Abstract
This study explores the divergent pathways toward formalizing informal settlements in South Africa, highlighting the tensions between state-led urban modernization and community-driven adaptation. Despite three decades of post-apartheid policy reforms—such as the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), the Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF), and the National Development Plan (NDP)—informal settlements continue to proliferate, reflecting enduring socio-economic inequalities, spatial fragmentation, and governance inefficiencies. Using a narrative literature review, this study synthesizes peer-reviewed studies on the sustainable, economic, legal, and disaster-management dimensions of informal settlement formalization. Data collection via article search was undertaken between September and December 2025. The literature synthesis reveals that while physical infrastructure upgrading dominates policy interventions, sustainable formalization depends on integrating social inclusion, tenure security, environmental resilience, and participatory governance. The study argues for hybrid formalization models that bridge top-down policy frameworks with bottom-up community initiatives, emphasizing negotiated informality as a pathway to inclusive and sustainable human settlements. It concludes that achieving the goals of Sustainable Development Goal 11—creating inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities—requires adaptive governance, strengthened institutional coordination, and active community participation to ensure that no population segment is left behind in South Africa's human settlement transformation.
Introduction
Despite decades of post-apartheid housing policies, informal settlements remain widespread, raising questions about sustainable development and social inclusion all the way from the rural villages to the advancing cities. Therefore, the study examines how formalization strategies, such as the government's attempts to upgrade, integrate, or relocate informal communities, can both support and undermine broader sustainability and social inclusion goals.
The historical context of informal settlements in South Africa is deeply intertwined with apartheid-era spatial planning, which enforced racial segregation and restricted access to urban land for Black communities (). Post-apartheid policies, such as the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), aimed to address these imbalances through the mass delivery of housing. However, the pace of formal housing provision has failed to keep pace with urban population growth, perpetuating informality as the default housing strategy (). It is for these reasons that the current debates highlight the tension between eradication-focused approaches to informality and incremental upgrading, with the latter gaining traction for its potential to align with residents' agency and needs. Nevertheless, the lack of cohesive strategies to integrate informal settlements into the mainstream formality remains a critical gap in settlement policy.
While existing studies often focus on physical infrastructure upgrades, fewer examine the sociolegal dimensions of tenure security or the economic empowerment of residents (). Moreover, disaster risk management in informal settlements tends to prioritize post-disaster responses rather than proactive, community-led mitigation strategies (). These gaps highlight the need for a comprehensive framework that integrates top-down policy interventions with bottom-up community practices, ensuring that formalization efforts do not inadvertently displace or marginalize vulnerable populations.
This study attempts to answer the question: What are the formalization pathways of informal settlements in South Africa? By synthesizing interdisciplinary perspectives, this review contributes to a nuanced understanding of how formalization can be reimagined to uphold human dignity, economic justice, and environmental resilience. This is imperative for informing policy frameworks that move beyond the contention over the status of ‘formal' and ‘informal' settlements.
Tracing the problem
According to the United Nations Human Settlements Program (), by 2050, approximately 68% of the global population is expected to reside in urban areas. Similarly, the United Nations' 2023 Sustainable Development Goals Report (Special Edition) projects that the urban population will reach around 70% by the same year (). These figures underscore the rapid pace of urbanization and highlight the need for comprehensive and sustainable planning strategies to meet development goals. Notably, identifies South Africa as one of the continent's most urbanized nations, with 67% of its population currently living in cities and an anticipated increase to 80% by 2050—significantly higher than the projected global averages of 68% and 70% (). Therefore, human settlement planning and development are of paramount importance in South Africa to ensure social, economic, health, and environmental sustainability, as well as inclusivity, in both urban and rural settlements.
The sluggish transformation of urban planning systems has widened the gap between formal and informal settlements in many countries, such as South Africa (; ). Concerningly, the residents of informal settlements encounter a complex array of socio-economic, health, and environmental challenges, such as rights violations, systemic discrimination, threats to physical security from forced evictions, or arbitrary arrests, and a lack of access to basic services such as housing, water, and sanitation. The legacy of apartheid has profoundly shaped South Africa's urban and social structures, leaving a persistent impact on spatial segregation and economic inequality (; ). Under apartheid, systemic racial discrimination was enforced through laws that segregated populations based on race, removing non-white communities from economically vibrant urban areas, and restricting them to marginal locations such as homelands or bantustans (). This displacement entrenched spatial inequalities, forcing many low-income households, primarily from historically disadvantaged black and colored populations, into informal settlements ().
Apartheid-era laws, such as the Group Areas Act, institutionalized geography-based segregation by designating specific urban areas for white populations and relocating marginalized groups, often forcibly, to underdeveloped and isolated regions (). The Bantustan policy confined non-white South Africans to politically and economically disenfranchised “homelands,” which lacked industrial growth and infrastructure for socio-economic development (; ). Notably, research indicates that despite the official abolishment of apartheid in 1994, structural inequalities persist due to inadequate reforms in housing and urban planning, with urban land ownership still reflecting apartheid-era exclusionary patterns (; ). Spatial segregation perpetuates economic disparities by limiting access to job opportunities, reliable public transportation, and economic activities. Residents of informal settlements often face physical barriers to accessing urban job markets, which increase transportation costs and reinforce poverty cycles (; ).
