Does Tenure Security Reduce Disaster Risk? A Comparative Study of the Nairobi Settlements of Kibera and Kawangware

Urban informal settlements are characteristically located in areas exposed and vulnerable to a range of hazards, including fire and flooding (Doberstein and Stager 2013; Flower et al. 2018). Residents of such settlements are particularly susceptible to the impacts of fire because of poor housing, infrastructure, and governance (Wamsler 2004; Paller 2019). While the chief immediate causes of fires such as commonly used sources of light and heat combined with densely packed and flammable materials have been well documented (Paller 2019), the underlying drivers of fire risk in informal settlements remain under-explored (Selmeczi 2009; Chance 2015). In relation to flooding, Amoaka and Inkoom (2018) note that scholarship to date has been overly rooted in the hazard paradigm, neglecting the complex role of actors, relationships, and governance within informal urban settings.

Within this context inadequate land tenure has been considered an important but often overlooked anticipator of vulnerability to disasters (Reale and Handmer 2011; Sarmiento et al. 2020). However, the relevance of tenure security to reducing vulnerability has been recognized by its inclusion as an indicator for the achievement of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1, which is focused on poverty eradication.¹ Within both the SDG framework and extant literature, there is a relative consensus that tenure security is a complex multidimensional concept. Tenure security can be considered a legal status, a de facto situation, or can be viewed from the perspectives of residents themselves. How each of these dimensions inter-relates in generating positive outcomes for residents of informal settlements has been insufficiently explored within the literature (Gelder 2010; Nakamura 2016). Further research is required in relation to the causal origins of everyday hazards such as fire and flooding that affect households in informal settlements, including the role of tenure security (Adelekan et al. 2015; Oliver-Smith et al. 2016; Fraser et al. 2017).

Against this backdrop, the question that this article addresses is: how does tenure security relate to the occurrence of fire and flood risks that affect the people dwelling in urban informal settlements? To answer this question, the following objectives were pursued. First, the article identified how tenure security is to be conceptualized in terms of its legal, de facto, and perceived dimensions. Then the relationship between tenure security and quality of housing and its resilience with respect to disaster risks is traced within the literature. The existing understanding of this relationship is then empirically tested in order to generate new insights into how tenure security relates to disaster risk in urban settings.

Tenure security has been defined by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing as “tenure of land and/or housing which ensures a secure home and enables one to live in security, peace, and dignity.”² Nonetheless, the definition of tenure security has been subject to considerable scholarly discussion and contestation. There has been a shift in how tenure security is conceptualized from a binary legal status, whereby tenure is considered either secure or not, to a tenure continuum that accommodates a range of gradations within national/subnational law and policy (Payne 2001). For example, it has been recognized that the lack of planning during colonial rule in Kenya has been perpetuated in planning generally in the post-colonial context such that a stark dichotomy between the formal and informal is not helpful (Ayonga 2019). In addition, owner-occupiers, tenants, and freeholders each have different legal claims over the land and housing that they occupy.

Understanding the factors beyond formal legal status that explain tenure security has been pursued by a rich vein of scholarship. Within this body of scholarship, it is understood that residents of informal settlements can, under certain circumstances, enjoy moderate tenure security, irrespective of and even despite their legal status (Doebele 1987; Varley 1987; Razzaz 1993; Lanjouw and Levy 2002; Payne 2002). Such factors include firstly the factual circumstances of households and secondly the cognitive processes, behaviors, and attitudes of households.

In relation to the first category, residents may under certain circumstances still enjoy significant de facto protection from forced eviction, even in the absence of a legal basis for the occupation of informal settlements. Indeed, some scholars would contend that formalization initiatives could be counterproductive as this can lead to the commodification of housing and the acceleration of gentrification, resulting in the displacement of poor or low-income households (Choi 2016). Valuable social movements within informal settlements are thereby disrupted (Varley 2017). In many contexts, an informally derived form of tenure security in the absence of legal protection of housing is the norm rather than the exception. Gilbert (2002) demonstrates that in Latin America evictions are only likely to occur in urban squatter areas when settlements threaten powerful vested interests, for example through their geographical proximity to elite residential areas, or when military or authoritarian governments are in power. Similarly, in sub-Saharan Africa, communal or customary land systems tend to guarantee a reasonably good level of security, even when these are not formally recognized by the state (Durand-Lasserve 2006). In all cases, such informal tenure security is threatened by expanding formal urban settlements and processes of gentrification.

