Struggling for the 'right to the city': In situ informal settlement upgrading in Kibera, Nairobi
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Historically, states have often addressed informal settlements or 'slums' through eradication or elimination, thereby violating the human rights of residents occupying those 'informal' spaces; unfortunately this trend has persisted into the present.The eradication of informal settlements is increasingly being perceived as an unacceptable government response in reaction to increasing resistances from residents and other human rights advocates and allies; however, the struggle to implement policy approaches that address the underlying causes for the growth of informal settlements (as opposed to just treating symptoms) remains a challenge.In response to these circumstances, there is increasing support in the field of urban planning for informal settlement upgrading initiatives that seek to upgrade existing informal settlements by facilitating access to public services and infrastructure that did not previously exist.'Slum upgrading' strategies have developed from a global urban initiative aimed at addressing informal settlements and are increasing in popularity among international development agencies.3 The government of Kenya's adoption of 'slum upgrading' policy demonstrates the increasing popularity of such policies.The government created the Kenyan Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) to carry out these upgrading initiatives in various cities across the country.KENSUP's pilot project in Kibera was to be implemented by the Ministry of Housing and local authorities, 4 initially in partnership with the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-HABITAT).5 A memorandum of understanding between the government of Kenya and the UN-HABITAT was signed in 2003, but KENSUP was officially launched on October 4 th , 2004.6 The government of Kenya has acknowledged the need to support pro-poor initiatives as a way of 3 Marie Huchzermeyer, Cities With 'Slums': From Informal Settlement Eradication to a Right to the City, (South Africa: UCT Press, 2011), 30. 4 Such as the Nairobi County Government (formerly known as the Nairobi City Council).5 United Nations Human Settlement Programme, "UN-HABITAT and the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme: Strategy Document," (Nairobi: UN-HABITAT, 2008), 13, accessed August 26, 2015, http://unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.asp?nr=2602&alt=1 6 Ibid, 2008, 13.addressing the poverty and inequality experienced by 60-80% of Kenya's urban population residing in informal settlements.7 Context of Nairobi:The state and residents of informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya share a hostile history.This tension is currently fuelled by Nairobi's competitive land and housing market, the city's dense population of over 3.915 million citizens, and Kenya's immense unemployment rate of roughly 40 percent.8 Nairobi has experienced uneven spatial development since the colonial era, creating methods of social exclusion of the urban poor (and residents of informal settlements) that continue to be generated through urban design and land-use decisions.These urban planning decisions ostensibly cater to economically competitive markets and industries as well as middle and upper class citizens.9 Nairobi demonstrates a grossly unequal distribution of land with roughly half the population living on 18 percent of land in the area.10 British colonial administrators employed a strategy of unequally distributing land to particular elite groups; this segregation continues to perpetuate the socio-economic inequalities that exist in Nairobi today.The history behind this social exclusion provides insight into the persistence of Nairobi's marginalized citizens residing in informal settlements on the periphery of the city center.117 Ibid, 10. 8 Central Intelligence Agency, "The World Factbook: Kenya," updated August 11, 2015, accessed August 20, 2015, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html 9 Peter A. Makachia, "Evolution of urban housing strategies and dweller-initiated transformations in Nairobi," City, Culture and Society 2:4 (2011): 221. 10 Mike Davis, "Planet of Slums: Urban Involution and the Informal Proletariat," The New Left Review 26 (2004): 95.11 Makachia, "Evolution of urban housing strategies," 222.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».