Through literature analysis and synthesis, the paper sought to identify and document divergent pathways to formalization. These routes include integrative pathways, which may entail upgrading settlements with services, security of tenure, and community involvement, and exclusionary pathways, which may entail forced removals, displacement, or standardized housing, with consequences that erode local economies and social fabrics. The paper contributes to the debates, practices, and policies on the tensions between formality and informality in human settlements in South Africa, intending to shift from ‘house delivery' to a ‘holistic, inclusive settlement paradigm'.
Overview of informal settlements in South Africa
Since the end of apartheid, South Africa has pursued numerous policy and development initiatives to address historical injustices and promote sustainable urban growth. The 1997 Urban Development Framework marked a key milestone, recognizing urbanization as essential for economic progress and improved quality of life, countering the exclusionary and unsustainable urban policies of the colonial and apartheid eras. Over the years, the government has introduced a succession of transformative socio-economic programs—including Reconstruction and Development (RDP); Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR); the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP); the Urban Renewal Program (URP); the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA); the New Growth Path; the National Development Plan (NDP); the Nine Point Plan; the 14 Point Plan; the New Dawn; the Growth Renewal and Sustainability Plan; the Economic Recovery and Reconstruction Plan; the District Development Model and attendant master plans, and most recently, the Integrated Urban Development Framework (). These initiatives collectively reflect sustained efforts to promote employment, reduce inequality, foster economic growth, and achieve inclusive urban development. However, the frequent shifts from one policy framework to another suggest persistent challenges in achieving consistent and sustainable human settlement among other outcomes—possibly due to weaknesses in leadership, governance, or policy implementation.
The Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF) envisions South African cities and towns that are liveable, safe, resource-efficient, socially integrated, economically inclusive, and globally competitive, with residents actively engaged in urban life. Developed by the , the IUDF aims to reshape urban spaces while promoting a shared understanding among government and society for effectively managing urbanization. This collective approach supports national goals of economic growth, job creation, and improved quality of life. The Framework is guided by four strategic goals: inclusion and access, inclusive growth, effective governance, and spatial integration.
To the contrary, informal settlements in South Africa are associated with environmental pollution, such as encroachment on riverbanks, which consequently causes water pollution and flooding (; ). These lead to health hazards, including cholera, and ultimately result in loss of life. Moreover, highlighted that informal settlement residents are predisposed to violence, food insecurity, and stressful lives, which in some instances lead to suicide ideation among youth. Moreover, informal settlements in South Africa are a manifestation of systemic inequalities, rapid urbanization, and historical legacies of spatial segregation. These settlements, often characterized by inadequate housing, limited access to basic services, and precarious tenure security, house millions of urban dwellers who remain excluded from formal urban economies (). In urban settings, the persistence of informality reflects broader socio-economic disparities, where marginalized populations resort to self-organized living arrangements due to the unaffordability and inaccessibility of formal housing (). Unfortunately, while informal settlements provide immediate shelter solutions for the poor urban and pre-urban dwellers, their unplanned nature exacerbates vulnerabilities to environmental hazards, health risks, and socio-economic exclusion, thereby undermining sustainable urban development goals (; ).
In South Africa, as in other countries, informal settlements proliferate along the edges of urban centers, characterized by overcrowding, poor living conditions, and inadequate access to sanitation, electricity, healthcare, and educational facilities (; ). Informal settlements are also frequently situated in environmentally hazardous areas, such as floodplains or areas exposed to pollution from industrial zones, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations (; ).
In South Africa, many settlements currently categorized as informal were historically marginalized, and their current conditions reflect decades of underinvestment and development neglect (; ). According to , in their study on a model for human settlement in Free State South Africa, revealed significant shortcomings related to policy design and implementation, stakeholder engagement practices, competencies of housing and human settlement practitioners, corrupt activities in the provision of adequate housing, disconnect in theory and practices during identification and definition of informal settlements, and the influence of illegal immigration on increasing housing need in South Africa. Additionally, demonstrates the specific ways in which the overemphasis on reaching upgrading targets within a specified time frame leaves little to no room for consideration of the psychological and emotional implications of upgrading for informal settlers.
Notably, South Africa has become a key destination for African and Asian immigrants who contribute significantly to various sectors—including business, healthcare, mining, and education—yet their influx has intensified pressure on urban infrastructure and services, especially in major cities like Johannesburg (; Wotela and Letsiri, 2015). Persistent economic inequality between affluent urban centers and impoverished rural or peri-urban areas continues to drive rural-urban migration, resulting in housing shortages, informal settlements, land conflicts, and xenophobic tensions over limited resources (). Additionally, internal migration—particularly for education—further strains social services, as seen in the Gauteng Province, which receives large numbers of migrants annually. The rapid population growth in cities now exceeds existing capacity, underscoring the urgent need for urban restructuring, improved infrastructure, and sustainable development planning in South Africa.
Conceptual framework
This paper is premised on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11, “Sustainable Cities and Communities,” which aims to make urban areas inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable by 2030 (Yamasaki and Yamada, 2022). This goal is critical for this study, given the rapid global and local urbanization, which presents significant challenges, including housing shortages, inadequate infrastructure, environmental degradation, and social inequalities (). Addressing these multifaceted issues requires innovative and multi-pronged solutions that involve governments, the private sector, and communities (). Hence, this paper explores the divergent pathways for meeting decent human settlement needs in South Africa.
