TOPIC GUIDE:
Building reciprocal ruralurban linkages through
infrastructure investment
and development
Adriana Allen, Donald Brown,
Julio D. Dávila and Pascale
Hofmann
April 2015
About Evidence on Demand and Professional Development
Evidence on Demand supports the professional development of Climate, Environment,
Infrastructure and Livelihoods Advisers at DFID. Technical Competency Frameworks for the
advisory groups guide the support provided. Evidence on Demand also supports cross-cutting or
development competencies which cover areas of technical knowledge and skills needed by
advisers to effectively deploy their core technical skills and knowledge in development policy and
operations.
The Evidence on Demand team is led by a DAI (which incorporates HTSPE Limited) and IMC
Worldwide Limited Joint Venture. Both firms are established development consultancies with
considerable experience in managing resource centres. The Joint Venture is backed by a core
consortium of specialist organisations. The consortium provides technical support for developing
quality assured resources, answering helpdesk enquiries and supporting consultancy services.
Please go to the Evidence on Demand website (www.evidenceondemand.info) for further details.
Disclaimer
This peer reviewed Topic Guide has been produced by the Development Planning Unit at
University College London (UCL) with the assistance of the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) contracted through the Climate, Environment, Infrastructure and Livelihoods
Professional Evidence and Applied Knowledge Services (CEIL PEAKS) programme, jointly
managed by DAI (which incorporates HTSPE Limited) and IMC Worldwide Limited.
The views expressed in the Topic Guide are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent DFID’s own views or policies, or those of Evidence on Demand. Comments and
discussion on items related to content and opinion should be addressed to the author, via
enquiries@evidenceondemand.org.
Your feedback helps us ensure the quality and usefulness of all knowledge products. Please email
enquiries@evidenceondemand.org and let us know whether or not you have found this material
useful; in what ways it has helped build your knowledge base and informed your work; or how it could
be improved.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12774/eod_tg.allenaetal
First published May 2015
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
Contents
Evidence on Demand Topic Guides ...........................................................................iv
Tips for using Topic Guides........................................................................................ v
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................vi
Executive summary ................................................................................................... vii
SECTION 1 .............................................................................................1
About this Topic Guide ............................................................................................... 1
1.1
What is it for? ........................................................................................ 1
1.2
Who is it for? ......................................................................................... 1
1.3
Who wrote it? ........................................................................................ 1
1.4
How is it structured? ............................................................................. 2
SECTION 2 .............................................................................................4
Current trends in urbanisation .................................................................................... 4
2.1
The nature and scale of urbanisation .................................................... 4
2.2
Urbanisation with little or no infrastructure ............................................ 4
2.3
The importance of small and intermediate urban centres ..................... 5
2.4
Unclear urban and rural distinctions ..................................................... 5
2.4.1 Issues with classification ............................................................ 5
2.4.2 Issues with defining boundaries ................................................. 5
2.5
The importance of the interface between rural and urban areas ........... 6
2.6
Reciprocal urbanisation ........................................................................ 6
SECTION 3 .............................................................................................7
Maximising economic and development potential – considering linkages between
rural and urban areas ................................................................................................. 7
3.1
Flows and interactions between urban and rural areas ........................ 7
3.2
Why has development policy traditionally overlooked rural-urban
linkages................................................................................................. 8
3.3
Examples of rural-urban flows that can be supported ........................... 9
SECTION 4 ...........................................................................................10
Managing complex urbanisation dynamics – rethinking infrastructure planning ....... 10
4.1
Integrate planning perspectives .......................................................... 10
4.2
Avoid outdated models for distinct rural and urban growth ................. 11
4.3
Consider basic infrastructure as vital for economic growth ................. 12
4.4
Collaborate across departments and sectors...................................... 12
i
4.5
Consider a 'regional network’ approach .............................................. 12
4.6
Take advantage of existing resources for building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages............................................................................................... 13
4.7
Consider emerging environmental risks .............................................. 14
4.8
Plan proactively for urbanisation ......................................................... 14
SECTION 5 ...........................................................................................15
Managing social dimensions .................................................................................... 15
5.1
Consider links between urban and rural poverty ................................. 15
5.2
Drive gender empowerment and equality ........................................... 18
5.2.1 Gender and poverty ................................................................. 18
5.2.2 Engage and empower women.................................................. 18
5.3
Work with small and intermediate urban centres ................................ 19
5.3.1 Disadvantages and advantages of smaller urban centres ........ 19
5.3.2 Making smaller urban centres work for the poor ...................... 20
5.4
Consider types of migration ................................................................ 20
5.4.1 Changing identities of migrants ................................................ 20
5.4.2 Issues faced by temporary migrants ........................................ 20
5.5
Consider the pressure on peri-urban areas ........................................ 21
5.5.1 The need for more effective and equitable planning systems .. 21
5.5.2 Peri-urban poor pay the price ................................................... 22
5.5.3 Ensuring infrastructure promotes equality ................................ 22
5.6
Use infrastructure to drive environmental sustainability ...................... 23
5.6.1 Consider ecological footprints .................................................. 23
5.6.2 Adapt to climate change ........................................................... 23
5.6.3 Decouple urban development from unsustainable production
and consumption ...................................................................... 24
SECTION 6 ...........................................................................................26
Examples of infrastructure that builds reciprocal rural-urban linkages ..................... 26
6.1
Case studies ....................................................................................... 26
6.1.1 Peri-urbanurban movement of people: the Metrocable in
Medellín, Colombia .................................................................. 27
6.1.2 Ruralurban movement of people:‘ migration infrastructure’ in
India ......................................................................................... 28
6.1.3 Urbanperi-urban movement of waste: peri-urban aquaculture
and agriculture in Kolkata, India ............................................... 29
6.1.4 International peri-urban flow of capital and income: foreign
investments in middle-class housing in Accra, Ghana ............. 29
ii
6.1.5 Rural urban movement of information: ICT, M-PESA and the
flow of remittances in Kenya .................................................... 30
6.1.6 Ruralurban movement of ecosystems services: a comanagement approach to sustainable watershed utilisation in
peri-urban Ghana ..................................................................... 31
6.2
Different types of infrastructure for building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages............................................................................................... 33
SECTION 7 ...........................................................................................35
The importance of governance in building reciprocal rural-urban linkages: the
example of Watsan................................................................................................... 35
7.1
The spectrum of service providers ...................................................... 35
7.1.1 The ‘Water Supply Wheel’: An analytical tool ........................... 36
7.2
Addressing pro-poor service provision: beyond the public-private divide
............................................................................................................ 37
7.2.1 Issues with private provision of services .................................. 37
7.2.2 The value of public/community partnerships ............................ 37
7.3
Decentralised service delivery and infrastructure provision at the local
government level ................................................................................ 38
7.3.1 The importance of decentralisation .......................................... 39
References ............................................................................................................... 41
List of Figures
Figure 1: Rural-urban flows and the role of infrastructure interventions. Source: Adapted from
Douglass (1998) and Allen (2003)............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Planning perspectives and intervention areas. Source: Adapted from Allen (2003). ............. 11
Figure 3: Environmental risks facing urban areas .................................................................................. 14
Figure 4 Policy-driven and needs-driven practices in the Water Supply Wheel .................................. 36
Figure 5 Efficiency and participatory developments: partnerships. Adapted from: Banyard (2004) .... 38
List of Tables
Table 1 Poverty and the rural-urban interdependencies. Source: Adapted from Satterthwaite (2000)17
Table 2 Different types of infrastructure for building reciprocal rural-urban linkages .......................... 34
iii
Evidence on Demand Topic Guides
Welcome to the Evidence on Demand series of Topic Guides. The guides are produced for
Climate, Environment, Infrastructure and Livelihoods Advisers in the UK Department for
International Development (DFID). There will be up to 40 Topic Guides produced 2013-2016.
The purpose of the Topic Guides is to provide resources to support professional
development. Each Topic Guide is written by an expert. Topic Guides:
Provide an overview of a topic;
Present the issues and arguments relating to a topic;
Are illustrated with examples and case studies;
Stimulate thinking and questioning;
Provide links to current best ‘reads’ in an annotated reading list;
Provide signposts to detailed evidence and further information;
Provide a glossary of terms for a topic.
Topic Guides are intended to get you started on an unfamiliar subject. If you are already
familiar with a topic then you may still find a guide useful. Authors and editors of the guides
have put together the best of current thinking and the main issues of debate.
Topic Guides are, above all, designed to be useful to development professionals. You may
want to get up to speed on a particular topic in preparation for taking up a new position, or
you may want to learn about a topic that has cropped up in your work. Whether you are a
DFID Climate, Environment, Infrastructure or Livelihoods Adviser, an adviser in another
professional group, a member of a development agency or non-governmental organisation,
a student, or a researcher we hope that you will find Topic Guides useful.
iv
Tips for using Topic Guides
I am going to be under the spotlight. How can a Topic Guide help?
The Topic Guides, and key texts referred to in the guides, cover the latest thinking on
subject areas. If you think that a specific issue might be raised when you are under the
spotlight, you can scan a Topic Guide dealing with that issue to get up to speed.
I have just joined as an adviser. Where should I start?
Topic Guides are peer reviewed and formally approved by DFID. They are a good starting
point for getting an overview of topics that concern DFID. You can opt to be alerted to new
Topic Guides posted on the Evidence on Demand website through Facebook, Twitter or
LinkedIn. New publications of interest to advisers will also be announced in Evidence on
Demand quarterly ebulletins.
I don’t have much time. How long should I set aside for reading a Topic Guide?
The main text of a Topic Guide takes around three hours to read. To get a good
understanding of the topic allow up to three hours to get to grips with the main points. Allow
additional time to follow links and read some of the resources.
I need to keep up my professional development. How can Topic Guides help
with this?
Topic Guides, while providing an overview and making key resources easy to access, are
also meant to be stretching and stimulating. The annotated reading lists point to material that
you can draw on to get a more in-depth understanding of issues. The Topic Guides can also
be useful as aide mémoires because they highlight the key issues in a subject area. The
guides also include glossaries of key words and phrases.
I would like to read items in the reading list. Where can I access them?
Most resources mentioned in the Topic Guides are readily available in the public domain.
Where subscriptions to journals or permissions to access to specialist libraries are required,
these are highlighted.
I have a comment on a guide. How can I provide feedback?
Evidence on Demand is keen to hear your thoughts and impressions on the Topic Guides.
Your feedback is very welcome and will be used to improve new and future editions of Topic
Guides. There are a number of ways you can provide feedback:
Use the Have Your Say section on the Evidence on Demand website
(www.evidenceondemand.info). Here you can email our team with your thoughts on a
guide. You can also submit documents that you think may enhance a Topic Guide. If
you find Topic Guides useful for your professional development, please share your
experiences here.
Send an email to the Evidence on Demand Editor at
enquiries@evidenceondemand.org with your recommendations for other Topic
Guides.
v
Acronyms
AICD
ADB
ACHR
CBOs
DFID
DPU
EKW
ESRC
FAO
GDP
ICLEI
ID
IIED
IOM
LDCs
MDGs
MLSP
NGOs
NRSP
OECD
PSP
PUI
SDI
SDGs
TEEB
UCL
UN
UNDESA
UNESCO
USD
vi
According to the Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic
Asian Development Bank
Asian Coalition for Housing Rights
Community-based Organisations
British Department for International Development
Development Planning Unit
East Kolkata Wetlands
Economic and Social Research Council
Food and Agriculture Organization
Gross Domestic Product
Local Governments for Sustainability
Identification
International Institute for Environment and Development
International Organization for Migration
Least Developed Countries
Millennium Development Goals
Migrant Labour Support Programme
Non-governmental organisations
Natural Resources Systems Programme
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Private sector participation
Peri-urban interface
Slum/Shack Dwellers International
Sustainable Development Goals
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
University College London
United Nations
United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United States Domination
Executive summary
Infrastructure has a vital role to play in linking urban and rural areas together in ways
that promote reciprocal benefits.
This document is designed to be a practical and analytical guide for development
practitioners working to promote socially just, environmentally sustainable and resilient rural
and urban development in rapidly urbanising low- and middle-income countries. It focuses
specifically on Asia and Africa as the world’s two most rapidly urbanising continents, and
promotes the mutual benefits available for both urban and rural areas that can be gained by
promoting their positive interdependencies and linkages.
The Guide presents evidence from the literature and examples from practice where
infrastructure has been used to build and harness reciprocal rural-urban linkages. It also
shows how DFID has historically championed a nuanced perspective on the potential
benefits of urbanisation beyond a narrow focus on built up urban areas. If revitalised, such
perspective could have a significant impact on guiding future infrastructural interventions not
only by DFID but also by other bilateral and multilateral development agencies.
Current trends in urbanisation
The Guide begins (Section 2) by examining current urbanisation trends globally and
specifically in Africa and Asia, and how these trends are increasing the importance of
rural-urban linkages. It finds that current trends in urbanisation are intensifying rural-urban
'flows' and linkages in a process termed ‘reciprocal urbanisation’. This process is opening up
considerable opportunities for development practitioners to promote socially just,
environmentally sustainable and resilient urban and rural development outcomes.
There are a number of reasons for this including the facts that:
Asia followed by Africa are the world’s two most rapidly urbanising continents.
However, most of this growth is occurring with little or no infrastructure.
Urbanisation does not just entail more people living in urban areas. It also often
entails increasing movements of people, resources, and goods and services between
urban and rural areas.
Populations do not always fit neatly into urban and rural categories – and relying on
such distinctions makes it harder to see complex urbanisation dynamics.
