in the school of
built environment. The information given is for academic purpose only and will be treated as
very confidential Any assistance accorded in answering this questionnaire will be highly
appreciated. Thank you.
Please fill the questions according to the instructions given.
1. What group was targeted to benefit from the ugraded houses?
2. What was the programme ment to achieve?
(b) In your own opinion, do you think the mission was achieve?
Yes No No
59
3 In your own opinion, was there anyone who was not part of the target group of the slum
upgrading project but benefited?
Yes No
4. Where did the resources used for the project come from?
From the private sector
From the government
From NGOs
From intenational donors
(b) How do you rate this statement: money meant for the project optimumly used?
strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree
60
(c) How do you rate this statement;there is corruption and misappropriation of funds meant
for slum upgrading.
strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree
(d) How do you rate this statement: delays completion of the project were due to funding or
misapropriation of funds and corruption.
strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree
5. What approach was used for the slum upgrading process?
(b) Do you think the approach was efficient?
Yes No
61
(c) If no suggest a better way it could have been handled.
6. Were there external forces affected the project?
Yes No
(b) How would you rate this statement; politics slowed down the slum upgrading process
strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree