Search

The study critically evaluates the sustainability of informal settlements in terms of smart growth principles. There is an irony that informal settlements have more of the ideal attributes of smart development, including mixed-use development, high densities, compact affordable housing, modal accessibility, and dense local employment opportunities, than sprawling, low-density single-use developments in surrounding formal developments. Yet, despite their smart characteristics, these informalised settlements are not regarded as ideal spaces to live in due to their informal nature and thus are regarded as unsustainable modes of living. This study critically investigates these assumptions, analysing how informal mixed-use spaces are produced, organised, and regulated organised outside formal planning in a customary land use management system in Cape Town, South Africa, and whether this mode of urbanism is smart, i.e., sustainable. The research results indicate that customary self-regulation of informal settlements creates very liveable, polymorphic spaces in the marginalised townships despite the severe lack of resources. Its smart characteristics are not for aesthetic reasons but to make space functional and personal for the residents. However, the unregulated nature of this new mode of urbanism also limits the accumulation of wealth within the township, and it creates dangerous and unhealthy living conditions for residents in terms of litter, noise, flooding, fire risks, environmental degradation, and anti-social behaviour, especially in public areas not adequately regulated by customary regulatory bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various metatheories are applied to explain neighbourhood change and neighbourhood poverty. Ecological approaches view these as a deterministic, evolutionary process of market competition amongst mobile social groups. Subcultural approaches view these as the product of a complex interaction of both endogenous psychological factors and exogenous economic, social and demographic factors. Political approaches view these as a spatial side effect of the unequal ownership of the means and modes of production, and skewed power relations. Statistical analysis indicates that a range of significant factors shared between different metatheoretical approaches explains neighbourhood change or neighbourhood poverty. This supports the trend in a convergence and hybridization of metatheory. The diverse approaches sufficiently explain common changes, but the low explanatory power of the models indicates that idiosyncratic factors are as or more important in explaining individual neighbourhood changes. Neighbourhood poverty is not a significant factor influencing changes in neighbourhoods, although other pecuniary measures are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study of South African counterurbanisation demonstrates, in line with recent views, that substream counterurbanisation can be a meaningful subject of scientific interest even within contexts of mainstream concentration, as is the case in much of the developing world. This is due to its proportional impact on regional growth poles at the lower end of the settlement hierarchy. Both the South African results and evidence elsewhere indicate that counterurbanisation may be far more significant in the developing world than commonly assumed, and also far more varied. Apart from similar forms of counterurbanisation found in the developed world, the research also finds two other distinctive forms of developing world counterurbanisation: agrarian counterurbanisation occurring in countries with struggling urban economies and under-utilized agricultural capital, and industrial sector-led counterurbanisation, which, contrary to the developed world, may well be the dominant form of counterurbanisation in developing countries. While the study clearly admits that evidence for the developing world is limited at present, that which exists strongly argues for further research, particularly on the clear implications of developing world variations for migration and rural development policy differentiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the centre down and grass roots approaches in many respects may represent a developmental antithesis, a good case may be made for the combination of the two approaches under dualistic economic circumstances. An attempt is made in this paper to demonstrate how these diverse development policies may be successfully reconciled in urban Southern Africa. A review is given of the theoretical foundation of the two development approaches with a view to indicating how some aspects of these approaches may be combined to integrate the formal and informal sectors in urban areas in Southern Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study an attempt has been made to evaluate the validity of the boundaries of the officially approved ‘development regions’ of South Africa. A variety of statistical methods were used for the evaluation of the empirical validity of the boundaries of these regions. Firstly, two sets of homogeneous regions based on different sets of parameters were delimited. Secondly, two sets of regions indicating areas of different levels of economic development were determined. With the aid of this information, some changes in the boundaries of the existing regions are suggested. A historical account of attempts at regionalisation in South Africa for development management purposes is also given. A semantic assessment of definitions points to the need for a change in the use of the term ‘development region’ — for this specific purpose — to the term ‘development management region’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Development axes are phenomena which occur world‐wide and which are widely used in the physical planning process as a working tool to regulate economic and geographical space. Different interpretations of the phenomenon lead to considerable differences in its application as a planning instrument ‐ also in South Africa. An attempt has been made to analyse different approaches to the concept against the background of its fundamental morphological properties. It is argued that there is still today a need for a development axis policy in the Southern African development area (SADA). Finally an alternative approach is suggested which makes it possible to illuminate some of the most important disadvantages in the current application of the concept in Southern Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]