Maximising development potential – considering linkages between
rural and urban areas
Section 3 of the Guide looks at different types of rural-urban linkages, how these have
been overlooked in the past and ways they can add value to development
programmes. Despite being overlooked by development planners in the past, a large body
of research now demonstrates that if development practitioners take advantage of the
existing human and economic flows between urban and rural settlements, they can ensure
infrastructure links these areas in ways that promote reciprocal benefits. Examining the
movement of people, production and commodities, capital and income, information and
ideas, natural resources, waste and pollution, and ecosystem services can offer strategic
entry points for interventions.
vii
Managing complex urbanisation dynamics – rethinking
infrastructure planning
Section 4 identifies new ways of thinking that can help development practitioners
optimise both the physical growth and expansion of towns and cities and the
intensification of flows and interactions between urban and rural areas in building
reciprocal rural-urban linkages. Building these linkages will require development
practitioners to combine different planning perspectives (urban, rural and regional), and to
think more broadly about the kinds of infrastructure that are required, and more critically
about the governance systems that determine their provision. This includes the ‘hard’
infrastructure required to manage physical growth (e.g. roads, pipes, drainage), but also
other types of infrastructure that can enhance positive movements of people, resources, and
goods and services between urban and rural areas (i.e. enhancing ‘reciprocal urbanisation’).
Though past approaches focused on a 'growth pole' model of developing hubs and their
connecting routes, research has shown that this did not have the desired 'trickle down' effect
to surrounding areas. A regional network approach', which examines all the existing flows
and interactions between diverse networks of settlement instead provides development
practitioners with a useful framework for nurturing and developing reciprocal rural-urban
linkages.
Managing social dimensions
Section 5 shows that, alongside economic considerations, development practitioners
cannot afford to overlook social issues when addressing complex urbanisation
dynamics. This section looks at the research behind a wide range of social issues relevant
to advisers attempting to promote reciprocal urbanisation including: the necessity of
considering rural and urban poverty as interdependent issues; how to protect vulnerable
groups such as migrants and the peri-urban poor; and how to consider environmental and
resilience issues in ways that support poverty reduction.
It finds that the costs of addressing infrastructure deficits are likely to be increasingly
concentrated in peri-urban areas as cities continue to grow and expand, and that there is a
need to guard the development of these areas against elite capture of resources, land and
power structures.
Examples of infrastructure that build reciprocal rural-urban
linkages
Section 6 offers advisers a range of real-world examples of how reciprocal
urbanisation can work in practice, through a series of case studies focused on Asia
and Africa. It looks at conventional interventions such as transport infrastructure and solid
waste management systems, as well as soft infrastructure such as ID cards. The case
studies focus on good practice, but also highlight potential challenges and pitfalls.
The importance of governance in building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages: the example of water and sanitation
The report concludes by discussing the various approaches and governance
arrangements that underpin pro-poor service delivery and infrastructure provision at
the local level. This is viewed through the lens of a particular example of service delivery –
that of water and sanitation (Watsan) services.
viii
It finds that the peri-urban poor rarely have access to formal facilities and services operated
by the public or the formal private sector, so a closer engagement with other actors
(including CBOs that represent the most ill-served groups) is required to fill the gap.
Also, as local governments have a key role to play in providing infrastructure and services,
and in fostering collaboration across administrative boundaries, they require adequate
financial support and appropriate incentives from national governments and international
agencies.
ix
SECTION 1
About this Topic Guide
1.1
What is it for?
This Topic Guide is for advisers interested in the role that infrastructure can play in building
reciprocal rural-urban linkages with the aim of promoting the positive interdependencies
between urban and rural development. It focuses specifically on Asia and Africa, which, as
the world’s most rapidly urbanising continents, present development practitioners with a
timely opportunity to ensure that future urban population growth contributes to rather than
undermines this aim.
This Guide presents evidence from the literature and examples from practice where
infrastructure has been used to build reciprocal rural-urban linkages that have promoted
socially just, environmental sustainable and resilient urban and rural development outcomes.
This Guide introduces a ‘regional network approach’ that DFID and other development
agencies can use to analyse rural-urban linkages and to fund appropriate infrastructure
interventions aimed at promoting these development outcomes. The regional network
approach examines and promotes the various ‘flows’ – involving, for example, people;
production and commodities; capital and income; information and ideas; natural resources;
waste and pollution; and ecosystem services – between cities, towns and villages in order to
identify and nurture existing linkages between them. This approach differs from the single
town-hinterland relation supported by the conventional ‘growth pole’ model by focusing on a
wider spatial scale and a more relational perspective on economically diverse networks of
settlements.
The evidence and examples presented in this Guide show how positive flows and
interactions within these networks can be addressed interdependently through the provision
of infrastructure.
1.2
Who is it for?
This Topic Guide is intended to serve as a resource for infrastructure advisers, although it is
anticipated that it will be relevant to other interested development practitioners whose work
likely involves infrastructure in some way. It has been written to appeal to advisers who are
new to the topic, but also for those looking for up-to-date evidence on rural-urban linkages
with respect to infrastructure.
1.3
Who wrote it?
This Topic Guide was produced by a team of senior researchers from the Bartlett
Development Planning Unit (DPU) at University College London (UCL) with over 20 years of
academic and practical experience on rural-urban linkages in Asia and Africa, as well as
Latin America. Their work has included numerous scholarly publications and various
contributions to policy reports by leading international agencies, including UN-Habitat and
the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The authors have also worked closely with
DFID since the late 1990s to better understand the peri-urban interface, which is a subject
1
that now holds a prominent position within the literature on rural-urban linkages and on
DFID's perspective on urbanisation and infrastructural development.
1.4
How is it structured?
Section 2 seeks to provide development practitioners with an understanding of the current
trends, challenges and opportunities in urbanisation, both globally and in Africa and Asia
specifically. Sections 3-5 aim to provide development practitioners with the advice and
evidence required to promote the positive interdependencies between urban and rural
development - otherwise referred to as reciprocal rural-urban linkages. This is split into
sections focusing on ways to maximise and manage economic and development potential
(3), physical growth and the sustainability of the natural resource base (4) and social
inclusion and equality (5). Section 6 presents a number of case studies to show how a range
of types of infrastructure, and the services they support, can help build reciprocal rural-urban
linkages in practice. Section 7 concludes by discussing the centrality of local governance in
infrastructure provision and service delivery, viewed through the lens of water and sanitation.
Box 1 Key terms and definitions
Urbanisation: The i
areas.
ease i p opo tio of a ou t y s total populatio li i g i u a
Reciprocal rural-urban linkages: The mutually beneficial interdependencies between rural
and urban development.
Urban population growth: This is the net result of migration, natural population growth and
reclassification of administrative boundaries.
Circular migration: Describes the fluid movement of people between areas, usually for the
purpose of employment (IOM 2008).
Small and intermediate urban centres: An urban area with a population of < 500,000
(Satterthwaite 2006b).
Ecosystems services: Ecological systems that sustain vital services for urban areas, which
depend on supplies of food, water and other natural resources from the surrounding region,
as well as on ways of disposing their wastes (Tuts 2012).
Ecological infrastructure: Includes watersheds, wetlands, aquifers, mangroves and other
natural features that work to support ecosystem services.
Environmental sustainability: Development that protects and enhances ecosystems (and
the services they support) and natural resources and that limits and where possible reduces
climate change.
Climate change: Changes in global climate attributed to human – or anthropogenic –
activity.
Mitigation: Actions to reduce the drivers of man-made (anthropogenic) climate change,
notably the curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions.
2
Adaptation: Actions to reduce the vulnerability of a system (for example, a city), population
groups (for example, a vulnerable population within a city) or an individual or household to
hazards.
Resilience: The capacity to maintain core functions in the face of hazards, threats and
impacts, especially for vulnerable populations (Satterthwaite 2013).
Social justice: Development that considers and actively addresses the needs, priorities and
rights of the poorest and most vulnerable groups, while acknowledging the way in which
gender, age, ability, class, ethnicity and religion shape the unequal distribution of
developmental benefits.
3
SECTION 2
Current trends in urbanisation
Key questions answered by this section:
What is the current urbanisation situation globally and specifically in Africa and Asia?
How are current urbanisation trends increasing the importance of rural-urban
linkages?
Key takeaways:
2.1
Although levels of service provision can vary considerably within and between
countries, urbanisation in Asia and Africa is generally occurring with little or no
infrastructure, and without the local institutions and finance mechanisms required to
address these deficits.
Populations do not always fit neatly into urban and rural categories and relying on
such distinctions often makes it harder to see intermediate locations (e.g.: small and
intermediate urban centres and peri-urban areas) and to examine complex
urbanisation dynamics.
Urbanisation does not just entail more people living in towns and cities; it also entails
increasing movements of people, resources, and good and services between urban
and rural areas in a process known as ‘reciprocal urbanisation’.
The nature and scale of urbanisation
It is now widely recognised that, for the first time in history, the majority of the world’s
population live in towns and cities. This transition entails profound changes – North America
and Europe are now predominately urban, as are Latin America and the Caribbean, while
Asia and Africa remain the least urbanised, but most rapidly urbanising continents
(UNDESA, 2014). These changes imply that more people will be living in urban areas than
ever before, and that, given the size of their populations, most of the world’s future urban
population growth will occur in Asia and Africa.
Contrary to popular belief, Asia, rather than Africa, is the most rapidly urbanising
continent with the urban population set to increase by 2050 by 1.4 billion, compared to 0.9
billion (UNDESA, 2014). Some observers also suggest that urbanisation in some African
countries may be much lower than previously thought (Potts 2012). However, by most
accounts, Africa’s urban population – particularly south of the Sahara – is increasing faster
than its rural population, although growth rates can vary considerably both within and
between countries (Parnell & Pieterse 2014).
2.2
Urbanisation with little or no infrastructure
What characterises urbanisation in Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia is the extent
to which it is occurring without basic infrastructure and services and without the
finance and governance structures required to provide them (Allen, 2014; UN-Habitat, 2011;
Weitz & Franceys, 2002).
4
According to Africa’s Infrastructure Country Diagnostic, the cost of addressing Africa’s
infrastructure deficit alone is estimated at approximately USD $93 billion per year, or about
15 per cent of the continent's gross domestic product (Foster & Briceño-garmendia 2010).
This factors in energy, information and communication technologies, irrigation, transport, and
water and sanitation. However, this figure would be much higher if it also took into account
the cost of housing and developing the institutional capacity required to build and adapt
infrastructure to emerging risks (Ayers, 2009; Parry et al., 2009).
2.3
The importance of small and intermediate urban centres
The majority of the world’s population, particularly in Asia and Africa, live in small
and intermediate urban centres (< 500,000), which often have poorer access to basic
infrastructure than large cities (Satterthwaite & Tacoli, 2003b; Tacoli, 2004; UN-Habitat,
2006; WaterAid, 2010). While income-generating opportunities for migrants are increasing in
cities, most non-farm activities remain concentrated in small towns and large villages. These
settlements typically have stronger linkages with their hinterlands and other settlements than
large cities (Satterthwaite and Tacoli, 2003). They also play important roles in supporting the
livelihoods of the poorest groups (including those lacking the means to migrate to larger
cities) and in providing basic infrastructure and services to their own populations and to that
of surrounding areas (Satterthwaite & Tacoli, 2003; WaterAid, 2010).
2.4
Unclear urban and rural distinctions
2.4.1 Issues with classification
Despite the frequency of smaller urban settlements in the developing world, these often do
not meet the varied official criteria to be formally classified as urban. Take India for example,
which appears on paper to be predominately rural, even though most of its population lives
in small and medium-sized towns with between 500-5,000 people (Satterthwaite, 2010b).
These settlements remain classified as villages and are therefore considered rural, but it
could easily be argued they would be better defined as urban. If they were reclassified, the
majority of India’s population would be living in urban areas. This could be applied to many
other countries as well.
2.4.2 Issues with defining boundaries
There are also problems with defining urban areas based on their administrative boundaries.
On one hand, boundary reclassifications that suddenly include surrounding areas can
significantly increase the population of urban centres, as can combining the administrative
boundaries of cities within larger metropolitan regions. For instance, many of China’s major
cities are within urban clusters, such as the Pearl River Delta (including Hong Kong,
Guangzhou, and Shenzhen), which if combined under a single metropolitan area, would be
among the world’s largest cities (Satterthwaite. 2010a). On the other hand, cities can greatly
understate their populations if the large settlements that have developed around them are
excluded (ibid).
Thus it is important to recognise that populations do not always fit neatly into urban
and rural categories, and relying on such distinctions often makes it harder to see patterns
relating to urbanisation (Brenner & Schmid, 2014).
5
2.5
The importance of the interface between rural and urban
areas
One of the first attempts to challenge the unclear rural-urban division was led by DFID under
its Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP), which back in the 1990s funded a multimillion pound research programme on the peri-urban interface (for a concise overview see
Simon et al. 2006, page. 9). The peri-urban interface is the area on the outskirts or
hinterland of a town or city where urban and rural land uses meet and mix.
A key advancement of the above programme was to identify at least three different
approaches for defining the peri-urban interface (see Dávila, 2006). These included an
emphasis on physical attributes (including proximity to the city); socio-economic differences;
and rural-urban flows and interactions. These approaches marked an important move
towards understanding the peri-urban interface as a meeting of urban and rural activities – in
effect a process rather than a place (Allen, 2003; Brook & Dávila, 2000; Simon et al., 2006).
2.6
Reciprocal urbanisation
Research on reciprocal urbanisation in Namibia (Frayne, 2005) has shown that urbanisation
goes hand-in-hand with growing reliance on food transfers from rural to urban areas and
remittance flows from urban to rural areas. These reflect high degrees of social reciprocity
between urban and rural households that support them in responding to different shocks.
Reciprocal urbanisation appears to be relevant in other low- and middle-income countries
where the flow of people, food, capital, information and so on, are intensifying as households
adapt to increasingly difficult economic and environmental circumstances (see Lynch 2005;
UN-Habitat 2008, page 216; Tacoli 2009). As this process unfolds, the flows and interactions
that link different locations together are becoming as important as the locations themselves.
This process further undermines the rural-urban division and highlights the need for a
nuanced perspective on urbanisation dynamics. This includes a greater focus on reciprocal
rural-urban linkages.
6
SECTION 3
Maximising economic and development
potential – considering linkages between rural
and urban areas
Rural-urban linkages can add significant value to development programmes and
infrastructure investments by promoting the positive interdependencies between
urban and rural development.
Key questions answered by this section:
What is the added value of promoting rural-urban linkages in development
programmes and infrastructure interventions?
What has happened in the past?
What types of rural-urban flows and interactions can be supported in the future?
Key takeaways:
3.1
Infrastructure has a vital role to play in harnessing reciprocal urbanisation by linking
urban and rural areas together in ways that promote reciprocal benefits.
A large body of research and analysis is now calling on development practitioners to
take advantage of the considerable human, economic and ecological flows and
interactions between settlements, to ensure infrastructure links urban and rural areas
in ways that promote reciprocal benefits.
Reciprocal urbanisation presents unique opportunities to drive development, plan
more inclusive and sustainable cities, and improve infrastructure and services in illserved areas.
Rural-urban linkages can add significant value to infrastructure interventions.
Examining the movement of people, resources and capital ('flows') can offer strategic
entry points for infrastructure interventions aimed at building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages.
Flows and interactions between urban and rural areas
A growing body of research shows the extent to which urban and rural areas and
intermediate locations are interlinked by complex flows and interactions involving: people;
production and commodities; capital and income; information and ideas; natural resources;
waste and pollution; and ecosystems services (see Allen, 2003; Douglass, 1998; Hofmann,
2013; Lynch, 2005; McGranahan et al., 2004; Tacoli, 1998, 2006; Tuts, 2012; UN-Habitat,
2008, pp. 216).
These flows and interactions can be mutually reinforcing or undermining, leading to either
reciprocal or opposing relationships between urban and rural development (Douglass, 1998).
Ensuring that these flows and interactions deliver reciprocal benefits will become
increasingly important in countries where urbanisation is fast occurring. Infrastructure thus
has a vital role to play in linking urban and rural areas together in mutually beneficial ways.
7
Figure 1: Rural-urban flows and the role of infrastructure interventions. Source: Adapted from
Douglass (1998) and Allen (2003).
Figure 1 provides development practitioners with a framework for analysing and promoting
reciprocal flows and interactions between urban and rural areas and outlines the different
types of infrastructure that can help to support them. These types of infrastructure are further
discussed in section 6.2 based on the lessons presented by a series of case studies (section
6.1).
3.2
Why has development policy traditionally overlooked ruralurban linkages
Despite evidence on rural-urban linkages, development has traditionally focused either on
urban or rural areas, without considering the interdependencies between the two (Douglass,
1998; Tacoli, 1998). This has been heavily criticised for promoting rivalry between public
agencies and for reinforcing administrative divisions separating urban and rural areas in
local planning and management (Douglass, 1998; Simon et al., 2006; UN-Habitat, 2008).
These rivalries and divisions are underpinned not just by traditional ways of thinking about
development, but also by institutional structures and incentives.
For example, urban planners and policymakers often target investments at people and
settlements that fall within their urban administrative boundaries, and often build incentives
8
to attract urban-based manufacturing activities to growth centres and capital cities through
the development of economic infrastructure (Douglass 1998). As a consequence, the
provision of infrastructure – including water and sanitation, roads, drainage, sewerage, but
also infrastructure supporting non-farming productive activities – has often neglected
populations in rural and intermediate locations, while missing important opportunities to build
reciprocal rural-urban linkages.
3.3
Examples of rural-urban flows that can be supported
There are a range of flows and interactions between urban and rural areas that can be
used by development practitioners as entry points to develop interventions that have
reciprocal benefits. These include the two-way movement of people, capital, information,
ecological services and more.
A number of examples detailing some of these interactions can be found in the section on
case studies (6.1). These include:
Movement of people to reduce poverty (both peri-urbanurban and
ruralurban)
Movement of waste to support peri-urban livelihoods and urban waste management
(urbanperi-urban)
Movement of capital investment to finance the construction of new housing and
services - though this needs careful consideration (internationalperi-urban)
Movement of information and income to support previously disconnected rural and
urban households (ruralurban)
Movement of ecosystem services to improve water and food security, reduce poverty
and build resilience in the context of climate change (ruralurban)
These flows and interactions provide development practitioners with a set of entry points for
developing interventions that have reciprocal rural-urban benefits. However, given the wrong
kind or use of infrastructure, these benefits can be undermined, as exemplified by the case
study on the flow of international capital into the construction of peri-urban housing (Section
6.1.4). Therefore it is vital for development practitioners to understand how best to achieve
these benefits by:
adopting planning perspectives that transcend the rural-urban divide
examining rural-urban linkages and their local variations
conceptualising infrastructure to address both consumption and production needs
engaging critically with the governance systems that ultimately determine how, where
and what type of infrastructure is provided and for whom
9
SECTION 4
Managing complex urbanisation dynamics –
rethinking infrastructure planning
New ways of thinking can help development practitioners manage and optimise both
the growth and expansion of towns and cities and the increasing intensity of flows
and interactions between urban and rural areas to build reciprocal urban-rural
linkages.
Key questions answered by this section:
Why do development practitioners need to think differently about infrastructure in
order to build reciprocal rural-urban linkages?
What new approaches offer a way forward?
Key takeaways:
4.1
Building reciprocal rural-urban linkages will require development practitioners to
combine different planning perspectives (urban, rural and regional), and to think more
broadly about the kinds of infrastructure that are required, and more critically about
the governance systems that determine their provision.
Avoid the 'growth pole' style of development planning, which focuses on a limited
number of growth centres and their connections with their hinterlands.
A 'regional network approach' – which examines existing links between diverse
networks of settlements – provides development practitioners with a useful
framework for identifying, nurturing and developing reciprocal rural-urban linkages.
Urbanisation should be planned proactively to take advantage of reciprocal flows and
interactions
Integrate planning perspectives
Infrastructure that aims to build reciprocal rural-urban linkages must integrate different
planning perspectives (Allen, 2003). These include:
1.
2.
3.
The urban perspective – which seeks to transform planning systems and their allied
institutions.
The rural perspective – which tends to focus on localised and discrete actions.
The regional perspective – which seeks to act upon rural–urban flows and pressures
between settlements at a broader territorial scale.
When each planning perspective draws from the others, the boundaries between them
become increasingly blurred, while the potential to build synergetic interventions increase.
Consider, for example, how localised interventions aimed at improving land-based
livelihoods (such as peri-urban agriculture) are likely to strengthen the linkages between
agricultural production systems and urban markets, while enhancing food security (for more
information see the case study in Section 6.1.3). Or how regional planning interventions
10
initiated by urban authorities are likely to promote collaborative efforts with rural authorities,
which could lead to the extension of infrastructure into ill-served peri-urban areas.
Figure 2 illustrates how each planning perspective relates to specific intervention areas,
many of which are either directly or indirectly relevant to the infrastructure interventions
outlined in Figure 1 above. A key consideration for development practitioners is how these
interventions can strengthen productive activities while addressing wider inequalities,
particularly relating to access. The potential of infrastructure to either reduce or reinforce
inequality is discussed in Section 6.1.4.
Figure 2: Planning perspectives and intervention areas. Source: Adapted from Allen (2003).
4.2
Avoid outdated models for distinct rural and urban growth
As the literature commonly suggests (see Allen, 2003; Douglass, 1998; Tacoli, 2006; UNHabitat, 2008 pp. 216), there is a need to move beyond development models with separate
‘rural-agricultural’ and ‘urban-industrial’ objectives towards new approaches that link these
objectives together.
Among the most outdated models is the growth pole, which was implemented widely in
low- and middle-income countries during the 1950s and 1960s (for a critical review see Parr,
1999). Its policies directed public infrastructure investments towards a limited number of
designated growth centres to attract manufacturing, and towards the construction of trunk
roads to link growth centres with capital cities as gateways to markets. The core assumption
behind these policies was that the benefits of urban industrialisation would eventually ‘trickledown’ into rural areas. As a result, little parallel attention was dedicated to the promotion of
rural development.
Meanwhile, while many cities in high-income countries (and some middle-income countries)
have become engines of economic growth, many low- and middle-income countries –
particularly the least developed countries (LDCs) – have remained highly dependent on
agriculture and natural resources (UN-Habitat 2008, pp. 216). In such countries, scholarly
11
assessments during the height of growth pole policy era highlighted their widespread failure
to meet their core objectives (Parr, 1999).
4.3
Consider basic infrastructure as vital for economic growth
Infrastructure must now be conceptualised to encompass not only large-scale
physical interventions to promote economic growth but also other types of
infrastructure and services required to sustain lives and livelihoods in urban and rural
areas. This must include basic infrastructure (e.g. safe drinking water, adequate sanitation,
drainage, sewerage, local roads, electricity etc.) and services (e.g. education, health care,
solid waste collection, etc.) as vital not only for social welfare, but also to sustain broader
economic growth and development (Douglass 1998).
Furthermore, while most basic infrastructure interventions focus on consumption
needs, they can also contribute to meeting small-scale production needs. Take, for
example, the widespread use of water in agricultural irrigation (Allen et al., 2006a and
2006b) or the use of biodegradable urban waste in peri-urban agriculture (Hofmann 2013).
These practices highlight areas where infrastructure can provide services that support the
livelihood strategies of poor households, while also contributing to other objectives, in this
case improving water and food security. Advisers should therefore consider the different
kinds of infrastructure that can enhance the flows upon which the livelihoods and well-being
of the poor (and non-poor) depend. These kinds of interventions are outlined in Figure 2,
which summarises their developmental focuses, core functions, and the key development
issues that need to be considered by advisers.
4.4
Collaborate across departments and sectors
Working across urban, rural and regional scales underscores the need for better
collaboration across administrative boundaries and, by extension, better systems of
governance (or what can be termed ‘soft’ infrastructure), as discussed in the final section of
this Guide (7.0). This must involve local and district governments, but also the private sector
and civil society, including community-based organisations that represent people who are
typically ill-served by formal infrastructure and services.
4.5
Consider a 'regional network’ approach
Considerable scholarly research (see next sub-section) is making the case for a regional
approach to building rural-urban linkages. Among the approaches that have received
increasing attention is Douglass' (1998) regional network approach, which provides
development practitioners with a useful framework for building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages.
At the core of Douglass’ approach is an understanding of the interlinkages between urban
and rural areas, and of the potential for combining their positive impact. This approach is
strategic because it positions flows as entry points for interventions. In this way, Figure 1
above provides development practitioners with a useful analytical tool for applied research,
planning and policy.
This approach has three main characteristics:
1.
12
Relationships within networks of cities, towns and villages are promoted
complementarily, allowing for a great number of local variations found in rural-urban
linkages.
2.
3.
Networks and clusters are identified and nurtured on the basis of existing flows and
interactions, though not discarding the possibility that virtuous cycles of innovation
and increased productivity may emerge from introducing new technologies (e.g.
mobile phones).
A wider spatial scale and more complex and economically diverse network of
settlements are favoured, as compared to the single town-hinterland relation
supported by the growth pole model.
In sum, this approach examines and promotes all the various relationships between cities,
towns and villages in order to identify and nurture existing flows and interactions within
networks of complex and economically diverse settlements.
4.6
Take advantage of existing resources for building reciprocal
rural-urban linkages
National and international agencies are increasingly recognising the
interdependencies between urban and rural development and there are a number of
useful research initiatives to support this shift. As noted above, DFID has played a lead
role in stimulating the debate on rural-urban linkages through its programme on the periurban interface. This programme, in addition to initiatives by international think-tanks –
notably the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)1 – mark a
response to growing disillusionment with the traditional separation between urban and rural
development, and to the growing recognition of the need for more innovative planning
approaches. This has included growing interest in the regional network approach.
Key research and resources:
1.
Guidelines for strategic environmental planning and management of the peri-urban
interface (UCL DPU, 2000). (www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_economy/pdf_Urban_Rural/DPU_DFID_Allen_betw
eenurbanandrural.pdf). These Guidelines were one of the main outputs of a periurban interface research project undertaken by UCL with funding from DFID. The
Guidelines continue to provide policymakers and planners with relevant theoretical
and practical insight into how rural-urban linkages can achieve environmental
sustainability and improve the livelihoods and quality of the life of the peri-urban poor.
2.
Chapter on Urbanisation and Agriculture in the 2002 State of Food and Agriculture
report by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO,
2002).(www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/PDF/sofa.pdf). Building on the project
above, this chapter discusses the importance of building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages across changing landscapes by adopting a regional network approach.
3.
Chapter on Addressing Rural-Urban Disparities for Harmonious Regional
Development in the State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009: Harmonious Cities report
by UN-Habitat (2008, pp. 216).
http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2562&AspxAutoD
1
Much of the seminal scholarly literature on rural-urban linkages was published in IIED’s international
journal, Environment & Urbanization, which dedicated an issue to rural-urban interactions in 1998, and
an issue to rural-urban transformations in 2003. These open access issues are available online:
http://eau.sagepub.com/site/Special_Issues_Index/Special_Issues_Index.xhtml
13
etectCookieSupport=1 ).This chapter highlights the importance of building reciprocal
rural-urban linkages for reducing poverty and inequality in the context of rapid
urbanisation, and explains how this could be supported by adopting a regional
network approach.
Figure 3: Environmental risks facing urban areas
4.7
Consider emerging
environmental risks
Urbanisation is leading in many
instances to an increase in the reliance
of cities on their hinterlands, particularly
regarding the flow of ecosystems
services (UN-Habitat 2008 pp. 216; Tuts
2012). Infrastructure will therefore have
an increasingly important role to play in
managing urbanisation so that it
contributes to rural-urban linkages that
are environmentally sustainable.
Alongside increasing urbanisation, urban
areas in Africa and Asia are facing
significant risks from climate change,
resource scarcities, damage to critical
ecosystems and from chronic
environmental burdens (Atkins & DPU 2012). These risks cannot be viewed in isolation: they
are multiple, interlinked and growing (Figure 3). Development practitioners therefore need to
build reciprocal rural-urban linkages in ways that achieve socially just, environmentally
sustainable and resilient development outcomes in the context of urbanisation and climate
change (see the next section for more detail).
4.8
Plan proactively for urbanisation
Recent research on the more advanced urban transitions in the ‘BRICS’ countries – Brazil,
China, India, China, Russia and South Africa – provides important lessons for countries in
the early stages of urbanisation (not least in Asia and Africa) by revealing the importance of
proactively planning for urban growth so that it contributes to the objectives of economic
development, social justice and environmental sustainability (McGranahan and Martine
2014).
This research generally shows that where urban growth has been discouraged or resisted
(as in the case of Brazil and India), where inappropriate decisions have been made about
the location of economic activity (as in the case of Russia), where the rights of the urban
poor have been neglected (as in the case of China) and where inclusive urban development
strategies have been lacking (as in the case of South Africa), these objectives have been
undermined (ibid). These objectives may also be undermined if development practitioners
fail to plan proactively for reciprocal urbanisation.
14
SECTION 5
Managing social dimensions
Alongside economic and environmental considerations, development practitioners
cannot afford to overlook social issues when addressing complex urbanisation
dynamics. This includes supporting the development of infrastructure and services that
foster social cohesion, encouraging social and economic inclusion of vulnerable groups, and
investing in infrastructure that reduces poverty and socio-economic inequalities.
Key questions answered by this section:
How can development practitioners support the development of infrastructure and
services that foster social cohesion, encouraging social and economic inclusion of
vulnerable groups?
How can infrastructure interventions support economic activities that are
environmentally sustainable and reduce poverty and inequality?
Key takeaways include:
5.1
The necessity of considering rural and urban poverty as interdependent issues.
Small and intermediate urban centres need to be identified as priority areas in
national poverty reduction strategies.
Infrastructure provision can reinforce inequalities if advisers fail to consider
competing interests and identity politics in areas that often fall through the net of
planned interventions, as it is often the case in peri-urban areas.
There are multiple types of migration and migrants between rural and urban areas,
and development practitioners must be aware of them all to best apply pro-poor
interventions.
The costs of addressing infrastructure deficits (particularly in Africa) are likely to be
increasingly concentrated in peri-urban areas due to urban growth and expansion
trends.
Infrastructure provision needs to balance the protection of vital ecosystem services
with the rights of the peri-urban poor.
There is a need to guard against elite capture of local power structures that govern
the distribution of infrastructure and other resources in small towns and villages.
Finance mechanisms for building and adapting infrastructure to the impacts of
climate change must account for the backlog in quality housing with adequate
provision for basic infrastructure and services, and must channel finance to the
poorest and most vulnerable groups to address these deficits.
Basic infrastructure and service deficits can reinforce gender disadvantages, but
women can play key roles in finding solutions.
Consider links between urban and rural poverty
Basic infrastructure and services are often commoditised (i.e. they cost money to
access) in urban areas, but conventional measures of poverty do not take this into
account, nor do they account for the interdependencies between urban and rural
areas. Development debates seldom acknowledge how interdependent urban and rural
15
economies are. Too often, rural and urban poverty have been viewed as in competition with
one another for resources (Tacoli et al., 2008). Thus, current debates on rural-urban
linkages highlight a recurrent concern: is it useful to refer to urban and rural as two distinct
forms of poverty?
Satterthwaite (2000) summarises this debate aptly. It is clear that the separate treatment of
urban and rural poverty can ignore the extent to which the livelihoods and assets of the poor
(and also non-poor) draw on both urban and rural resources and opportunities (Box 2).
Box 2 Shortcomings of rural and urban poverty as separate notions
Separate discussions of rural and urban poverty fail to recognise:
the extent to which the incomes, livelihoods or asset bases of many poor (and nonpoor) households draw on rural and urban resources or opportunities
the multiple connections between rural and urban societies, which often mean that
changes in one affect the other, i.e. an increase in rural poverty also reduces
incomes and opportunities for many poor urban households and vice versa
the importance for a high proportion of rural households of access to services
located in urban areas, especially for access to secondary schools and health services
similarities in the underlying causes of rural and urban poverty (including those
relating to highly unequal patterns of asset ownership and political influence)
the fuzzi ess of the disti tio s et ee u al a d urban populations and the
extent to which changes in urban definitions can suddenly redefine a large
p opo tio of the u al poo as the u a poo
Source: Adapted from Satterthwaite (2000, p. 1)
On the other hand, an understanding of poverty that no longer distinguishes between urban
and rural areas risks ignoring the important differences between these contexts. These
differences hinge not only on the income needed to avoid poverty, but also differences in
access to quality housing and services (Mitlin & Satterthwaite 2013).
As noted before, basic services (particularly access to water and sanitation) are often
commoditised in urban areas, and therefore must be purchased. For example, the urban
poor often lack connections to piped water networks, forcing them to purchase small
quantities of water from private vendors (often informal) that typically have higher unit costs
as compared to water accessed by wealthier groups with piped connections, as in Dar es
Salaam (Kjellén & Mcgranahan 2006). Similarly, non-food costs for the poor tend to be
comparatively much higher in urban areas, particularly in large metropolitan cities, and are
not considered in conventional dollar-a-day poverty lines (Mitlin & Satterthwaite 2013).
Table 1 presents the main characteristics that differentiate poverty in urban and rural areas
in relation to the many interdependencies between the two. The table suggests that ruralurban interdependencies among the poor are likely to intensify in line with increased
urbanisation.
16
>> Rural poverty issues
Urban poverty issues <<
Livelihoods drawn from crop
cultivation, livestock, forestry or
fishing (i.e. key for livelihood is
access to natural capital)
Access to land for housing
and building materials not
generally a problem
Livelihoods drawn from labour
markets within non-agricultural
production or making/selling
goods or services
More distant from
government as regulator and
provider of services
Access to infrastructure and
services limited (largely
because of distance, low
density and limited capacity to
pay)
Fewer opportunities for
earning cash; more for selfprovisioning. Greater reliance
on favourable weather
conditions.
Access to natural capital as
the key asset and basis for
livelihood
Access to land for housing
very difficult; housing and land
markets highly commercialized
More vulnerable to ‘bad’
governance
Access to infrastructure and
services difficult for lowincome groups because of high
prices, illegal nature of their
homes (for many) and poor
governance
Greater reliance on cash for
access to food, water,
sanitation, employment,
garbage disposal, etc.
Greater reliance on house as
an economic resource (space
for production, access to
income-earning opportunities;
asset and income-earner for
owners – including de facto
owners)
Rural-urban
interdependencies
<< Funding flows
(remittances) from urban
migrants for rural development
>> Rural-urban food
transfers, rural support in
bringing up urban dwellers’
children
<< Accommodation and
support for family or fellow
villagers who come to urban
areas to study or seek
employment
>> Cheaper accommodation
for low-income urban workers
in nearby rural areas
<< Access to different
branches of government and
public services
>> Access to customary
institutions
<< Stimulus for more
diversified livelihood options
>> Rural markets for urban
dwellers who derive an income
from selling goods and services
<< Information about urban
opportunities and alternative/
additional income sources to
potential migrants and
commuters
>> Seasonal employment for
urban dwellers in agriculture or
rural development projects or
on collecting or purchasing
resources from nearby rural
areas
>> Support to protect the
assets of urban dwellers
retaining land and livestock in
rural areas
<< Urban refuge for some of
the poorest rural dwellers
whose livelihoods were
destroyed by development
projects, wars, oppression or
disasters
>> Rural refuge for poor urban
dwellers in times of economic
and political hardship
Table 1 Poverty and the rural-urban interdependencies. Source: Adapted from Satterthwaite
(2000)
17
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
taking a wider perspective to develop well-targeted interventions aimed at meeting
needs and reducing poverty
the potential of rural-urban linkages to help track the complex and often volatile
connections characterising urban and rural poverty
5.2
Drive gender empowerment and equality
Basic infrastructure and service deficits can reinforce gender disadvantages,
particularly among low-income households, but women can play leading roles in
finding solutions.
5.2.1 Gender and poverty
Tacoli (2012) argues that there is a distinctive gender dimension of urban poverty that arises
from a combination of:
low-income
inadequate and expensive accommodation
limited access to basic infrastructure and services
exposure to environmental hazards
high rates of crime and violence
These deprivations contribute to the burden of domestic work among women (ibid).
Moreover, as the impacts of climate change worsen, these are likely to increase the difficulty
and time needed to complete routine domestic chores, such as collecting water and caring
for the sick, activities often associated with women and young girls (Alber, 2009; Bartlett,
2008).
Given these deprivations and risks, enhancing access to quality housing with adequate
provision for basic infrastructure and services can play a key role in eliminating gender
disadvantage in areas where the distinction between the urban and the rural becomes
particularly blurred. This is likely to be more important in those areas where gender
disadvantages are closely related to exclusion from (formal) labour markets and to the
commodification of basic services.
It is also important to think about the needs of poor migrant women and girls, regarding not
only their reproductive health, but also their housing needs, particularly for rental
accommodation and shelters (Tacoli 2012; UN-Habitat 2003).
5.2.2 Engage and empower women
Women also in many instances play leading roles in finding solutions to basic infrastructure
and service deficits through their growing participation in community-savings groups,
incremental housing improvements and community-driven upgrading processes. This can be
seen in the high numbers of women involved with Federations of the urban poor affiliated
with Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI)2 and the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights
(ACHR) across Asia and Africa, as well as Latin America (for a detailed review see
Satterthwaite & Mitlin, 2014).
2
18
SDI is a confederation of country-level community-based organisations formed by the urban poor in 34
countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America (http://www.sdinet.org/). SDI was established in 1996 to
bring together urban poor ‘federations’ to help their local initiatives develop alternatives to evictions
(including ‘slum’ upgrading) whilst influencing international urban development agendas.
These experiences of Federations show how women are breaking down gender barriers and
norms not only through the management of savings and credit, but also through initiatives to
secure land, upgrade homes and improve community infrastructure (e.g. providing
community toilets and washing facilities). Patel & Mitlin (2010 identify a number of common
practices by Federations that are working to build a culture that, in terms of gender relations,
empowers women through leadership, dialogue, documentation (e.g. community
enumerations and mapping) and action:
Showing empathy for the problems of poverty rather than disciplining individual
failures (for instance, exclusion for missing loan repayments)
Facilitating incremental affordable development rather than maximum material
consumption
Promoting collective rather than individual decisions and actions
Providing flexibility in regard to local needs (rather than rule bound and formalistic
procedures) and serving community dynamics rather than externally-imposed
timetables
Encouraging membership through participation (social engagement) rather than fixed
financial contributions
Recognising that everyone has a contribution to make rather than just community
leaders
Fostering experiential learning rather than over-reliance on professional ‘experts’
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
the role of basic infrastructure and service deficits in reinforcing gender
disadvantages
the role women can play in finding solutions
the specific and changing needs for services among women and man, girls and boys
straddling between urban and rural areas
5.3
Work with small and intermediate urban centres
As mentioned above, the majority of the world live in smaller urban settlements, which face
their own particular infrastructure and development issues (see UN-Habitat 2006).
5.3.1 Disadvantages and advantages of smaller urban centres
Disadvantages include:
weaker local governments
often poorer access to infrastructure and services
fewer economies of scale
less financial and institutional capacity to plan, manage and implement projects and
programmes
power structures often susceptible to elite capture (see below)
Advantages include:
less conflictive relationships with citizens
a smaller and more manageable scale of work
a greater willingness among different government offices and departments to work
together
19
a more conducive environment for informal accountability measure to work better (for
instance easier contacts between local politicians and civil servants and those who
are unserved or under-served)
local governments who may be more willing to collaborate with civil society
organisations, including at the community level
5.3.2 Making smaller urban centres work for the poor
It is important to recognise that local power structures in small towns and villages are often
susceptible to elite capture, which can bias the provision of infrastructure and other
resources towards more powerful interests at the expense of the poor.
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
5.4
the crucial role of local governments in providing basic infrastructure and services in
small and intermediate urban centres, and the need to build their capacity to provide
them
the local power structures that govern the distribution of infrastructure and other
resources, and their susceptibility to elite capture
Consider types of migration
A focus on the nature rather than just the scale of urbanisation reveals the persistent
movement of people between rural and urban areas, in both directions. There are
many ways in which households straddle rural and urban areas through various livelihood
strategies (see Lynch, 2005, p. 96), including:
step-wise migration (village-town-city)
circular migration (driven by seasonal variation in labour demand)
chain migration (migrants follow their predecessors, and are assisted by them when
establishing an urban base)
multi-locational households (households have members in both rural and urban
areas)
Research in Africa also shows the persistence of circular migration between town and
country (Potts 2012), as widely observed in Francophone West Africa (Beauchemin &
Bocquier 2004). These mobility dynamics (including the flow of remittances) challenge the
prevailing assumption that rural-urban linkages are characterised primarily by rural to urban
migration (Lynch, 2005; Tacoli et al., 2008).
5.4.1 Changing identities of migrants
Migrants still primarily consist of traditional groups, such as young men, but also growing
numbers of young unmarried women, who have been previously unlikely to migrate (Tacoli,
2006). Research in Asia suggests that the independent migration of women is increasing
because of a growing demand for labour in urban services and industries (such as the
garment and construction industries), and because of growing social acceptance of women’s
economic independence and mobility (Deshingkar, 2006).
5.4.2 Issues faced by temporary migrants
Temporary migrants frequently lack access to basic urban services, particularly those that
require registration by local authorities, as in the case of ration cards in India (Deshingkar et
al., 2009). However, at the same time, it is not uncommon for migrants to be registered on
20
voters’ lists and manipulated by local politicians, who do not represent their needs or
priorities (ibid). Overall, many migrants often share many of the deprivations of the urban
poor, but tend to be even more invisible, with less political voice (Tacoli, 2009).
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
5.5
the various mobility strategies employed by the poor (and non-poor), and the
infrastructure required to support them
the need to recognise the contribution of circular migration to poverty reduction in
national and local poverty reduction strategies and plans, and the need to prioritise
the provision of services to migrants
the barriers facing migrants (particularly women and girls) in accessing services
the need to improve the capacity of local governments to provide services to
migrants
Consider the pressure on peri-urban areas
The costs of addressing infrastructure deficits (particularly in Africa) are likely to be
increasingly concentrated in peri-urban areas (Simon et al., 2006). Projections by the
Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (Angel et al. 2011) suggest that while the urban population in
low- and middle-income countries is expected to double between 2000 and 2030, the builtup area of their cities is expected to triple. Declining density trends reflect a broader process
of ‘peri-urbanisation’ or ‘suburbanisation’, which has typically been associated with North
American and European cities, but is becoming increasingly prevalent in Africa (Mabin et al.
2013) and Asia (Trân et al. 2012).
5.5.1 The need for more effective and equitable planning systems
Despite urban growth and expansion trends, urban plans (particularly ‘master’ plans)
in many low- and middle-income countries are both out of date and out of touch with
the needs, priorities and affordability requirements of urban populations, a large
share of which tend to be poor (McGranahan et al. 2008; UN-Habitat, 1999, 2009;
Watson, 2009). Often, conventional zoning bylaws and building regulations (e.g. standard
plot sizes, requirements for building materials and construction methods) pose prohibitive
costs that effectively price the vast majority of the urban poor out of formal land-for-housing
markets, as observed widely in Africa (UN-Habitat, 1999, 2010). This explains in large part
why so many people live in informal settlements, which accommodate up to 50% and 70% of
the population in many Asian and African cities, respectively (Mitlin & Satterthwaite, 2013).
Urban governance systems (in terms of government administration, infrastructure provision
and planning) are also becoming increasingly market-led and anti-poor (e.g. supporting
evictions to make way for private development) (Watson, 2009a; Allen, 2014). The growing
disconnection between urban planning and the socio-economic realities of cities has
meant that a significant share of urban growth and expansion has occurred informally
(i.e. without conforming to official rules and regulations) (UN-Habitat 2009). This has
particularly been the case in peri-urban areas, where planning control is often weak and
where people who cannot afford costly regulations build informally (Watson, 2009b).
In this context, it is often unenforceable and inappropriate planning regulations that
are to blame for the haphazard expansion of cities and for the associated challenges
and additional costs of providing and extending infrastructure retroactively. These
challenges and costs are compounded in instances where municipal cadastres – which
provide the basis for property registration and taxation (often the largest source of municipal
revenue) – are out of date and/or incomplete (Enemark, 2009).
21
The challenge, and opportunity, is to develop more effective and equitable planning
systems designed with the needs, priorities and affordability requirements of the poor
and those straddling between urban are rural areas in mind. This includes pro-poor land
administration systems that can be used as a legal basis for securing tenure and titles and
for collecting taxes to finance municipal infrastructure in ill-served urban and peri-urban
areas (including informal settlements and more rural customary areas) (Augustinus et al.
2006). These systems can help capture and distribute some of the surplus value arising from
the conversion of agricultural land into urban uses.
If these systems can be developed, then urban planning stands a real chance of managing
urban growth and expansion proactively. If not, then haphazard expansion is likely to
continue, and few groups are likely to pay a higher price than the peri-urban poor.
5.5.2 Peri-urban poor pay the price
The lack of decentralised provision of infrastructure and the limited integration of peri-urban
areas into the wider city have had significant consequences for the peri-urban poor. This
group tends to be neglected due to the nature of power relations at the municipal level,
where more powerful and vocal urban-based interests are often favoured (Hofmann, 2011).
Ability to pay for housing and associated utilities in serviced settlements, which tend to be
formally planned, is also a significant issue, as discussed above. In addition, competing
interests associated with increasing peri-urban land speculation are intensifying as real
estate developers actively seek to capitalise on the housing preferences of the burgeoning
middle-class in both Asia (Goldman, 2011) and Africa (Watson, 2013), including in many of
the LDCs (Leichenko & Solecki, 2005). These dynamics are resulting in new forms of
social and spatial fragmentation underpinned by evictions and the inequitable
provision of basic infrastructure (Allen, 2014), which are working to reinforce what
Graham and Marvin (2001) term ‘splintering urbanism’.
5.5.3 Ensuring infrastructure promotes equality
The growth of middle-class housing enclaves and the exclusive infrastructure networks that
support them re-affirms the importance of understanding peri-urban areas as heterogeneous
spaces and as sites of competing identity politics between self-interested middle- and upperclass groups and the peri-urban poor (Allen, 2014). Infrastructure provision should
therefore be seen as an inherently political undertaking in determining whose
interests prevail, and whose are ignored. If development practitioners overlook these
politics, their projects risk elite capture and the reinforcing of existing social and spatial
inequalities.
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
22
the changing nature of peri-urban areas
the specific forms of deprivation affecting the peri-urban poor
the underlying causes of this deprivation, including inappropriate planning regulations
and increasingly marked-led systems of urban governance
the role of infrastructure in reinforcing social and spatial inequalities by enabling
speculation and capital accumulation in land-for-housing markets, see case study in
section 6.1.4 for more information
the need for more effective and equitable urban planning systems that consider the
needs, priorities and affordability requirements of the urban and peri-urban poor
the need for land administration systems (including cadastre maps) that can be used
as a legal basis for securing tenure and titles and for collecting taxes to finance
municipal infrastructure in ill-served urban and peri-urban areas (including informal
settlements and more rural customary areas)
5.6
Use infrastructure to drive environmental sustainability
5.6.1 Consider ecological footprints
As urban areas grow and globalisation increases, urban areas will increasingly depend on
resources and ecological services away from their hinterlands, and often from distant
‘elsewheres’ (Rees, 1992; Wackernagel et al., 2006). The environmental impacts of these
links are captured by the concept of ecological footprints, which generally refer to the “area
of land and water ecosystems required, on a continuous basis, to produce the resources that
the population consumes and to assimilate the wastes that the population produces,” (Rees,
2001, pp. 6). In this regard, ecological footprints can be used by development practitioners to
measure and compare the environmental performance of cluster of cities in relation to their
immediate hinterland, and to understand the factors that drive unsustainable resource and
energy consumption patterns, (for a review of the impact of this processes on climate
change see Satterthwaite, 2008).
5.6.2 Adapt to climate change
Asia and Africa contain some of the populations most vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change, but the infrastructure and services required to adapt are widely lacking.
It is now widely recognised that improving access to quality housing, basic
infrastructure and services will determine whether urban areas will be able to
successfully adapt to the impacts of climate change, particularly in safeguarding the
lives and livelihoods of the (peri-)urban poor, who are typically the most ill-served (for a
comprehensive review commissioned by DFID see Dodman et al., 2013).
The following are critical factors in shaping vulnerability to climate change and disasters, all
of which require strong and accountable local governments to address:
greater exposure to hazards (e.g. through living in makeshift housing on unsafe sites)
lack of hazard-reducing infrastructure (e.g. drainage systems, roads allowing
emergency vehicle access)
less adaptive capacity (e.g. the ability to move to better quality housing of less
dangerous sites)
less state provision for assistance in the event of a disaster (indeed, state action may
increase exposure to hazards by limiting access to safer sites for housing)
less legal and financial protection (e.g. lack of legal tenure for housing sites, lack of
assets and insurance) (Dodman & Satterthwaite 2009, p. 69)
However, as noted above, current cost estimates for ‘climate proofing’ existing infrastructure
do not take into account the significant backlog in basic infrastructure and services in urban
areas of low- and middle-income countries (Ayers 2009). For instance, Parry et al. (2009)
estimate that the costs of upgrading poor-quality housing and providing infrastructure alone
for the expansion of the urban population in low and middle-income countries will amount to
USD$315 billion per year (considering 2009 figures) over a 20 year period. In addition,
investments required to adapt upgraded infrastructure to meet the impacts of climate change
will amount to an extra USD$16-63 billion per year.
23
However, it is important to note that, even if adequate finance were available, there is no
guarantee that successful adaptation would occur due to the inability of the poorest and
most vulnerable groups to access, and then to use, this finance on their own terms (Ayers
2009). Meanwhile, urban areas continue to grow and expand without proper planning and
infrastructure, and without the institutions and appropriate financing mechanisms
(particularly regarding urban adaptation finance) required to address these deficits (Smith et
al., 2014).
In addition, climate change is likely to intensify the mobility of people and the dynamics of
people's flows between urban and rural areas, in combination with income diversification, as
an adaptation strategy (Tacoli, 2009). In all probability, environmental degradation will
contribute to the growing need to ensure access to non-farm economic activities through
mobility, particularly in small towns and large villages where these activities are largely
concentrated (ibid). Moreover, disaster and climate risk might be increasing faster in small
and intermediate urban centres than in large cities due to poor governance and limited
institutional capacity (UNISDR 2011).
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
the important role of quality housing with adequate provision for basic infrastructure
and services in reducing risk
the systematic barriers that prevent finance from being channelled to the poorest and
most vulnerable groups, particularly in building and adapting basic infrastructure
the financial resources and support that migrants require
the need to address migration and small and intermediate urban centres as key
priority areas in national poverty reduction and climate change adaptation strategies
and policies
5.6.3 Decouple urban development from unsustainable production and
consumption
Because infrastructure is long-lasting, it can shape resource needs for decades to come
(Wackernagel et al. 2006). Infrastructure can therefore play a key role in decoupling
urban development from unsustainable production and consumption patterns (UNEP,
2013). Moreover, while low- and middle-income countries typically have smaller urban
ecological footprints than high-income countries, many are in the initial stages of
urbanisation, which represents an opportunity for infrastructure to achieve this decoupling.
However, decisions about protecting resources and ecosystems (particularly from
informal settlement growth) tend to be dominated by ecological issues that do not
consider issues of equity or justice. As a result, interventions to regulate urban expansion
through, for example, containment policies (e.g. greenbelts and other urban growth
boundaries) and non-service provision (i.e. refusing to provide services to particular groups),
have tended to safeguard certain resources and ecosystem services at the expense of the
peri-urban poor while failing to constrain high-value speculative developments (Allen, 2014).
For instance, a study of Chennai, Dar es Salaam, Cairo, Mexico City and Caracas found
that, for the peri-urban poor, ‘living far from the pipes’ has become a permanent rather than
temporary condition, reflecting a broader planning process oriented toward the combined
preservation and commodification of valued environmental attributes beyond built-up areas
(Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b).
24
In this context, development practitioners should consider:
the need to balance the protection of vital ecosystem services from unsustainable
patterns of urban growth and expansion, while also ensuring the rights of the periurban poor and those straddling between rural and urban areas to access
infrastructure.
25
SECTION 6
Examples of infrastructure that builds
reciprocal rural-urban linkages
Key questions for development practitioners
How can infrastructure, and the services they support, build reciprocal rural-urban
linkages in Asia and Africa?
Why does infrastructure need to be conceptualised more holistically to achieve this
objective?
What examples exist of infrastructure being used to promote reciprocal rural-urban
linkages?
Key takeaways
Poverty can be reduced through the development of transport systems that connect
peri-urban areas to the city centre and are integrated within broader upgrading
programmes.
ID cards can be used positively to allow rural migrants to access urban services.
Peri-urban aquaculture and agriculture can reduce poverty, while also enhancing
food security and providing integral waste treatment services for the wider city.
If not handled well, infrastructure investments can enable real estate development
and speculation, while undermining local livelihoods and urban food security, thus
reinforcing social and environmental inequalities.
Accessible information communication technology such as ICT infrastructure can
support affordable mobile services that benefit the poor by enhancing the flow of
information and income across urban and rural areas.
Systems that allow local administrations to work closely with communities at all levels
to co-manage natural resources can help minimise and prevent environmental
damage.
