Search

Settlement categorisation differs tremendously between countries making their cross‐comparison, globally, close to impossible. In 2012, the United Nations (UN) proposed a manner in which settlements within its member states could be classified. However, the proposed typology is rather broad and does not offer much on how settlements are classified. Consequently, this paper explored how settlements in South Africa (one of the UN member states) have been categorised, as it is believed that at the least settlements should be categorised consistently within a particular country. This paper conducted an explorative literature review in order to uncover how settlements have been classified in South Africa between 1993 and 2016 in order to draw deduction on the typology of settlements in South Africa. Findings were drawn through a comparative analysis of the literature in order to determine if there was consistency in the understanding of how settlements are classified within the country. The paper found that the categorisation of settlements within South Africa has been a rather contentious matter and the method of classification being fickle in its application. The paper calls for a more structured approach to categorising settlements within the country and pose spatial considerations for other countries dealing with similar issues. Future research in this regard should be considered in order to understand the application of settlement typologies in the quest of a uniform classification as envisioned by the UN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informal backyard rentals (IBRs) constitute South Africa's fastest growing housing subsector, flourishing within a relative research vacuum and without national policy intervention to address the vulnerabilities of stakeholders to the health risks potentially presented. This article reviewed the literature on IBRs, focussing on past policies and interventions, general characteristics, infrastructure and service access to inform an analysis of potential health risks from the existing literature to guide future research and policy-making. Research followed a qualitative approach to review IBR literature dating after 2004. Relevant publications were identified from bibliographic databases using Boolean search logic and by reviewing citations in and later citations of these publications. Relevant secondary sources were also included. The review evidenced that IBRs have received increasing policy, but limited research attention, and that health hazards have been particularly neglected. Although issues such as shared water and sanitation, inappropriate waste disposal, poor hygiene practices, high densities and poor quality structures have been referenced extensively – alluding to risks and health concerns – few studies have focussed directly on health, risk and vulnerability. The risk analysis completed based on the literature made potential risks explicit, exemplified by references to specific conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and the coronavirus pandemic, demonstrating pathogenic pathways, contamination and transmission risks conducive to poor health, infection and potential disaster. The review captured and updated the contemporary literature on IBRs, with the subsequent analysis providing a platform for future empirical research on health, infrastructure and IBRs to address potential risks towards positive change in future policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]