Implementing Sustainable Human Settlements

In our rapidly urbanising world, the need for sustainable settlement planning, particularly for the poor in developing countries, is essential.In South Africa, apartheid spatial constructs segregated black population groups, denying them equal access to economic opportunities; housing; as well as basic and social services.After the first democratic elections in 1994, policy makers attempted to redress these inequalities.Though early housing policy aimed to provide secure tenure: permanent residential structures, and access to basic services for the poor, these policies failed to meet the objectives of the policy makers.In articulating that the state could not meet the needs of the homeless, and that housing for the poor should be delivered within a normalized market in order to attract private investment, these policies (which promoted private sector, contractor-driven development) only served to heighten inequalities previously entrenched by the apartheid regime.In 2004, after measuring delivery failures, policy makers empowered the state to become an enabler of subsidised and low-income housing delivery, rather than leaving housing provision solely to the market.The new policy included the use of multiple finance and delivery mechanisms, multiple housing typologies, and clearly expressed the need for capacity development.It also espoused the need for citizens to become participants in sustainable settlement delivery.Despite this, policy implementation continues to be fragmented and mostly ineffectual.Interviews, survey results and site visits reveal that there are some examples of integrated sustainable human settlements in the South African (SA) context.A few recent examples showcase better quality houses, a broader variety of housing options and typologies, better locations, functioning developmental relationships and the use of multiple financing mechanisms.Conversely, case studies and comparative analysis of developments reveal that most projects designated as Breaking New Ground (BNG) responsive by government officials (as defined in the study) fail to meet BNG policy objectives.This study argues that low-income housing provision continues to focus on the delivery of free-standing subsidy houses without providing a range of typologies and tenure options.It argues that basic and socialservice provision is intermittent and, at times, non-existent.It argues that current