Having dealt with key conceptual and empirical issues in Section 2.0 and key infrastructure
considerations in Section 3.0, this section draws on a number of case studies from Asia and
Africa to show advisers how infrastructure, and the services they support, can work to build
reciprocal rural-urban linkages in rapidly urbanising contexts. Case studies are presented for
each flow illustrated in Figure 1 above, although production and waste flows have been
combined to show how they can work together (Section 4.1.3). In addition, ecological
services and natural resources (e.g. water) have been combined to show how the former
often facilitates the sustainability of the latter (Section 4.1.5).
6.1
Case studies
This section draws on a number of case studies from Asia and Africa, but also Latin
America, to show advisers how infrastructure, and the services it supports, can work to build
reciprocal rural-urban linkages in rapidly urbanising contexts. Each case study draws from
good practice, but also from examples that show how infrastructure can undermine ruralurban linkages, especially if the needs and priorities of the poor are overlooked.
26
6.1.1 Peri-urbanurban movement of people: the Metrocable in Medellín,
Colombia
Infrastructure that strengthens local transportation linkages within networks of settlements,
rather than just between growth centres and international markets, is recommended by
Douglass' (1998) regional network approach, as outlined above (Section 4.5).
Recent research has also emphasised the importance of strengthening intra-urban transport
systems to enhance the mobility of women and men (Levy, 2013). The case study below
provides an example of how investment in these systems can address longstanding
imbalances between peri-urban areas and city centres, while providing affordable, lowcarbon public transportation services for all citizens.
This case provides relevant insight into how municipal governments in other regions of the
world (including in Africa and Asia) can address similar issues through the development of
transport systems that are integrated with a broader set of urban development planning
interventions.
Box 3 Metrocable in Medellín: enhancing people’s mobility and urban economic integration
An innovative cable-car development i Medellí , Colo ia s se o d la gest ity, is seeki g
to reduce poverty and integrate large marginalised areas into the urban fabric.
A two-year research project led by the Development Planning Unit (DPU), with funding from
the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and DFID, has examined the efficacy of this
approach.
It focused particularly on the impact of two aerial cable-car lines connecting high-density
hilly neighbourhoods, marked by years of severe poverty and violence, with the rest of the
city, and an associated urban upgrading programme.
The development, launched in 2004, marked the first time anywhere that conventional ski
lift te h ology as used to o e t poo eigh ou hoods ith the ity s o e -ground train.
The cable-cars provide a fast, low-emission mode of transport in steeply sloping terrain
broken by deep smaller valleys. The first line, built at a cost of under US$30 million, was
followed in 2008 by a second line in a different part of the city. Both were designed to
accommodate up to 30,000 trips per day. A third line was opened in 2010 to connect the
end of the first line with a natural park some 800 metres above the river valley.
Apart from documenting the institutional foundation and technical features of the cable-car
intervention, the research project also examined the extent to which it led to improvements
a o g poo o
u ities. The fi di gs sho ho the ity s i est e t i a o p ehe si e
upgrading programme in the areas served by the cable-car lines (involving social housing,
increased public space, new libraries and schools, and economic support to local residents in
the fo of t ai i g a d e ploy e t i pu li o ks) has had a ide i pa t o eside ts
quality of life beyond transport improvements. One key feature is that the new public
facilities are designed using high-quality materials, a deliberate reversal of the conventional
approach of providing low-quality services for the poor. Using principles of participatory
budgeting whereby local residents collectively decide the use of public investment, the city
27
authorities have sought to change an entrenched culture of patron-client politics that
resulted in small-scale public works and opportunities for political middlemen to cream off
commissions.
At the core of the cable-car project is a major shift in local politics, one that recognises the
deeply e t e hed a d g o i g so ial i e ualities a o gst the ity s populatio , a d
actively strives for a more socially just city. All of this, coupled with much improved security,
has resulted in significant numbers of outside visitors, including international tourists, to
what was formerly a no-go a ea, ith isi le effe ts o lo al eside ts o se se of selfestee a d i lusio i to the ity s life.
Source: Dávila (2013)
6.1.2 Ruralurban movement of people:‘ migration infrastructure’ in India
The analysis of migration types in Section 5.4 showed that policies need to address the
access of poor migrants, and other vulnerable groups, to services. The case study below on
the Grameen Vikas Trust in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, India (Box 4) provides an
example of how barriers to access can be overcome through the provision of identification
(ID) cards as a form of ‘migration infrastructure’. Such soft infrastructure – in addition to that
traditionally used to support physical and virtual mobility (such as roads and ICT) – is
becoming increasingly important as the involvement of state officials in the migration process
becomes more extensive, especially in Asia. However, it is important to note that there is
nothing inherently inclusive about ID cards, which can also be used to impede the movement
of particular groups of migrants deemed by urban officials to have limited economic potential
and/or to be putting additional strains on already overburdened services.
Box 4 The Grameen Vikas Trust in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, India: providing identity cards
to migrants
Studies in India show that temporary migrants are frequently unable to access basic urban
services (Deshingkar & Anderson, 2004; Deshingkar, 2006; Deshingkar et al., 2009).
Moreover, governments often claim, without evidence, that improving access to urban
services (particularly in low-income informal settlements) will only attract more migrants to
overburdened cities (McGranahan et al. 2008). Non-service provision (as a form of anti-poor
regulation) is clearly counterproductive in light of current mobility dynamics. Thus, a key
question for development practitionersis how migrants and other marginalised groups can
gain access to urban services.
One NGO that is addressing this question is the Grameen Vikas Trust in Madhya Pradesh and
Gujarat, India, which began providing ID cards to migrants in 2005 under the Migrant Labour
Support Programme (MLSP) (Faetanini & Tankha 2013). These cards have proven successful
in helping migrants deal with police, who often challenge them at railway stations and on
street corners (ibid; Deshingkar & Anderson, 2004). In 2007, after two years of advocacy,
the Ministry of Labour and Employment in Rajasthan finally recognised the card as a valid
proof of identity when dealing with the police, employers and local administrations. In
addition, the card has now become a gateway to accessing other services, such as
enrolment in social security services, employer verification and opening bank accounts
(Faetanini & Tankha 2013).
28
6.1.3 Urbanperi-urban movement of waste: peri-urban aquaculture and
agriculture in Kolkata, India
Urban poverty is on the rise (Mitlin & Satterthwaite 2013) – and so too is the practice of
urban agriculture (RUAF Foundation and ICLEI, 2013). More than ever, the urban and periurban poor are cultivating plots or keeping animals to sustain their livelihoods or enhance
their food security (Allen and Frediani, 2013). The case study below on Kolkata (Box 5)
shows how peri-urban aquaculture and agriculture can achieve similar benefits, while also
enhancing food security and providing integral waste treatment services for the wider city. In
doing so, peri-urban aquaculture and agriculture function in a similar way to ecological
infrastructure, which also facilitates the flow of ecosystem services between urban and rural
areas, and vice versa.
Box 5 Waste-fed peri-urban aquaculture and agriculture systems in Kolkata
As the capital of West Bengal in East India, the urban agglomeration of Kolkata, comprised
of 72 cities and 527 towns, houses approximately 14.3 million people (UNDESA, 2014). The
re-use of u a aste has ee a t aditio si e the 8th e tu y esta lish e t of the ity s
waste disposal site on the periphery .
Today, the use of solid urban waste is still largely confined to plots surrounding the solid
waste disposal site (Kundu, 2005; Bunting et al., 2002), where vegetable plots are fertilised
with solid waste. After some opportunistic farmers started to exploit sewage that had
undergone biological treatment through aquaculture ponds to cultivate fish and vegetables,
a secondary canal network was constructed throughout the peri-urban interface to connect
ponds and plots. Water hyacinths in the fishponds absorb a variety of pollutants and thus
perform a natural sewage treatment before the wastewater is subsequently used for
horticulture, vegetable and rice farming (Juniper 2004).
Nowadays, an estimated 30–5 pe e t of the ity s se age is t eated th ough the
fishponds in the East Kolkata Wetlands (EKW), which extend over an area of 12,500 hectares
(Bunting et al., 2010; Kundu, 2010). In addition, the livelihoods of many peri-urban poor
people are intrinsically tied to the use of urban waste in aquaculture and agriculture as they
carry out different farming-related support activities (Kundu, 2005; Milwain, 2001). At the
same time, wastewater-fed aquaculture supplies nearby urban markets with fresh fish
throughout the year (Bunting et al., 2006). I
, the EKW as de la ed a etla d of
i te atio al i po ta e u de the ‘a sa o e tio y the I dia go e
e t. While
this practice has been happening largely without formal support, new legislation reinforced
by a new management plan for EKW aims to protect and enhance the area and its functions.
Source: Hofmann (2013)
6.1.4 International peri-urban flow of capital and income: foreign
investments in middle-class housing in Accra, Ghana
As discussed in Section 5.4.2, there is a need to understand how the peri-urban interface is
increasingly attracting upscale housing markets. The case study on Accra below shows how
infrastructure investments might enable real estate development and speculation, while
29
undermining local livelihoods and urban food security, thus reinforcing social and spatial
inequalities. The case study also shows how different flows of capital and income are
shaping peri-urban areas at different scales through foreign investment and income remitted
by the diaspora in new housing construction. It serves as a reminder to development
practitionersto be aware of the potential damage that higher-income housing projects can
have on poor households if not carefully managed. The case also shows how real estate
markets are globalising and the consequences this can have for the peri-urban poor
struggling to find secure and adequate housing or to sustain farming practices.
Box 6 Foreign investments in middle-class housing markets in Accra
Recent studies (see Goldman, 2011; Grant, 2009; Leichenko & Solecki, 2005; Mabin et al.,
2013; Watson, 2013) show that foreign investment in upscale housing construction on
former agricultural land is rapidly expanding across Asia and Africa, fuelled by growing
demand among the burgeoning middle-class. This trend is particularly evident in Accra,
where the diaspora are believed to be channelling most of their remittances towards real
estate (Grant 2009). To capitalise on this investment, international developers (particularly
in China) are targeting significant tracts of land for western-style su u a housi g
construction, including one project covering over 400 acres of land northeast of the city (for
further details see Allen, 2014).
To ake ay fo these p oje ts, A a s de elop e t st ategy, despite its g ee
edentials,
stipulates that urban agriculture is to be pushed into surrounding municipalities, where
competition for land is lower. Under this strategy, the prospect of protecting peri-urban
agriculture and its role in supporting local livelihoods and in co t i uti g to A a s food
security appears to be in jeopardy. Moreover, because low-income informal settlements are
often located on valuable land, new housing projects often involve the eviction and
relocation of the peri-urban poor.
These new internationally-funded housing projects depend on capital investments in
infrastructure financed and built increasingly through public-private partnerships between
international property developers and municipal governments. Because these governance
arrangements primarily serve the interests of private capital, infrastructure investment and
development is, in many cases, working to reinforce existing inequalities between the
growing number of well-serviced upscale housing enclaves and the growing number of unserviced low-income informal settlements (see Watson, 2013). In this context, enhancing
access to basic infrastructure and services is often a matter of a vigorous contest between
competing interests in land, highlighting a significant governance challenge for advisers, but
also for organisations formed by excluded groups.
6.1.5 Rural urban movement of information: ICT, M-PESA and the flow of
remittances in Kenya
The provision of accessible ICT infrastructure is supporting a growing number of affordable
mobile services that are working to benefit the poor by enhancing the flow of information and
income. Specifically, the case study below on M-PESA (Box 7) shows how mobile money
services in Kenya can facilitate the flow of remittances across space and scale. In doing so,
the case study shows how income and information can be exchanged instantaneously
between previously disconnected people and places.
30
Box 7 M-PESA and the flow of remittances in Kenya
M-PESA, a Kenyan mobile money service created by the mobile company Safaricom,
facilitates a variety of financial transactions through mobile phones. Customers first register
with a retail outlet (there are nearly 9,000 outlets in Kenya, in both urban and rural areas)
before receiving an individual electronic money account, which can be used to transfer
money to both registered and non-registered users, check account balances, pay bills,
pu hase o top-up pho e edit, t a sfe pho e edit to othe use s, a d ake ash
deposits and withdrawals from authorised M-PESA agents (Mas & Morawczynski, 2009).
These services are commonly used to send remittances to family members in distant
locations, both nationally and internationally (Hughes & Lonie 2007). In addition to
supporting family members back home or abroad, Jack & Suri (2009) suggest that the
inconspicuous and electronic nature of M-PESA could also permit people to increase their
personal savings, since friends and relatives would be less likely to know about their savings.
As of 2009, over eight million customers had registered with M-PESA, over 40 per cent of
Kenyans had used the service to send and receive money, and over USD $3.7 billion (nearly
pe e t of Ke ya s a ual GDP) had ee t a sfe ed et ee use s (Aker & Mbiti
2010). As the service continues to grows, so too do the linkages between people,
i fo atio a d a kets, ith sig ifi a t pote tial fo i p o i g peoples li es a d
livelihoods.
6.1.6 Ruralurban movement of ecosystems services: a co-management
approach to sustainable watershed utilisation in peri-urban Ghana
Healthy ecosystems are needed to sustain vital services for urban areas, which often
depend on the surrounding region for supplies of food, water and waste disposal systems
(Tuts, 2012; Wackernagel et al., 2006). As defined by the Millennium Ecosystems
Assessment (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – TEEB, 2010), these
‘ecosystem services’ include a number of categories:
Provisioning services provide food, water, raw materials, biofuels and medicinal
resources.
Regulating services regulate the quality of air, soil and water, provide flood and
disease control, provide pollination services, regulate pests and prevent disease.