SDG 11 is interconnected with other SDGs, forming a complex system that involves multiple dimensions of society, economy, resources, and the environment (; ). For instance, healthy communities and sustainable cities rely on the provision of clean energy (SDG 7), infrastructure, innovation (SDG 9), and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). The goal is categorized under the “Prosperity” theme within the broader SDG framework, with a focus on sustainable economic development. According to , sub-Saharan Africa continues to face significant challenges in achieving its Sustainable Development Goals. However, their study demonstrates that the localization of sustainable development is possible and there are strategies for accelerating progress in infrastructure and service expansion that tap local innovations in systematic, equitable, and context-appropriate ways.
However, the challenges in achieving SDG 11 are diverse. They include rapid urban growth, particularly in peripheral areas, which can lead to impacts on agricultural land and changes in urban morphology, as observed in various parts of South Africa (). Irrefutably, highly urbanized areas face losses in ecosystem services, which affect both environmental and social benefits for residents (). These challenges, among others, negatively impact the timely attainment of SDG 11.
Methodology
This study adopted a narrative literature review as its guiding methodology, enabling a broad, interpretive exploration of the complex dynamics of informal human settlements in South Africa (). A narrative review is particularly useful when synthesizing diverse bodies of knowledge, as it helps map existing research, highlight conceptual gaps, and build a foundation for deeper inquiry (). Unlike systematic reviews, which follow rigid protocols (), this approach enables a flexible and context-sensitive examination of emerging themes—an essential feature given the fragmented scholarship on how informal settlement practices intersect with formal development frameworks.
The review process began with a central question: How can the informal realities of South Africa's human settlements be better aligned with formal planning agendas to advance sustainable and inclusive social development? This question guided an extensive reading of scholarly work on human settlements, informality, urban governance, and inclusive development. Through a critical engagement with the literature, the study sought to understand the different pathways to the formalization of informal settlements in South Africa.
Relevant literature was sourced from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria included studies on informal settlements in South Africa, addressing formalization dimensions, peer-reviewed articles, and published in English. The time frame was unrestricted to capture historical policy shifts, but preference was given to post-2000 literature to reflect contemporary developments and initiatives. Exclusion criteria eliminated studies lacking empirical data, those focused solely on infrastructure development, and non-English publications. The review took place between August and December 2025.
Search terms included “informal settlements in South Africa,” “formalization of human settlements,” “inclusive urban development,” and “human settlements and socio-economic development.” This search enabled the researchers to capture a broad spectrum of perspectives on the constraints and transformative possibilities within informal settlement contexts in South Africa.
Following the search and selection process, the literature was filtered and assessed for relevance and quality. While systematic reviews rely on uniform screening standards, the narrative approach allowed the researchers to organize the literature by thematic relevance and interpretive depth rather than fixed methodological criteria (; ). This flexibility enabled exploration of nuanced insights that illuminate how informality both challenges and enriches pathways toward sustainable development.
The synthesis phase involved identifying key themes—such as governance gaps, community agency, spatial inequality, and the friction between informal practices and formal policy intentions. Findings were organized thematically to show how pathways for the formalization of informal settlements. In doing so, the study underscores the importance of recognizing informal settlements not merely as sites of deficit but as dynamic spaces where alternative forms of social organization, livelihoods, and resilience emerge.
However, the review is not without limitations. As a narrative review, its interpretations stem from contextual understanding and the researchers' expertise and may therefore not be fully generalizable across different settings. This highlights the need for additional empirical research to further interrogate how informal and formal systems can be harmonized to support sustainable, socially just human settlement development in South Africa.
Analytical framework
Three research dimensions guided the analysis to capture the multifaceted nature of informal settlement formalization. Sustainable development in informal settlements involves evaluating interventions that balance environmental resilience, social equity, and economic viability. Economic and legal aspects focus on tenure security, the impact on livelihoods, and policy frameworks governing formalization. Disaster and risk management assess strategies to mitigate vulnerabilities to climate shocks and health hazards. These dimensions collectively address the interplay among physical, socio-economic, and institutional factors that shape informal and formal settlements in South Africa.
Findings
Sustainable development in informal settlements: a multi-dimensional approach
The literature on sustainable development in South Africa's informal settlements reveals a complex interplay between housing, environmental resilience, and socio-economic empowerment. Three primary dimensions emerge as critical to formalization efforts: housing and infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and social and economic development. Each dimension encompasses distinct focus areas and approaches, as synthesized in Table 1.
Table 1
| Dimension | Focus area | Key approaches | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing & Infrastructure | Upgrading Informal Settlements | • Participatory planning and community engagement | (); (); (Ziblim 2013); (); () |
| • Infrastructure development and service delivery | |||
| Affordable Housing Solutions | • Alternative building technologies | (); (); () | |
| • Financing models for low-income housing | |||
| Environmental Sustainability | Waste management | • Community-based waste collection systems | () |
| Energy Access | • Renewable energy solutions | (); () | |
| Climate Resilience | • Flood mitigation strategies | () | |
| Social & Economic Development | Livelihood Opportunities | • Skills development programs | |
| • Micro-enterprise support | |||
| Community Empowerment | • Social capital building | ||
| • Participatory governance models |
Taxonomy of sustainable development approaches in informal settlements.
