Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Informal and semi-formal settlements
Zimbabwe like most developing countries, is experiencing rapid urbanization: for
example the population of Harare increased from 665, 000 in 1982 to 1.4 million in 2002
(CSO 1999, CSO 2003). The urbanization process, coupled with inadequate public or
private housing finance, slow economic growth and natural disasters in the rural areas,
has led to the mushrooming of informal settlements (Makoni 2001). Such settlements
now contain more than half of the households in many developing cities (Pugh 2000).
Sometimes informal settlers occupy land alongside, or even within, a formal settlement.
The settlement thus develops a semi-formal character, with some households occupying
land legally, and subject to some form of settlement planning, and other households
(within the same settlement) occupying land illegally and outside of any official planning
process. Such illegal land occupation and dwelling construction characteristically shows
a higher density of development than in surrounding legal areas and a random orientation
of dwellings and land parcels or stands (Zegarac 1999).
Informal settlements are considered to be illegal in Zimbabwe and are often
demolished and the residents evicted. Such a reaction is typical of government responses
in post-colonial Africa (Obhudo and Mhlanga 1988). Even when such settlements are
tolerated, they are given low priority in local authority and government development or
planning programs (Kombe in press). Furthermore, even if a settlement is legal or
recognized by government, the development of sanitation infrastructure in particular,
tends to be implemented later than the initial urbanization phase in a new settlement
(Foster 2001). This is particularly true for peri-urban settlements, with their rapid growth
patterns, where local authorities often have ambivalent attitudes towards the development
and limited planning capacity (Kyessi, in press). Where peri-urban settlements are
administratively separated, under independent local authorities, problems of
administrative capacity and resources for infrastructure development and services
provision arise (Dahiya 2003).
Urban utilities often fail to provide service to low income customers, particularly those
settled on illegal or low-grade land. This is because low-income communities are often
perceived by the utility (public or private) to be financially unreliable, transient, difficult
to identify and expensive to service (Wright 1997).
Growth in sanitation coverage in low-income areas worldwide has been much slower
than that for water supply (Cairncross 1998). Lack of resources is not the only reason for
slow progress in sanitation coverage. Low-cost sanitation programs are far more difficult
to implement than water supply schemes for several reasons. It is more expensive and
time consuming to install infrastructure and services in densely populated illegal or
informal settlements after they have developed, as space is constrained and utility
servitudes have not been reserved, as there was no planning process (Hardoy and
Sattethewaite 1989). It is therefore not unexpected that poor cost recovery has been
identified as one of the major causes of failure of post-independence sanitation programs
(Manase et al. 2004).