Myriad factors militate in favor of de facto tenure security. Jean-Louis van Gelder categorizes these factors (Gelder 2010), distinguishing between intrinsic factors that emerge from within the locality on the one hand and external factors that have their origin from outside the locality on the other. Intrinsic factors are invariably linked with the duration of residence, the implication being that the longer a locality is in existence, the greater the legitimacy it tends to have (Varley 1987). As households maintain residence in informal settlements over time, their occupancy tends to increase in terms of social legitimacy and is more likely to be tolerated by governments and landowners (Nakamura 2016). As the length of residence increases, the permanence of dwellings within informal settlements tends to also increase, which in turn generates financial and political costs to remove occupants. While Caldieron (2013) states that the relationship between duration of residence and tenure security requires further research to understand the causal mechanism in more detail, Nakamura (2016) is more confident of the relationship.

While the de facto understanding of tenure security serves to broaden the concept of tenure security, the legal and factual circumstances alone do not fully capture how tenure security is understood and experienced by residents themselves. As such, a more interpretivist understanding of tenure security is required. This is important per se for residents but also in relation to the range of positive and, under certain circumstances, negative outcomes that accrue as a result of residents’ perceptions of tenure security. While the duration of residence in informal settlements is clearly of relevance in determining de facto/actual tenure security, it also influences perceived security of occupants who gain confidence about their own tenure security with the passage of time (Nakamura 2016).

Having discussed the concept of tenure security, its relationship with disaster risk is now considered. The relevance of tenure security to vulnerability to disasters is increasingly recognized (Reale and Handmer 2011) and the positive effects of tenure security can be divided into two categories: improvement of services (such as water, electricity, communications, and education) and improvement of the quality of housing (Gelder 2010). This article focuses primarily on the relationship between tenure security and quality of housing (Field 2005; Huchzermeyer 2008; Gelder 2009; Nakamura 2014). It particularly concentrates on quality of housing from the perspective of mitigation of vulnerability to hazards such as fire and flooding. Each of the three dimensions of tenure security carries important implications for the structural integrity of housing and the resilience of housing to a range of hazards. The causal mechanisms are complex and have been dealt with extensively within the literature.

Field (2005) relies on a quasi-experimental situation in Peru to identify a causal link between formal tenure security and investment in housing, confirming that the provision of property titles to squatters stimulated housing investment in informal settlements. Similarly, Nakamura (2014) identifies a positive link between slum notification in India and the levels of investment by residents in upgrading their dwellings. It has also been suggested that tenure type (also referred to as dwelling occupancy), that is, whether a household owns or rents its home, itself is directly related to a home’s level of preparedness for and vulnerability to hazards. The tenure trap describes the concept that tenants as opposed to owner-occupiers have higher degrees of vulnerability (Burby et al. 2003). The literature offers a range of explanations. Owner-occupiers have greater incentives to invest in housing than owners of rental properties (Iwata and Yamaga 2008; Fussell and Harris 2014). Such investment can often take the form of repairing structural damage, maintaining roofs, and enhancing building materials (Fussell and Harris 2014). The influence of tenure type on quality of housing arises also due to the fewer incentives that tenants have to invest in housing, as any improvement of housing accrues to the owner in terms of the financial value of the home, even when such improvements could enhance their own safety. The need to obtain permission from the landlord or to persuade the landlord to make improvements are also barriers and landlords also have a reduced incentive to do so (Burby et al. 2003). In the aftermath of a disaster it has also been identified that low-income tenants are less likely to have their homes repaired (Comerio et al. 1994). The positive link between land tenure conditions and tenure type, however, and hazard exposure and structural integrity of dwellings is not straightforward with mixed evidence emerging (Sarmiento et al. 2020).

In terms of de facto tenure security, the length of time an individual or household has lived in a locality has been associated with the quality of housing and its resilience to hazards. As owner-occupiers are more likely to spend a longer period in the area, they tend to be more aware of disaster risks and the measures required to mitigate them (Burby et al. 2003). Tenants, tending to be more recent residents of their neighborhoods, may be less likely to have learned about the disaster risks and experienced the disasters that affect the neighborhood. They also tend to be less likely to have developed social attachments in the neighborhood that can yield information about how to prepare for and respond to such disasters. Experience of disasters and social attachments are highly correlated with preparedness and risk mitigation (Perry et al. 2001; Burby et al. 2003; Aldrich and Meyer 2015).