The housing and infrastructure dimension dominates the discourse, with participatory planning and infrastructure development emerging as the most frequently cited approaches. Studies such as those by Ziblim (2013) and emphasize the importance of community engagement in upgrading initiatives, arguing that resident involvement enhances both project sustainability and social equity. Infrastructure development, particularly in water and sanitation, is highlighted by as a prerequisite for improving living conditions while reducing environmental health risks.
Notably, environmental sustainability receives comparatively less attention, although innovative solutions, such as renewable energy provision (; ) and flood mitigation (), demonstrate the potential for integrating ecological resilience into formalization strategies. The social and economic development dimension reveals a growing recognition of livelihood support and governance models as catalysts for sustainable change. For instance, illustrates how skills training programs can reduce economic marginalization, while underscore participatory governance as a mechanism to align formalization with community priorities.
The divergence in focus areas reflects broader tensions in sustainable development policy between immediate physical improvements and long-term socio-economic transformation. While infrastructure-centric approaches dominate implementation, the literature increasingly calls for integrated frameworks that address housing, environment, and livelihoods as interconnected components of sustainable formalization.
Economic and legal frameworks in informal settlement formalization
The formalization of informal settlements in South Africa necessitates a nuanced understanding of the economic and legal dimensions that shape residents' livelihoods and land tenure security. These aspects are critical for ensuring that formalization processes do not inadvertently exacerbate socio-economic inequalities or undermine existing community structures. The literature reveals divergent perspectives on how to integrate economic empowerment and legal recognition into formalization strategies, with some advocating top-down policy interventions. In contrast, others emphasize bottom-up, community-driven approaches. Table 2 presents the key economic and legal aspects, including policy and legal frameworks, economic considerations, and social and legal challenges. All these demonstrate the interconnected nature of these dimensions in formalization processes.
Table 2
| Dimension | Focus area | Specific aspect | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy & Legal Frameworks | Government Policies | Housing & Land Rights | (); (); (Ziblim 2013); () |
| Regulatory Challenges | (); () | ||
| Economic Aspects | Livelihood Strategies | Informal Economy | (); (); (Ziblim 2013) |
| Financial Mechanisms | Microfinance & Funding | (); () | |
| Social & Legal Challenges | Property Rights | Tenure Security | (); () |
| Community Engagement | Participatory Planning | (Ziblim 2013); () |
Taxonomy of economic and legal aspects in informal settlement formalization.
The policy and legal frameworks dimension highlight the role of government policies in either facilitating or constraining formalization efforts. Housing and land rights emerge as a central concern. For instance, (Ziblim, 2013) and argue that ambiguous legal frameworks often leave informal settlers in prolonged settlement insecurity. Regulatory challenges, such as bureaucratic delays and conflicting land-use policies, further complicate formalization (). These findings suggest that streamlined administrative processes must accompany legal recognition to avoid perpetuating further exclusion during formalization.
Economically, the literature reveals the dual role of informal settlements as both sites of vulnerability and hubs of economic activity. This is because the informal economy provides critical livelihood opportunities for residents, yet its precarious nature limits long-term investment and financial stability (; Ziblim, 2013). In such circumstances, microfinance and community-based funding mechanisms offer potential pathways to economic inclusion; however, they require institutional support to scale effectively (). This observation underscores the importance of tenure security and participatory planning in fostering trust between communities and authorities during the formalization process to protect livelihood streams from disruption. For example, demonstrates that tenure regularization can reduce displacement risks, while Ziblim (2013) and emphasize the importance of participatory approaches to align formalization with local social, economic and environmental needs.
The analysis reveals tensions between the need for legal clarity and the realities of informal economies. This is because while policy frameworks aim to integrate informal settlements into the formal economic streams, their success hinges on addressing the economic dependencies that sustain these communities. Arguably, this implies the need for hybrid models that reconcile regulatory enforcement with economic flexibility, ensuring that formalization does not disrupt existing livelihood networks.
Disaster and risk management in informal settlements: vulnerability and resilience
Informal settlements in South Africa are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards, including floods, fires, and disease outbreaks, due to their precarious locations, substandard infrastructure, and limited access to emergency services. The literature highlights a critical gap between disaster response and proactive risk mitigation, with most interventions focusing on post-disaster recovery rather than preventive measures. This reactive approach exacerbates the cyclical vulnerability of informal settlers, who often lack the resources to rebuild after catastrophic events.
The analysis of the literature reveals three dominant themes in disaster and risk management: hazard exposure, community-based adaptation, and institutional responses. These themes are synthesized in Table 3.
Table 3
| Theme | Focus Area | Key Strategies | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Exposure | Flood Risk | Drainage improvements, elevated housing | () |
| Fire Hazards | Firebreaks, community fire brigades | ||
| Health Risks | Sanitation upgrades, disease surveillance | (); () | |
| Community-Based Adaptation | Local Knowledge | Indigenous early warning systems | |
| Collective Action | Neighborhood disaster committees | (); () | |
| Institutional Responses | Policy Frameworks | National disaster management plans | (); (); () |
| Service Delivery | Emergency housing, relief distribution | () |
Disaster and risk management strategies in informal settlements.
