Encyclopedia
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects:
Environmental Sciences
Legal access to land, the protection of the population from anarchic eviction, and informal community-based rights may positively influence the development of sustainable urban housing.
- insecure tenure
- land tenure
- urban housing
- conurbation
1. Introduction
Various studies have revealed that tenure security has become an essential part of a major programmatic push that aims to increase inclusive investment in land, agricultural production, sustainable natural resource management, and the move toward market economies [1]. The literature reveals that efforts are increasingly focusing on multiplying the effects of secure tenure and property rights from various sources. Accordingly, scholars in the field of development have examined ways to expand secure land tenure and property rights (LTPR) by supporting efforts to recognize and respect the customary rights to use, manage, and allocate rights to land and resources as a strategy for contributing to economic growth and sustainable natural resource management. Nevertheless, a notable reminder is that secure tenure is not a one-size-fits-all solution. As such, a range of categories of tenure status exists, any of which may be sufficiently secure to fulfill individual needs.
Tenure security is also real and perceived. For example, a family living in an underprivileged area for years without any formal documentation to prove the purchase of their home lacks real or formal security; nevertheless, they may believe that they are highly unlikely to be evicted for various reasons, such as the city providing electrical service to the area. In this case, the family has perceived security. As described by a Food and Agriculture Organization report [2], security of tenure in this case is the perception of people that their rights to land will be recognized and protected in the event of specific challenges. People frequently feel secure when they possess a full set of use and transfer rights of sufficient duration to recoup any labor and capital that they invest in land or property, and when they can enforce these rights against the claims of others. Moreover, the complexity of land tenure and access to housing resides in the fact that they involve a wide range of approaches and practices that typically fall under regulatory frameworks. However, land tenure practices are often related to cultural perceptions. Since they respond to deeply embedded historical processes and contexts, they vary considerably across countries. Whether legally or customarily defined, land tenure denotes the relationship between people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land. Simply put, we assume that land tenure systems determine who can use what resources for how long, and under what conditions. Ref. [2] sustains this assumption, stating that land tenure refers to “the conditions under which land resources are held and used”. A study on land tenure security in 15 countries conducted by [3] assessed the issue to underline the still precarious state of tenure security in many countries and identify a range of issues for improving tenure security through pragmatic approaches. Along a continuum of factors of insecure land tenure, the most important ones fall under three basic categories according to a literature review, namely, (i) lack of recognition by authorities; (ii) lack of protection from eviction or exclusion; (iii) and informal community-based rights.
2. Empirical Definition of Land Tenure Security and Its Nuances around the Globe
Much controversy accompanies the meaning of land tenure security in developing countries. In more developed societies, the concept of land tenure security is well established; however, its meaning in developing countries is surrounded by far more uncertainty. This is promoted by arguments that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of land tenure security [23]. However, this notion impedes the growing body of research focused on land tenure security in developing contexts: a great variety of definitions prevail, many of them narrow, Western-oriented, and reduced to legal or economic aspects [24,25,26]. These approaches do not adequately align with many of the tenure systems used in developing contexts. While they illustrate high levels of land tenure security from one perspective, other important perspectives are ignored. The narrow approaches impede analysis that is more complete, and discourses of land tenure security undertaken in developing contexts. More specifically: (1) it affects land policy formulation; (2) designing and evaluating land tenure security improvement interventions is likely to be flawed; and (3) it prevents scholars from empirically investigating the content of the total security to be enjoyed by a landholder.
Contemporary literature illustrates awareness of the above theoretical limitation [27], as does the Global Land Tool Network; however, few attempts have been made to fill the gap. Refs. [24,27] propose revised versions of the tenure security concept. Other pro-poor models such as the Land Administration Domain Model and its specialization (Social Tenure Domain Model) have also been developed [28]. While these are useful starting points, the efforts are driven by economic or technical motivations. A study on the law and psychology of land tenure security resulted in the tripartite model incorporating three different conceptions of tenure security: (1) tenure security as perceived, (2) legal tenure security, and (3) de facto tenure security [26]. The generalized approach emphasizes how the three forms of tenure security are elements of one composite concept. However, the three elements may not generate a full picture of security for any land tenure system: they may not reflect all interactions that explain security.