In terms of the perception of tenure security and how it impacts on quality of housing, there is considerable evidence suggesting that where land tenure is perceived to be insecure, investments in housing quality and land are less likely to be made (Feder and Nishio 1998; Brasselle et al. 2002; Deininger and Jin 2006; Reale and Handmer 2011). This has particular implications for the vulnerability of housing to a range of hazards (Burby et al. 2003; Fussell and Harris 2014). On the basis of quasi-experimental research designs implemented within informal settlements in Buenos Aires, Gelder (2009) and Galiani and Schargrodsky (2010) highlight the importance of the cognitive dimension of tenure security in determining household decision making concerning investment in quality of housing. In the absence of formal land tenure, perceived land tenure has been found to be crucial in driving housing self-improvement (Gelder 2010; Caldieron 2013).

Tenants tend to move home more frequently than owner-occupiers. This results in shorter time horizons and the discounting of the benefits of actions in the longer term (May et al. 1998). In such contexts, households renting their home have been found to be more likely to downplay disaster risks, even when they become aware of them (Mileti 1999; Burby et al. 2003). Tenants are more likely than homeowners to have characteristics such as low income, ethnic minority status, and lack of attachment to their community that are associated with limited preparedness for disasters (Burby et al. 2003). They are also more likely to lack resources and motivation to invest in mitigation as their dwellings are owned by others. Housing improvements can be viewed as potentially leading to increased rent. Owner-occupiers similarly lack incentive to engage in mitigation measures as increased rents may not cover the investment (Burby et al. 2003).

A comparative diverse case study of two localities in Nairobi, Kibera and Kawangware, was undertaken in order to pursue the study’s objectives. In contrast to the typical case method that seeks to minimize variation from the mean of the population of cases, the diverse case method seeks to maximize variance from it in order to highlight the dynamics involved in the causal relationship between the variables of interest (Seawright and Gerring 2008). In this study, the variables of interest are tenure security on the one hand and quality of housing and the risk of disasters affecting housing on the other. The two cases chosen reflected a high level of variation in the independent variable: the tenure security of households. Thus, the two cases were chosen because they represent cases of relatively high and relatively low tenure security within the same city.

Land occupied by slum settlements in Nairobi may be classified into several tenure categories with roots in British colonial rule (Anyamba 2011; Omwoma 2013). These include freehold titled land in the former native reserves; uncommitted public land; land planned and reserved for public utility; land for open space and riparian reserve; regularized leasehold land; land reserved to the city council for residential development; and group-owned land. Kibera is one of the largest informal settlements in subSaharan Africa with weak tenure security and little determinacy with respect to ownership of plots.

While population estimates for Kibera are highly contested (185,000 according to the latest census (Kenya 2019)), Kibera is approximately 225 ha in area and is situated on the outskirts of Nairobi. Comprising 12 villages with distinct ethnic compositions, approximately 95% of households live below the poverty line (Mukeku 2018; Kenya 2019). Results from the survey conducted in June 2015 that also collected tenure security data indicate that the average household monthly income in Kibera was about Ksh 7400 (approximately USD 67) with the majority of households (52.6%) depending on casual labor as their primary source of livelihood. The original settlers were the Nubian people from the Kenyan/Sudanese border who now occupy about 15% of Kibera, are mostly Muslim, and most likely to be owner-occupiers. The mode of occupancy is predominantly squatting on private or public land without permission of the owners. Residents have some quasi-legal tenure through letters of allotment from the Area Chiefs or some form of agreement with the private landowners. Another mode of occupancy in Kibera is the temporary occupation licence. This type of tenure is granted by the central government through the local authorities and can be terminated on short notice.

In contrast to Kibera, land ownership in Kawangware is based on freehold title (Ayonga 2019). This is the form of free tenure or absolute tenure where the owner possesses maximum rights permissible within the tenure system. Limited duration does not apply to this kind of tenure system (Williamson et al. 2010). Kawangware is situated about 15 km to the west of the city center of Nairobi with a population of just over 290,000 as per the Kenya Population and Housing Census (Kenya 2019). Similar to other slums, over 50% of the adult population have no permanent job, have limited access to education, and survive on less than one dollar a day. As shown in Fig. 1, the typical housing to be found in Kawangware consists of a combination of shacks with corrugated sheet roofs and increasingly prevalent concrete multi-story apartment buildings. This contrasts with Kibera where shacks with corrugated sheet roofs are widespread despite recent slum upgrading initiatives.