Literature on hazard exposure emphasizes the spatial and structural factors that amplify risks in informal settlements. For instance, and associate poor drainage infrastructure with flooding and fire outbreaks in informal settlements. These challenges undermine the South African Constitution's mandate for a healthy environment for all citizens. Their study underscores the need for a strategic, cost-effective waste collection approach that integrates socio-economic, environmental, and land-use considerations. As such, community-based adaptation strategies, such as indigenous early warning systems, should be considered as a complement to formal risk management, utilizing localized knowledge and expertise.
The synthesis underscores the need for integrated risk reduction frameworks that bridge top-down policy mandates with bottom-up community resilience. While physical interventions, such as drainage upgrades, are necessary, their long-term effectiveness depends on addressing the socio-economic drivers of vulnerability, including tenure insecurity and poverty. Future research should explore how participatory risk mapping and decentralized governance can enhance the adaptive capacity of informal settlements.
Discussion
Informal human settlements constitute a persistent and defining element of South Africa's urban and peri-urban environments, emerging from deeply rooted historical inequalities, accelerated urbanization, and enduring socio-economic marginalization. Efforts to formalize these settlements—whether through infrastructural upgrading, tenure regularization, or participatory development initiatives—have produced varied and often contested outcomes. These initiatives expose fundamental tensions between state-driven modernization imperatives and community-embedded practices shaped by local traditions, adaptive strategies, and everyday survival needs.
The findings across the three thematic dimensions—sustainable development, economic and legal frameworks, and disaster risk management—reveal both areas of convergence and points of contradiction in the conceptualization and implementation of informal settlement formalization in South Africa. According to the , the Sendai Framework sets out four priorities for disaster risk management, which are critical for informal settlements. They include understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster risk governance, investing in risk reduction for resilience, and enhancing preparedness. However, despite South Africa's endeavor to implement this framework, aligning with the national policies such as the National Disaster Management Framework, many informal settlements remain at high risk of disasters. By addressing the challenges of disasters in informal settlements, South Africa must advance its proactive system that prioritizes resilience, coordinated governance, and vulnerability reduction, principles central to both the Sendai Framework and the country's own developmental goals.
Collectively, the literature highlights participatory approaches as a central driver of effective and sustainable formalization; however, the extent to which these participatory principles are operationalized varies considerably across policy domains. For example, although community engagement is widely endorsed within housing upgrade initiatives (Ziblim, 2013), its incorporation into disaster risk planning and tenure regularization processes remains inconsistent and less systematically applied (). This disparity underscores a persistent gap between the rhetoric of inclusivity and the practical realities of implementation, wherein short-term, infrastructure-focused outcomes often take precedence over the deeper socio-institutional transformations required for equitable and enduring formalization.
A striking pattern emerges in the tension between formalization as a technical intervention vs. a socio-political process. Studies focusing on physical upgrades, such as infrastructure development (), tend to frame success in formalization in terms of quantifiable metrics, such as service access rates. In contrast, research emphasizing economic empowerment or tenure security (; Ziblim, 2013) criticizes such metrics for neglecting the relational aspects of informality, such as trust in institutions or the preservation of informal livelihood networks. This dichotomy mirrors broader debates in human settlements studies, where the formalization paradox arises: the more settlements are technically formalized, the greater the risk of destabilizing the adaptive, informal systems that sustain vulnerable populations. The implications are profound because without reconciling these perspectives, formalization risks becoming a superficial exercise that replicates exclusion under the guise of development.
This paper advances a pluralistic understanding of formalization that transcends the binary distinctions between formal and informal. For instance, by juxtaposing disaster resilience with economic and legal issues, hybrid governance models are necessary to handle complex outcomes related to human settlements. For example, community-based adaptation strategies could be institutionalized through participatory land-use planning and the creation of feedback loops between risk mitigation and tenure security. Such integration aligns with the concept of “negotiated informality” (), where formalization is not an endpoint but a dynamic process of co-producing inclusive and sustainable human settlement development. Rather than viewing informality as merely residual, illegal, or unregulated activity existing outside state control, negotiated informality emerges from dynamic, often tacit agreements between state actors—including municipal officials, law enforcement, and urban planners—and informal actors such as street vendors, backyard shack dwellers, and residents of informal settlements. This hybrid governance mode reflects pragmatic accommodations shaped by constitutional imperatives, political pressures, service delivery constraints, and social mobilization. This implies shifting policy focus from standardizing settlements to fostering adaptive capacities (). Notably, the post-apartheid constitutional framework, establishes a legal foundation that compels state engagement with informal communities rather than simple eradication. For instance, in informal settlements like Marikana in Potchefstroom, residents have engaged in what has been termed “DIY formalization,” where they proactively lay out stands, create streets, and install basic water infrastructure to demonstrate their capacity for self-organization and appeal politically for municipal service provision (Victor, 2019). This practice demonstrates that informality is not passive victimhood but active citizenship through alternative means.
The World Cities Report highlights the importance of building resilience as a cornerstone for the success of cities, towns, and other human settlements. It advocates for policies that are inclusive and equitable, ensuring that no one is left behind. The report promotes green investments that foster sustainable consumption and production patterns, inclusive and adaptive urban planning, prioritization of public health, and the widespread use of innovation and technology. Together, these focus areas underscore the importance of integrating economic, social, and environmental investments to achieve sustainable urban development. further argues that discussions on sustainable urban development in African cities should extend beyond examining the impacts of urbanization to include the creation of new development paradigms or the evaluation of existing ones to better understand how emerging urban and settlement trends influence residents' quality of life.