Habitat or supporting services provide living spaces for plants or animals, and
maintain a diversity of plants and animals.
Cultural services foster the non-material benefits people obtain from contact with
ecosystems, including aesthetic, spiritual, educational and psychological benefits, as
well as public health and recreational opportunities (see Tuts 2012, pp. 61).
The flow of ecosystem services between urban and rural areas can be strengthened by
maintaining or rehabilitating ecological infrastructure (e.g. watersheds, wetlands, aquifers,
mangroves etc.) as a cost-effective strategy for improving water and food security,
sustaining livelihoods, reducing poverty and building resilience to disasters and the impacts
of climate change (Tuts 2012). For instance, remediating riparian ecosystems can enhance
flood management as a form of ‘ecosystem-based adaptation’ (for useful guidance see
Travers et al., 2012).
31
In the other direction, it is important to recognise that the flow of hazardous urban waste and
pollutants can degrade ecosystems and natural resources, while jeopardising environmental
health and livelihoods (particularly among the poorest groups) in peri-urban and rural areas
(McGranahan, et al. 2004).
The case study below on co-management approaches to sustainable watershed utilisation in
peri-urban Kumasi (Box 8) provides an example of how the sustainable utilisation of the
environment and natural resources can be approached holistically.
Box 8 A co-management approach to sustainable watershed in Peri-Urban Kumasi
A three-year research project in Ghana has developed systems that allow local
administrations to work closely with peri-urban communities at all levels to co-manage
natural resources.
The project ran between 1999 and March 2002 and was funded by DFID under the Natural
Resources Systems Programme. It focused on the watershed/catchment principle in which
flows of nutrients and pollutants are determined by the location of activities along the
drainage network. Case studies of eight villages were used to assess the environmental
problems and solutions in two key (sub-)catchments within greater Kumasi.
The findings were used to inform the development of a participatory Watershed
Management Framework for the sustainable co-management of the environment and
natural resources at the watershed level. The management framework emphasised
partnership building between local and district/metropolitan stakeholders and local
communities at three interdependent scales: the whole catchment or sub-catchment;
individual villages or communities within the (sub-)catchment; and micro-projects and other
activities within villages that serve as catalysts for collaborative organisation, action and
maintenance.
The evaluation of the project found that activities were positive overall, although results
varied between villages. Particular challenges included getting an audience for research and
awareness raising activities, as is common in many peri-urban areas undergoing rapid
urbanisation. It was also stressed how community priorities change over time with
urbanisation and growing land pressures, particularly on remaining agricultural land. The
changing nature and dynamism of peri-urban areas presented clear challenges for sustaining
a holistic approach to watershed management, but also opportunities to identify new
activities and to develop new strategies for minimising environmental impacts.
Source: McGregor et al. (2006)
32
6.2
Different types of infrastructure for building reciprocal ruralurban linkages
Key takeaways
There are different types of infrastructure that can build reciprocal rural-urban
linkages, which will require more holistic thinking when planning and designing
interventions.
The above requires identifying the institutions and systems of governance that are
ultimately responsible for financing and providing infrastructure that supports
reciprocal linkages, particularly at the local level.
Based on the case studies above, it is clear that different types of infrastructure are required
to build reciprocal rural-urban linkages, beyond traditional forms of ‘hard’ infrastructure
limited to capital assets. These types, including their developmental focuses, functions and
key development issues, are outlined below in Table 2.
It should be noted that this table is not intended to rigidly classify infrastructure, but rather to
highlight the different types and the range of development issues that need to be considered
in building reciprocal rural-urban linkages in Asia and Africa and elsewhere across the global
South. Crucially, the institutions and systems of governance (as a form of ‘soft’
infrastructure) that are ultimately responsible for financing and providing this infrastructure
must also be addressed. The following section therefore examines the governance of
infrastructure provision in building reciprocal rural-urban linkages, with a particular focus on
the need to build stronger and more accountable local institutions.
Infrastructure
Economic/
productive
Developmental focus
Transport, ICT and energy,
finance systems
Function
Strengthening
economic linkages
and livelihoods
Water, waste and other
production inputs
Protective
Social
Ecological
Adequate provision of
protective infrastructure
(e.g. safe drinking water,
sanitation, drainage, solid
waste management, local
roads)
Safety nets, education,
health care and other
basic services, including
the documentation
required to access these
(e.g. ‘migration
infrastructure’)
Sustaining and
remediating ecological
systems that provide key
services to urban, rural
and peri-urban areas
Reducing risk and
building resilience
Key development issues
Exploitative rural-urban exchanges
and dominant local interactions
between political and economic
elites
Environmental sustainability,
health protection and the
livelihoods of the poor
Access to land and tenure systems
(formal and informal)
Social welfare,
protection and
development
Accessibility to marginalised
groups, including migrants
(especially in urban areas and
small towns)
Enhancing
ecological
sustainability
Regional planning considerations
in environmental planning and
management across jurisdictional
boundaries, and the involvement of
local communities in partnership
with other stakeholders at various
levels
33
Infrastructure
Soft
Developmental focus
Decentralised systems of
accountable local
governance
Function
Provision and
management of the
above
infrastructure and
services
Key development issues
Equitable access to decisionmaking processes and planning
procedures. Existence of civil
society organisations representing
the needs and priorities of the poor
Table 2 Different types of infrastructure for building reciprocal rural-urban linkages
34
SECTION 7
The importance of governance in building
reciprocal rural-urban linkages: the example of
Watsan
This report has already looked at the role of infrastructure in building reciprocal rural-urban
linkages. It will conclude by discussing the various approaches and governance
arrangements that underpin pro-poor service delivery and infrastructure provision at the local
level.
This is viewed through the lens of a particular example of service delivery - that of water and
sanitation services and draws from well-established literature on the subject (see Allen et al.,
2006a and 2006b; Allen, 2010, 2013).
Key questions for development practitioners
What approaches to service delivery are relevant for addressing the needs and
priorities of the poor, particularly in peri-urban areas?
What kind of institutions and governance arrangements are required to provide
infrastructure and services to people living in poverty, and at what scale?
Key summary points and takeaways
7.1
Diverse service providers (from the public, private, and community sectors) exist in
peri-urban areas and they support various approaches, including those that are
‘policy-driven’ and ‘needs-driven’.
The peri-urban poor rarely have access to formal facilities and services operated by
the public or the formal private sector, so they depend largely on ‘needs-driven’
approaches.
The state and large-scale privatised networks have been unable to meet the scale of
need (particularly for adequate water and sanitation), so a closer engagement with
other actors (including CBOs that represent the most ill-served groups) is required to
fill the gap.
Local governments have a key role to play in providing the infrastructure and
services and in fostering collaboration across administrative boundaries, so they
require adequate financial support and appropriate incentives from national
governments and international agencies.
The spectrum of service providers
In the water and sanitation sector, for example, as examined in detail by Allen et al. (2006a
and 2006b), the peri-urban poor gain access to services through a wide range of practices
and arrangements. Development practitioners seeking to improve the quality of service
delivery in their projects need to acquire a thorough understanding of these
arrangements, which are often particularly complex in poor areas (many being periurban).
35
7.1.1 The ‘Water Supply Wheel’: An analytical tool
The Water Supply Wheel in Figure 4 provides development practitioners with a
conceptual tool to develop a more complete understanding of local practices and
arrangements involving the provision of water in peri-urban areas, which could also
be applied to other services with complex arrangements. The Wheel outlines a
continuous spectrum of policy and needs-driven practices the latter prevailing in peri-urban
areas. The left side includes formal, ‘policy-driven’ mechanisms explicitly supported by the
state through both public and private utilities. The right side includes a wide array of ‘needsdriven’ arrangements operating on the basis of solidarity, reciprocity or need, such as the
provision of water as a gift among community members, as well as cases of water-pushcart
vendors who might access water through different means and sell it to members of their own
community.
Whilst policy-driven mechanisms can be clearly identified from the perspective of production
and provision, the needs-driven arrangements are best examined and understood from the
perspective of access and, in particular, from the viewpoint of highly localized strategies
adopted by the peri-urban poor, many of which are not supported by the state.
The Water Supply Wheel also shows the role of the public, private and community sectors in
the provision of water, and the extent to which these roles are based on cooperative
arrangements across two or three of these sectors and at different scales. None of the three
sectors can be regarded as homogeneous; for example, the public sector might be present
in the form of either highly centralized state agencies or of decentralized local bodies.
Similarly, at a community level there might be arrangements marked by some degree of
formalization, such as community schemes actively supported by the public sector or by
external NGOs, as well as more informal relations of cooperation on the basis of solidarity
ties.
Figure 4 Policy-driven and needs-driven practices in the ‘Water Supply Wheel’
Source: Adapted from Allen et al (2006a)
36
7.2
Addressing pro-poor service provision: beyond the publicprivate divide
As Allen (2010) points out, there now seems to be widespread agreement that, in low- and
middle-income countries, the state alone will be unable to meet international targets for
reducing the number of urban dwellers with no access to clean water (Nunan &
Satterthwaite, 2001; World Bank, 2003). This is a legacy of decades of supply-led
engineering approaches with high operating costs and under-utilised investment, unrealistic
standards and general disregard for the needs of informal or ‘illegal’ settlements.
7.2.1 Issues with private provision of services
Private sector participation in the provision of water and sanitation utilities has become
widespread in urban areas, despite local resistance. However, due to a lack of capacity to
manage large-scale privatised networks, in many countries local capital is largely excluded
from this process so foreign investors control divested public utilities and concessions.
The collapse of large-scale contracts with multi-national companies in cities such as Buenos
Aires or Dar es Salaam compound doubts about the capacity of the market to fill the gap.
With few exceptions (see Nickson, 2001), attempts to involve private investors in water and
sanitation have rarely yielded the desired expansion of coverage to low-income urban and
peri-urban settlements, regarded as less profitable than wealthier and more central areas of
cities (Batley, 1996; Adam et al., 1992; Cook & Kirkpatrick, 1988). Furthermore, outside of
purely urban areas, there is persistent lack of recognition of the various actors involved in
servicing the peri-urban poor, such as community-based organisations (CBOs), local
contractors and small (often informal) service providers (Allen et al., 2006a and 2006b).
In practice, a fault line exists between the idea of the state as guarantor of basic
service delivery, encompassing notions of social equity and basic rights to resources,
and market-based approaches that focus on cost recovery and the financial
sustainability of service supply.
7.2.2 The value of public/community partnerships
Figure 6 presents a model by the Asian Development Bank, which indicates that, often, the
poor and moderately poor are best serviced by public/community partnerships. The model
suggests that because of pricing issues, public-private partnerships are less effective in
serving the poor.
37
Figure 5 Efficiency and participatory developments: partnerships. Adapted from: Banyard
(2004)
7.3
Decentralised service delivery and infrastructure provision at
the local government level
Decentralised service provision involving small-scale actors appears to be the most effective
way of delivering basic services to many of the peri-urban poor and those straddling
between urban and rural jurisdictions (Allen 2010). The case study below on decentralised
wastewater management in Dar es Salaam (Box 9) provides an example of how this can be
achieved in ways that also support productive activities. However, efforts by policymakers
and bureaucrats often still focus on centralised systems that do little to improve access to
basic infrastructure and services among the peri-urban poor (Calagus & Roaf, 2001;
Schaub-Jones, 2006). Meanwhile, the continued debate around public or private service
delivery has missed the question of who will serve the peri-urban poor, which is
fundamentally a question of governance (Allen, 2010; McGranahan & Satterthwaite, 2006).
Box 9 Decentralised wastewater management in Dar es Salaam
Decentralised wastewater management was first piloted in Dar es Salaam in Kigamboni
ward by UMAWA, a community enterprise associated with a CBO. The company has four
staff members dedicated to running a pit-emptying service using gulper technology (a pump
system to empty pits transported on a motorised tricycle), which is currently operating in
two sub-wards. The operators charge between TSh30,000 and 60,000 (£11-22) per trip
depe di g o people s a ility to pay, dista e f o the usi ess lo atio a d a ou t of
wastewater emptied. UMAWA recently managed to secure a loan from Tujijenge, a microfinance institution, to increase the capacity of the business and carry out major
maintenance work. The business is working on a strategy to branch out into other areas of
the city through close collaboration with the municipality and local government
representatives at sub-ward level. Critical issues here are access to finance and availability
of land.
In 2013, UMAWA installed a DEWATS (Decentralised Wastewater Treatment System) for
38
onsite treatment of wastewater to replace the previously used transfer station. This new
system has substantially improved the financial viability of the business as it led to
reductions in the operating costs and an increase in the volume of wastewater that can be
handled per day. Additionally, the DEWATS produces biogas for cooking purposes and
manure to fertilise vegetable plots.
DEWATS were developed by BORDA, a German Research and Development Association.
They provide a decentralised, low-cost and low-maintenance way of dealing with domestic
and industrial wastewater. Today, the BORDA network has trained over 1,000 participants
from NGOs, governments and the private sector in order to assist with implementing,
maintaining and spreading the uptake of DEWATS. There are currently over 250 DEWATS
operating in different countries (http://www.borda-net.org/basic-needsservices/decentralized-wastewater-treatment.html).
Source: produced by Hofmann based on fieldwork conducted in Dar es Salaam during August
and September 2014.
7.3.1 The importance of decentralisation
A recurrent theme emerging from this Topic Guide is the centrality of local governments as
enablers of urban and rural development, whether in partnership with CBOs (particularly
involving processes of service co-production between grassroots organisations and local
government authorities – see Allen, 2013) or in implementing national programmes. It is also
becoming increasingly recognised that local governments are fundamental to achieving the
MDGs, given their mandates to ensure basic infrastructure and services, which the
achievement of many of these goals depend on (Satterthwaite et al., 2013).
