university of nairobi - realestates.uonbi.ac.ke · i university of nairobi college of architecture...

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


Date………………………….

AND

IRENE N WAMUYU


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


2.5.3 Donor's role ....................................................................................................... 17

2.5.4 Corruption ......................................................................................................... 18

2.5.5 Politics ............................................................................................................... 18

2.5.6 High rent............................................................................................................ 18


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


4.3.4 Corruption ......................................................................................................... 35

4.3.5 Politics .................................................................................................................. 36

4.3.6 Slum dwellers ignorance and illetracy ................................................................ 37

X


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.

([email protected])

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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


64%

36%

Were they involved

yes no

35

Chart4.5 Involved in what capacity


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


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


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



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


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


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


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



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).

([email protected]).

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


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


university of nairobi - realestates.uonbi.ac.ke · i university of nairobi college of architecture...

Documents