Within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the formalization of informal settlements is situated within four mutually reinforcing pillars: social development, environmental protection, economic development, and effective urban governance (). Social development encompasses improvements in education, health, housing, and community support systems, while environmental protection emphasizes sustainable resource management and climate-responsive action. Economic development advances inclusive growth through innovation, green economic pathways, and the promotion of decent employment opportunities. Effective governance, in turn, underpins equity, participatory decision-making, and strong institutional coordination (). Achieving sustainable and inclusive human settlements requires a deliberate balance across the inputs, processes, and outcomes associated with these pillars. Inclusive settlement development, therefore, necessitates meaningful engagement with all stakeholders, recognizing the intrinsic interdependencies among societal wellbeing, economic vitality, environmental stewardship, and governance effectiveness. Together, these dimensions foster socio-economic prosperity, stability, justice, and collective wellbeing, ensuring that development processes equitably benefit all population groups in both present and future generations.
Conclusion
This study critically examined the formalization of informal settlements in South Africa through the lenses of sustainable development, economic and legal frameworks, and disaster risk management. The findings reveal that while significant policy progress has been made since the end of apartheid, informal settlements remain a persistent feature of South Africa's urban landscape, reflecting deep-seated socio-economic inequalities, spatial segregation, and policy fragmentation. The review demonstrates that sustainable formalization requires more than infrastructure upgrading; it necessitates holistic strategies that integrate social inclusion, environmental stewardship, economic empowerment, and participatory governance. The literature provides evidence of the need for hybrid, context-sensitive models that reconcile top-down formalization initiatives with bottom-up community agency. This implies reimagining formalization not as a one-time technical intervention but as a continuous, negotiated process that aligns with the lived realities and adaptive capacities of informal communities. Integrating disaster risk reduction, tenure security, and livelihood resilience into human settlement planning can foster adaptive human settlement systems capable of withstanding environmental and socio-economic shocks. Ultimately, achieving sustainable and inclusive settlements in South Africa hinges on strengthening institutional coordination, enhancing transparency in governance, and embedding community participation at every stage of urban development. By bridging the divide between formality and informality, South Africa can move toward equitable, resilient, and dignified human settlements that align with the aspirations of Sustainable Development Goal 11—to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Implications for future research and policy design
The review highlights several priorities for advancing research and policy on the formalization of informal settlements in South Africa. Firstly, future research should adopt integrated, multi-disciplinary models that consider the socio-economic, environmental, legal, and governance dimensions shaping formalization, rather than treating these elements in isolation. Secondly, there is a need for longitudinal studies to better understand the long-term effects of upgrading on residents' livelihoods, health, and psychological wellbeing. Thirdly, future research should focus on hybrid governance arrangements and the dynamics of “negotiated informality” to deepen understanding of how state, private sector, and community interests shape upgrading outcomes. Finally, future research should focus on the economic implications of formalization, including its effects on incomes, micro-enterprise activity, and informal economic networks.
From a policy perspective, the findings call for a shift from conventional housing-delivery metrics toward holistic, SDG-aligned approaches that prioritize inclusive, mixed-use settlement development. Policies should institutionalize participatory governance across all stages of the formalization process, from risk planning to budgeting and tenure administration. Flexible, incremental tenure systems are essential to avoid displacement and to accommodate diverse local practices. To address decision and planning fragmentation, there is a need to strengthen coordination across government sectors for coherent implementation. Finally, policies must actively protect and enable informal economic ecosystems by simplifying business regulation and creating supportive infrastructure for informal enterprises, ensuring that formalization processes enhance rather than undermine and disrupt residents' livelihoods.
Statements
Author contributions
RK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research received funding from organization apart from Article Processing Charge paid by Walter Sisulu university.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI was used for English Language editing.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbunyewahM.GajendranT.MaundK. (2018). Profiling informal settlements for disaster risks. Proced. Eng.22, 238–245. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.031
2
AsensioO. I.ChurkinaO.RafterB. D.O'HareK. E. (2024). Housing policies and energy efficiency spillovers in low- and moderate-income communities. Nature Sustain.7, 590–601. doi: 10.1038/s41893-024-01314-w
3
BellJ. F. (2025). Uneven urban-industrial development in apartheid South Africa: a geographical political economy perspective. Afr. Geograp. Rev. 44, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/19376812.2025.2572476
4
BettencourtL. M. A.MarchioN. (2025). Infrastructure deficits and informal settlements in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature645, 399–406 doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09465-2
5
BhasinN.KumarS.SinghG. S. (2025). Participatory nature-driven urbanism: A pathway to achieving SDG-11 through community-led action. Urban Ecosyst.28:13. doi: 10.1007/s11252-025-01798-0
6
BreetzkeG. D. (2018). The concentration of urban crime in space by race: evidence from South Africa. Urban Geogr.39, 1195–1220. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2018.1440127
7
CarrilhoJ.TrindadeJ. (2022). Sustainability in peri-urban informal settlements: A review. Sustainability14:7591. doi: 10.3390/su1413759
8
ChongS. W.PlonskyL. (2023). A typology of secondary research in Applied Linguistics. Appl. Ling. Rev.15, 1569–1594. doi: 10.1515/applirev-2022-0189
9
Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) (2016). Integrated Urban Development Framework: A new deal for South African Cities and Towns. COGTA: Pretoria: South Africa.