Indeed, all societies have a system to govern property rights—whether formally defined by law or informally established through customary systems—and these rules evolve and change. While each society has land tenure systems, each system has a unique set of rules, and no single system of governance is universally applied. Tenure systems define who can hold and use resources, for what length of time, and under what conditions, but these rules may be well-defined or ambiguous and open to misinterpretation and exploitation. When both formal and informal systems exist within a society, tenure rules can overlap, leading to confusion and insecurity. Accordingly, different land tenure systems have shown advantages and disadvantages throughout the years. Among these, Ref. [3] emphasizes the case of customary systems and individual land ownership. According to the authors, while customary systems have facilitated social cohesion, these have not been able to withstand increasing pressure on land and resources either from within or outside communities. On the other hand, statutory systems have the advantage of providing written legal rules or written case law. Moreover, the public (or state) land ownership which withholds land for conservation purposes or public land management aiming to facilitate more equal access to prime locations has led to poor land use and land management outcomes as a result of bureaucratic inactivity and corruption.
On the one hand, the above-described features underline the importance and topicality of the land tenure issue from a worldwide perspective, and, on the other hand, may support the transferability of the results from the present study to other case studies. This prompts the need to deeply investigate land tenure systems in urban environments considering the drastic urbanization that occurred over the course of the past century.
3. Land Tenure Systems in Urban Environments
The pace of urbanization and the number of people living in urban settings has increased exponentially over the course of the past century, with more than half of the world’s population now living in urban areas. It is estimated that half of the population of Asia will live in cities by 2020, and Africa will reach that proportion by 2035. At present, one billion people are living in informal settlements that lack basic services and 60% of urban dwellers are physically exposed to natural hazards and pollution. The urban slum population is projected to increase to 2 billion people by 2030 [22]. The prediction supplemented the one stating that Africa’s population will more than triple over 40 years, from 395 million in 2010 to 1.38 billion in 2050, corresponding to 21% of the world’s projected urban population [16]. Moreover, the same revision of the World Urbanization Prospects estimated an increase in the African population to 2.5 billion people by 2050, 55% of whom will be living in urban environments. Therefore, getting ready to face the challenges associated with the above-mentioned urbanization feature becomes a major concern. Among these, access to housing remains important.
More often than not, land tenure practices are simply culturally accepted, responding to deeply embedded historical processes and contexts, so they vary considerably from country to country. Whether legally or customarily defined, land tenure is the relationship between people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land. In simple terms, “land tenure systems determine who can use what resources for how long, and under what conditions” [2]. According to this definition, urban land tenure can be categorized into four types of property rights regimes: (1) the private regime (individuals and groups, commercial and non-profit); (2) the communal regime (where each member has a right to use the community assets independently); (3) the open access regime (specific rights are not assigned to anyone and no one can be excluded); and (4) the state regime (property rights are assigned to some authority in the public sector). However, Ref. [1] demonstrates that in some cases, property rights can be subject to different regimes governing land and housing ownership: regarding the former, owners own the land and immovable property (e.g., house, building, etc.), and in the second case, owners just own the immovable property and not the land. It is also common to find references in the literature for land tenure security, understanding it as “…the certainty that an individual’s rights to land will be recognized by others and protected in cases of specific challenges; or, more specifically, the right of all individuals and groups to effective government protection against forced evictions” [29]. This security as certainty would also apply to housing occupancy [30].
Land administration—formal or informal—encompasses land tenure rules and how they are applied. This includes formalization, registration, rights transfer mechanisms, regulation enforcement, valuation, and taxation, among others. However, formal and informal mechanisms can coexist, generating ambiguities that hinder the definition of the legal status of land, with local tenure practices prevailing in most cases [2]. While formal property rights are those that are explicitly acknowledged by the authority, informal property rights are those that lack official recognition and are considered—in many instances—illegal. In some countries, there is a third status, called “extra-legal”, where the rights are not against the law, but not recognized by the law either. Ref. [29] interprets access to land and housing as the “opportunities for temporary or permanent use and occupation of land for purposes of shelter, productive activity or the enjoyment of recreation and rest”. The researchers classify access to use and uses of land into four different categories: (1) direct occupation, (2) exchange, (3) inheritance, or (4) allocation by government or management authorities. Despite this, insecure land tenure remains critical.