The study’s findings are presented in line with the three dimensions of tenure security identified above: legal security of tenure, de facto tenure security, and perceived tenure security.

From a legal perspective there is greater tenure insecurity in Kibera than in Kawangware, evidenced by the prevalence of freehold land in Kawangware and the informal nature of the division and management of plots on formally government-owned land in Kibera. As a result, it is clear that the poorer structural integrity of dwellings in Kibera vis-à-vis Kawangware would tend to reinforce the literature that identifies a positive link between the legal understanding of tenure security and quality of housing (Field 2005; Nakamura 2014). Households in more informal Kibera are also much more likely to report experiencing fires and floods or having their dwellings damaged as a result. The findings show that tenure type is closely associated with self-reported structural integrity of the dwelling. This coheres with findings from other settings indicating that tenants are less incentivized than owner-occupiers to invest in their own homes. However, tenure type was not associated with an increased risk of disaster. This runs counter to literature indicating a “tenure trap” whereby tenants are rendered more vulnerable to disaster than are owner-occupiers.

The literature considers the period a household spends in a locality to be a significant contributor to both de facto tenure security and the perception by a household of their tenure security. Yet the average length of settlement of households in more tenure insecure Kibera is almost twice that of households in Kawangware. In contrast with tenure type, the period a household has spent living in the locality is not associated with outcome variables relating to perceived structural integrity of the dwelling. This runs counter to the expectations within the literature that duration of residence is associated with greater tenure security and improved housing over time (Varley 1987; Caldieron 2013; Nakamura 2016). The lack of improved housing over time may be due to the lack of incentive to improve the dwelling arising from tenantship.

The period households spent in the locality, however, is closely associated with outcome variables concerning disasters affecting the dwelling. While the literature tends to posit that the longer a household spends in a locality the less disaster risk they tend to be exposed to (Perry et al. 2001; Burby et al. 2003), our findings indicate that the longer a household is living in Kibera and Kawangware the more likely their dwelling is to report experiencing a fire or flooding event in the previous four weeks This may be attributed to households living in the locality for longer periods are living in older dwellings more susceptible to such hazards, but further investigation is required.

The study highlights the complex relationship between tenure security and disaster risk. Propositions of unambiguous relationships between indicators of tenure security on the one hand and the disaster risk to which the dwelling is exposed and the dwelling’s structural integrity on the other are to be treated with caution. Findings from this study show that increased tenure security is associated with greater self-reported structural integrity of the dwelling but is not necessarily linked with less exposure of housing to hazards. Improved tenure security is also likely to result in increased rents and effectively displace households to other, more affordable areas that may face greater exposure to hazards. In assessing risk it is important to understand how risk is assessed by residents; in many cases residents choose to reside in areas that are tenure insecure and hazard prone because of housing affordability. This highlights the wicked problem faced by policymakers whereby addressing tenure insecurity and disaster risk might result in the effective displacement of residents with all the implications for social cohesion and livelihoods that this entails. Previous slum upgrading initiatives in Kibera have highlighted the unintended consequences of such initiatives. Current initiatives in Kenya center around the development of community land trusts, infrastructure and service delivery, and the facilitation of social movements of slum dwellers to influence policy. Furthermore, the account of the relationship between tenure type and quality of housing provided should be subject to caution and needs to also recognize possible confounding variables. For example, renting households tend to have lower incomes than homeowning households. Tenure insecurity is also likely to be present in contexts exposed to disaster risks posed by fire and flooding as state actors are reluctant to encourage settlement.

As tenure type was associated with perceived lack of structural integrity, but not with increased exposure to disaster risk, further research is required to understand the complex interplay between tenure type and unsafe housing on the one hand and exposure to disaster risks on the other, particularly in resource-poor settings. This study counsels caution in generalizing findings across contexts and highlights the importance of understanding the complex causal mechanisms at play between tenure security in expanding urban informal settlements and the disaster risks to which they are exposed.