10
Di GiovanniA.SercovichL. (2021). Legal Empowerment in Informal Settlements: Lessons on Using the Law to Overcome Urban Exclusion and Poverty in the Global South. Available online at: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/103405 (Accessed October 15, 2025).
11
DintsiS.MbangaS.SmallwoodJ. (2025). A model for human settlement development and management in the Free State Province, South Africa. Front. Cities7:1484194. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1484194
12
DlaminiS.NhlekoB.UbisiN. (2025). Understanding socio-economic risk and vulnerability to climate change–induced disasters: the case of informal settlements in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 60, 4594–4613. doi: 10.1177/00219096241275398
13
Durand-LasserveA. (2006). Informal settlements and the millennium development goals: global policy debates on property ownership and security of tenure. treating people and communities as assets. Glob. Urban Dev. 2:5.
14
DurokifaA. (2024). Rethinking development: The informal sector's role in transforming South Africa's economy. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev.17, 209–220.
15
FoxA.ZiervogelG.SchebaS. (2021). Strengthening community-based adaptation for urban transformation: Managing flood risk in informal settlements in Cape Town. Local Environ.28, 837–851. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2021.1923000
16
FrancisD.WebsterE. (2019). Poverty and inequality in South Africa: critical reflections. Dev. Southern Afr.36, 788–802. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2019.1666703
17
FranklinS. (2020). Enabled to work: The impact of government housing on slum dwellers in South Africa. J. Urban Econ.118:103265. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2020.103265
18
GambleJ. (2021). The legacy imprint of apprenticeship trajectories under conditions of segregation and Apartheid in South Africa. J. Vocat. Educ. Train.73, 258–277. doi: 10.1080/13636820.2021.1899268
19
GusenbauerM.GausterS. P. (2025). How to search for literature in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comprehensive step-by-step guide. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 212:123833. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123833
20
HillD. (2025). Humanizing urban planning: Acknowledging the emotional and psychological dimensions of upgrading informal settlements. Plann. Pract. Res. 40, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2024.2404749
21
JiaK.ShengQ.LiuY.YangY.DongG.QiaoZ.WangM.SunC.HanD. (2024). A framework for achieving urban sustainable development goals (SDGs): evaluation and interaction. Sustain. Cities Soc.114:105780. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2024.105780
22
KajiitaR. M.Kang'etheS. M. (2024). Socio-economic dynamics inhibiting inclusive urban economic development: Implications for sustainable urban development in South African Cities. Sustainability16:2803. doi: 10.3390/su16072803
23
KatumbaS.CoetzeeS.SteinA.Fabris-RotelliI. (2021). Using spatial indices to measure dynamic racial residential segregation in Gauteng province (South Africa). South African Geogr. J.105, 1–33. doi: 10.1080/03736245.2021.1997793
24
LeibbrandtM.FinnA.WoolardI. (2012). Describing and decomposing post-apartheid income inequality in South Africa. Dev. Southern Afr.29, 19–34. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2012.645639
25
LeonidouL. C.TheodosiouM.NilssenF.EteokleousP.VoskouA. (2024). Evaluating MNEs' role in implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: The importance of innovative partnerships. Int. Bus. Rev.33:102259. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102259
26
MagidiM. (2021). The role of the informal economy in promoting urban sustainability: Evidence from a small Zimbabwean town. Dev. Southern Afr.39, 209–223. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2021.1925088
27
MalahlelaO. E.HlengwaN.MothapoM. C.MathivhaF. I. (2025). Progress in the application of remote sensing for water quality and human health mapping in informal settlements of South Africa: a review. Sci. Afr.28:e02718. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e02718
28
MaphangaT.GrangxabeX. S.MadonselaB. S. (2025). A meta-analysis review of waste generation and collection in urban informal settlements in South Africa. Discov. Environ.3:63. doi: 10.1007/s44274-025-00246-2
29
MkhwanaziS.SikweyiyaY.GibbsA. (2025). Exploratory analysis of risk factors for suicidal ideation among young men in urban informal settlements in Durban, South Africa: a cross-sectional study. SSM-Mental Health7:100417. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2025.100417
30
MntamboS.AdebayoP. (2022). Disaster management in South Africa's informal settlements: Policy, practice and COVID-19 implications. J. Incl. Cities and Built Environ.2, 87-100. doi: 10.54030/2788-564X/2022/v2s3a7
31
MohantyM. (2020). “Squatter settlements and slums and sustainable development,” in Sustainable Cities and Communities. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, eds. W. Leal Filho, A. Azul, L. Brandli, P. Özuyar, and T. Wall (Cham: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71061-7_49-1
32
MokoeleJ.SebolaM. (2018). Unplanned urbanisation in South African cities: the emergence of urban environmental problems. Bus. Manag. Rev. 9, 574–584.
33
MonamaS. A.MokoeleN. J.MokgothoK. D. (2022). South African spatial planning fragmentation: repealing the apartheid planning imprint. Int. J. Entrepreneur. 26, 1–11.