4. Outline of the Major Insecure Land Tenure Factors and Characteristics of Urban Housing Issues in Africa
The rapid urbanization rates and lack of urban planning have resulted in very large housing deficits, defined as the difference between the number of households and the number of permanent dwellings. The deficit can be estimated for a given period of time (flow), for example, an annual deficit, or it can be at a given date, in which case it is sometimes referred to as housing backlog (stock). Without an up-to-date census of dwellings in African countries, accurate information on housing backlogs is not readily available; however, various estimates are cited by government officials and housing professionals in several countries.
Following extensive research and interviews with stakeholders in several countries [31], assembled the largest existing database of Africa’s housing backlog, with estimates for 42 countries. Although the author used the latest information available, the estimates in some countries are a few years old. The study reveals that countries such as Tunisia, Botswana, and Mauritius do not have an overall deficit as there are more dwellings than households, but deficits exist for the lowest income categories. On the other end of the spectrum, Nigeria—the most populous country, with an urbanization rate of 4.8% since 2000—is estimated to have a deficit of at least 17 million. This figure has been cited since 2010. However, given the annual demand of 700,000 units and annual supply of less than 100,000, the current backlog should be at least 20 million. Whether 17 or 20 million, reducing the housing backlog in Nigeria requires a fundamental change in housing delivery. Three other countries have backlogs of at least 3 million housing units: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Egypt, and Tanzania. All three countries have large populations but different urbanization trends. Egypt is the most urbanized, with an urban share of 43.1% in 2015. Its urbanization rate for 2000–2015 was 1.7%, and that figure is expected to increase slightly to 1.8% in the next 15 years. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with an urban share of 42% in 2015, has experienced an urbanization rate of 4.0% since 2000. However, this trend is expected to slow down to an average of 3.6% in the next 15 years. Combined with an annual housing deficit of 240,000 units (mid-2000s estimate), the housing situation is expected to worsen. Tanzania started with a low urban share but experienced one of the highest urbanization rates, at 5.2%, since 2000. Another group of countries, comprising Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, and South Africa, has housing backlogs of at least 2 million units. This figure is increasing annually, given the large supply shortfall and high urbanization rates.
Overall, Ref. [31] concludes that 17 African countries have housing deficits of more than 1 million units. If nothing is done to dramatically change the situation, poor urban planning and inadequate housing supply will severely constrain Africa’s structural transformation. The above-described shortage of housing will lead to the development of slums and shantytowns, which are associated with a number of social problems: overcrowding, poor sanitation, and high crime rates. The context suggests that although the housing sector varies across countries and regions, the common reality among urban developing markets has been a surge in the demand for housing, effectively driving up housing prices and pushing quality housing out of reach for the majority of those who are in need, especially poor and middle-income households. The situation led in many cases to the multiplicity of precarious housing with its wide range of consequences including domestic disaster risks. Simultaneously, slum populations have continued to grow, as social housing cannot keep up with the demand from those in the bottom half of the income distribution. Affordability issues are preventing households from getting their foot on or moving up the housing ladder. The rapid and often uncontrolled growth of urban areas in developing economies has focused attention on the need to improve legal access to land and services for the existing and future urban populations.
In a study on informal settlement management approaches, Ref. [32] pointed to the fact that common policies for improving tenure security in informal settlements, as well as increasing access to credit and services, aimed to provide individual freehold titles to land and property. The author of [33] stated the assumption that formal titling would raise property values. In turn, residents would be able to use the enhanced value of their properties as collateral to obtain formal credit, improve their properties, and invest in a business to lift themselves out of poverty. The author concluded that with improved security, residents do improve their housing stock, and often build and improve home-based businesses.
On the other hand, a UN-Habitat synthesis report [20] stated that given the complexity of urban land tenure and property rights and the limited capability (or willingness) of government at national and local levels to meet the increasing challenge, no single form of tenure can meet the diverse and changing needs of large urban populations. For various reasons, the number of evicted populations accompanied by house demolition under judicial decisions has been drastically increasing in recent decades. Among these, the lack of legal access to land is a major concern [34], the provision of which, even in the name of new infrastructure or public project development, allows residents to claim compensation and appropriate resettlement [33].
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152115497
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
