Struggling for the 'right to the city': In situ informal settlement upgrading in Kibera, Nairobi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".