34
MthambekaN. H.OgraA. (2025). “Sustainable spatial transformation and urban environmental management: Case study of the Jukskei River - Alexandra, Johannesburg, South Africa,” in Urban Futures: Resource Conservation and Image of the City. University of Johannesburg: South Africa. doi: 10.4324/9781003656098-9
35
MuchineripiJ.ChinyamurindiW.ChimuchekaT. (2022). African immigrants' self-employment journey: Navigating contextual challenges in South Africa. J. Glob. Mobility, 10 530–544. doi: 10.1108/JGM-02-2022-0006
36
OkyereA. S.KitaM. (2015). Rethinking urban informality and informal settlements growth in urban Africa: a literature discussion. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 17, 101–124.
37
OnyangoD. S. (2011). Regularizing informal settlements for sustainable housing development for the urban poor: The case of Nairobi, Kenya. (Doctoral Thesis), University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. http://hdl.handle.net/10413/7799
38
OtsukiK. (2016). Infrastructure in informal settlements: co-production of public services for inclusive governance. Loc. Environ.21, 1557–1572. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1149456
39
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
40
PanS. M.ArmitageN. P.Van RyneveldM. B. (2015). Sustainable and equitable sanitation in informal settlements of Cape Town: a common vision? Water South Africa,41:WISA 2014. doi: 10.4314/wsa.v41i2.7
41
PinetehE. A. (2018). Spatial contestation, victimisation, and resistance during xenophobic violence: the experiences of Somali migrants in post-apartheid South Africa. Int. Migr.56, 133–145. doi: 10.1111/imig.12417
42
QumbisaN.EmuzeF.SmallwoodJ. (2025). From perceptions by beneficiaries, can homelessness be reduced through self-help housing in the central region of South Africa?Front. Sustain. Cities6:1468668. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2024.1468668
43
RasliF. N.JuhariM. L.HalimA. H. A. (2025). Green corridors in coordinating and supporting SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci.8, 1053–1071. doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8120089
44
ReverteF. C.GarciaM.daG. M.BrilhaJ.PellejeroA. U. (2020). Assessment of impacts on ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in highly urbanised areas: a case study of the Taubaté Basin, Brazil. Environ. Sci. Policy112, 91–106. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.015
45
RichardsR.O'LearyB.MutsonziwaK. (2007). Measuring quality of life in informal settlements in South Africa. Soc. Indicat. Res. 81, 375–388. doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-9014-1
46
RozasL. W.KleinW. C. (2010). The value and purpose of the traditional qualitative literature review. J. Evid. Based Soc. Work7, 387–399. doi: 10.1080/15433710903344116
47
SchebaA.TurokI.VisagieJ. (2021). The role of social housing in reducing inequality in South African cities. Working Paper 893cdf78-cd84-4f45-8157-0, Agence française de Développement.
48
SchebaA.TurokI. N. (2020). Strengthening township economies in South Africa: the case for better regulation and policy innovation. Urban Forum31, 77–94. doi: 10.1007/s12132-019-09378-0
49
South African Cities Network (2022). Urban resilience in South African cities; SACN:Johannesburg: South Africa.
50
TotafortiS. (2020). Urban planning in post-apartheid South African cities: the case of Johannesburg. Open J. Polit. Sci. 10, 507–520. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2020.103031
51
TurokI. (1994). Urban planning in the transition from Apartheid: Part 1: the legacy of social control. Town Plan. Rev. 65, 243–259. doi: 10.3828/tpr.65.3.j03p90k7870q80g4
52
United Nations (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition. 2023. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023.pdf (Accessed January 21, 2024).
53
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013). An Integrated Strategy for Sustainable Cities. UN-DESA Policy Brief No. 40; New York, NY
54
United Nations Habitat (2022). Integrating the SDGs in Urban Project Design: Recommendations from the Global Future Cities Programme; United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi: Kenya
55
United Nations Habitat South Africa (2023). Available online: https://unhabitat.org/south-africa (Accessed November 3, 2023).
56
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Switzerland
57
VictorH. (2019). “There is life in this place”: “DIY formalisation,” buoyant life and citizenship in Marikana informal settlement, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Anthropol. Southern Afr.42, 302–315. doi: 10.1080/23323256.2019.1639522
58
WotelaK.LetsiriC. (2015). International movements, post-apartheid dispensations, and illegal immigration into South Africa. J. Transdiscipl. Res. South Africa11:46. doi: 10.4102/td.v11i4.46
59
YamasakiK.YamadaT. (2022). A framework to assess the local implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 11. Sustain. Cities Soc.84:104002. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104002
60
ZiblimA. (2013). The Dynamics of Informal Settlements Upgrading in South Africa: Legislative and Policy Context, Problems, Tensions, and Contradictions.Habitat for Humanity International/EMEA office (Bratislava: slovakia). Available online at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:29064179 (Accessed October 15, 2025).
Summary
Keywords
formalization, inclusivity, informality, South Africa, sustainable development, urban development
Citation
Kajiita RM and Kangéthe SM (2026) Formalizing the informalities in human settlements in South Africa: divergent pathways for sustainable and inclusive social development. Front. Sustain. Resour. Manag. 5:1773351. doi: 10.3389/fsrma.2026.1773351
Received
22 December 2025
Revised
19 February 2026
Accepted
26 February 2026
Published
23 March 2026
Volume
5 - 2026
Edited by
Khululekani Ntakana, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Reviewed by
Danial Mohabat Doost, Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy
George Asumadu, Kumasi Polytechnic, Ghana
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Kajiita and Kangéthe.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Robert Mutemi Kajiita, rkajiita@wsu.ac.za
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.