Most decentralisation policies, however, have been implemented without commensurate
resources from national governments and without adequate support by international
agencies, placing significant strain on local governments to deliver on their mandates (ibid).
There is thus a clear need for decentralised systems of governance that support real local
decision-making power, budgetary control and genuine participation in local planning. This is
particularly the case in small and intermediate urban centres where institutional and fiscal
capacity is often particularly weak (UN-Habitat 2006).
International agencies, which have traditionally engaged national governments, would
therefore be well-positioned to engage much more closely with local governments given their
potential to foster collaboration across administrative divisions. However, in doing so, it is
important not to overlook the vital role that national governments play not only in ceding
urban governments with the funding and revenue-generating powers that are commensurate
with their responsibilities (see Satterthwaite et al., 2013), but also in providing them with the
incentives to create infrastructure that benefits poor communities beyond their administrative
boundaries. Indeed, urban governments often have little incentive to take responsibility for
investment serving low-income rural migrants. This is partly because they do not want to
attract more of them into their urban areas, thereby putting additional stress on
overburdened services and existing financial liabilities (McGranahan et al. 2008), as
highlighted by the case study on ID cards in India (Section 6.1.2).
39
Ultimately, investing in infrastructure that builds reciprocal rural-urban linkages and benefits
people in urban, rural and intermediate locations will require a closer engagement with the
spectrum of actors that are involved, including local and national governments, the private
sector (notably small-scale service providers), and the local CBOs that represent the most illserved groups.
40
References
Adam, C., Cavendish, W. & Mistry, P., 1992. Adjusting privitization: case studies from
developing countries, London: James Curry, Ltd.
Aker, J.C. & Mbiti, I.M., 2010. Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), pp.207–232. Available at:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/abs/10.1257/jep.24.3.207.
Alber, G., 2009. Gender and Climate Change Policy. In J. G. Guzán et al., eds. Population
Dynamics and Climate Change. London: IIED and UNFPA, pp. 149–163.
Allen, A., 2003. Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface:
perpsectives on an emerging field. Environment & Urbanization, 15(1), pp.135–147.
Available at: http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/095624780301500103
[Accessed April 29, 2014].
Allen, A., 1999. Environmental Problems and opportunities of the peri-urban interface and
their impact upon the poor, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, University
College London.
Allen, A., 2010. Neither Rural nor Urban: Service Delivery Options That Work for the Periurban Poor. In Peri-urban Water and Sanitation Services: Policy, Planning and
Method. London and New York: Springer, pp. 27–62.
Allen, A., 2014. Peri-urbanization and the political ecology of differential sustainability. In S.
Parnell & S. Oldfield, eds. The Routledge Handbook on Cities of the Global South.
Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Allen, A., 2013. Water provision for and by the peri-urban poor: public-community
partnerships or citizens coproduction? In Urban sustainability: a global perspective.
East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 309–340.
Allen, A., Dávila, J.D. & Hofmann, P., 2006a. Governacne of Water and Sanitation Services
for the Peri-urban Poor, London: University College London.
Allen, A., Dávila, J.D. & Hofmann, P., 2006b. Governance of water and sanitation for the
peri-urban poor: a framework for understanding and action in metropolitan regions,
London: University College London.
Allen, A. & Frediani, A.A., 2013. Farmers, not gardeners: The making of environmentally just
spaces in Accra. City, 17(3), pp.37–41. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13604813.2013.796620 [Accessed April
29, 2014].
Angel, S. et al., 2011. Making Room for a Planet of Cities, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Atkins & DPU, 2012. Future Proofing Cities, London: University College London.
Augustinus, C., Lemmen, C. & van Oosterom, P., 2006. Social tenure domain model:
requirements from the perspective of pro-poor land management, 5th FIG regional
conference: promoting land adminstration and good governance, March 2006, Accra,
Ghana.
Ayers, J., 2009. International funding to support urban adaptation to climate change.
Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), pp.225–240. Available at:
http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247809103021 [Accessed May 9,
2014].
Banyard, J., 2004. Water for the world - Why is it so difficult?, Proceedings of the 5th Brunel
International Lecture, ICE, London, 2004.
Bartlett, S., 2008. Climate change and urban children: Impacts and implications for
adaptation in low- and middle-income countries, IIED Working Paper. Theme:
Climate Change and Cities - 2, London.
Batley, R., 1996. Public-private relationships and performance in service provision. Urban
Studies, 33(4-5), pp.723–751.
41
Beauchemin, C. & Bocquier, P., 2004. Migration and urbanisation in francophone West
Africa: an overview of the recent empirical evidence. Urban Studies, 41(11),
pp.2245–2272. Available at:
http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1080/0042098042000268447 [Accessed April 29,
2014].
Brenner, N. & Schmid, C., 2014. The “Urban Age” in Question. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 38(3), pp.731–755. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1468-2427.12115 [Accessed April 29, 2014].
Brook, R. & Dávila, J.D., 2000. The Peri-Urban Interface-A tale of two cities, School of
Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor and The Bartlett
Development Planning Unit, University College London.
Bunting, S.W., Kundu, N. & Mukherjee, M., 2002. Situation analysis: production systems and
natural resource management in PU Kolkata, Stirling, UK.
Bunting, S.W., Little, D. & Leschen, W., 2006. Urban aquatic production. In R. van
Veenhuizen, ed. Cities Farming for the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and
Productive Cities. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation/IDRC/IRR, pp. 381–
412.
Bunting, S.W., Pretty, J. & Edwards, P., 2010. Wastewater-fed aquaculture in the East
Kolkata Wetlands, India: anachronism or archetype for resilient ecocultures?
Reviews in Aquaculture, 2(3), pp.138–153.
Calagus, B. & Roaf, V., 2001. Access to water and sanitation by the urban poor, Paper
presented at the Development Studies Association Conference, Manchester, 10
September.
Cook, P. & Kirkpatrick, C., 1988. Privitization in less developed countries, Brighton:
Wheatsheaf.
Dávila, J.D., 2013. Urban Mobility and Poverty: Lessons from Medellin and Soacha,
Colombia, London: The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL and Universidad
Nacional de Colombia.
Dávila, J.D., Budds, J. & Minaya, A., 1999. A review of policies and strategies affecting the
peri-urban interface, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, University College
London.
Deshingkar, P. et al., 2009. Governance for Local Development in Small Towns: Addressing
the Challenges and Opportunities of Increasing Migration and Mobility in India, IIED
Rural-Urban Workign Paper 18, London.
Deshingkar, P., 2006. Rural-urban links, seasonal migration and poverty reduction in Asia:
The role of circular migration in economic growth, ODI, London.
Deshingkar, P. & Anderson, E., 2004. People on the Move: New Policy Challenges for
Increasingly Mobile Populations, Natural Resource Perspectives, Number 92, June
2004, ODI, London.
Dodman, D. et al., 2013. Understanding the nature and scale of urban risk in low- and
middle- income countries and its implications for humanitarian preparedness,
planning and response, IIED Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series, Climate
Change and Cities - 4, London.
Dodman, D. & Satterthwaite, D., 2009. Institutional Capacity, Climate Change Adaptation
and the Urban Poor. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), pp.67–74. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00478.x.
Douglass, M., 1998. A Regional Network Strategy for Reciprocal Rural-Urban Linkages: An
Agenda for Policy Research with Reference to Indonesia. Third World Planning
Review, 20(1), pp.1–30.
Enemark, S., 2009. Land Administration Systems - managing rights, restrictions and
responsibilities in land, Paper presented at the Map World Forum, Hyedrabad, India,
10-13 February 2009.
Faetanini, M. & Tankha, R., 2013. Social Inclusion of Internal Migrants in India, UNESCO.
FAO, 2002. The State of Food and Agriculture 2002, Rome.
42
Foster, V. & Briceño-garmendia, C., 2010. Africa ’s Infrastructure: A Time for
Transformation, The World Bank.
Frayne, B., 2005. Survival of the Poorest: Migration and Food Security in Nambia. In L. J. A.
Mougeot, ed. Agropolis: The Social, Political, and Environmental Dimensions of
Urban Agriculture. London: Earthscan, pp. 31–50.
Goldman, M., 2011. Speculative Urbanism and the Making of the Next World City.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(3), pp.555–581. Available
at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.01001.x [Accessed April 29, 2014].
Grant, R., 2009. Globalized City: The Urban and Economic Transformation of Accra, Ghana,
New York: Syracuse University Press.
Hofmann, P., 2013. Wasted waste — Disappearing reuse at the peri-urban interface.
Environmental Science and Policy, 31(2013), pp.13–22.
Hughes, N. & Lonie, S., 2007. M-PESA: Mobile Money for the “ Unbanked ” Turning
Cellphones into 24-Hour Tellers in Kenya. Innovations, (March), pp.63–81.
IOM, 2008. World Migration 2008: Managing Labor Mobility in the Evolving Global
Economy., IOM World Migration Report Series. Volume 4. Geneva: IOM.
Jack, W. & Suri, T., 2009. Mobile Money: The Economics of M-PESA, Boston.
Juniper, T., 2004. Wonders of the Wasteland. Outlook. Guardian Weekly, August 6-12.
Kjellén, M. & Mcgranahan, G., 2006. Informal water vendors and the urban poor, IIED
Human Settlement Discussion Paper Series. Theme: Water - 3, London.
Kundu, N., 2010. East Kolkata wetlands: an introduction, East Kolkata Wetlands
Management Authority and Wetlands International, East Kolkata Wetlands
Newsletter, November 2010, vol 1.
Kundu, N., 2005. Planning for Aquatic Production in East Kolkata Wetlands. Urban
Agriculture Magazine, pp.24–26.
Leichenko, R. & Solecki, W., 2005. Exporting the American Dream: The Globalization of
Suburban Consumption Landscales. Regional Studies, 39(2), pp.241–253. Available
at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/003434005200060080 [Accessed
June 5, 2014].
Levy, C., 2013. Travel choice reframed: “deep distribution” and gender in urban transport.
Environment and Urbanization, 25(1), pp.47–63. Available at:
http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247813477810 [Accessed July 19,
2014].
Lynch, K., 2005. Rural-Urban Interaction in the Developing World, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Mabin, A., Butcher, S. & Bloch, R., 2013. Peripheries, suburbanisms and change in subSaharan African cities. Social Dynamics, 39(2), pp.167–190. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02533952.2013.796124 [Accessed April
29, 2014].
Marvin, S. & Graham, S., 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,
Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition, London: Routledge.
Mas, I. & Morawczynski, O., 2009. Designing Mobile Money: Services Lessons from MPESA. Innovations, 4 (April), pp.77–91.
McGranahan, G. & Martine, G., 2014. Urban Growth in Emerging Economies: Lessons from
the BRICS, London and New York: Routledge.
McGranahan, G., Mitlin, D. & Satterthwaite, D., 2008. Land and Services for the Urban Poor
in Rapidly Urbanizing Countries. In G. Martine et al., eds. The New Global Frontier:
Urbanization, Poverty and the Environment in the 21st Century. London: Earthscan,
pp. 77–97.
McGranahan, G. & Satterthwaite, D., 2006. Governance and getting the private sector to
provide better water and sanitation services to the urban poor, IIED Human
Settlements Discussino Paper Series. Theme: Water-2, London.
McGranahan, G., Satterthwaite, D. & Tacoli, C., 2004. Rural – urban change, boundary
problems and environmental burdens, IIED Working Paper Series on Rural-Urban
Interactions and Livelihood Strategies, Working Paper 10, London.
43
McGregor, D. et al., 2006. A Co-Management Approach to Sustainable Watershed
Utilization: Peri-Urban Kumasi, Ghana. In D. Simon & D. Thompson, eds. The PeriUrban Interface: Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use.
London: Earthscan.
Milwain, G., 2001. Investigation into sustainable development and livelihoods issues of the
fish seed distribution network in West Benegal, India. University of Stirling, Stirling,
UK.
Mitlin, D. & Satterthwaite, D., 2013. Urban Poverty in the Global South: Scale and nature,
London: Earthscan.
Nickson, A., 2001. The Córdoba Water Concession in Argentina, GHK International, Building
Municipal Capacity for Private Sector Participation Series. Working Paper 442 05r,
London.
Nunan, F. & Satterthwaite, D., 2001. The influence of governance on the provision of urban
environmental infrastructure and services for low-income groups. International
Planning Studies, 6(4), pp.409–426.
Parnell, S. & Pieterse, E., 2014. Africa’s Urban Revolution, London and New York: Zed
Books.
Parr, J., 1999. Growth-pole Strategies in Regional Economic Planning: A Retrospective
View. Part 1. Origins and Advocacy. Urban Studies, 36(7), pp.1195–1215. Available
at: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1080/0042098993187 [Accessed June 5, 2014].
Parry, M. et al., 2009. Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change, IIED, London.
Patel, S. & Mitlin, D., 2010. Gender issues and shack/slum dweller federations. In S. Chant,
ed. The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 379–384.
Potts, D., 2012. Whatever happened to Africa’s rapid urbanisation?, Africa Research
Institute, Counterpoint Series.
Rees, W.E., 2001. Ecological footprint, concept of. In S. Levin, ed. Encyclopedia of
Biodiveristy. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 229–244.
RUAF Foundation & ICLEI, 2013. Cityfood: Linking Cities on Urban Agriculture and Urban
Food Systems, RUAF and ICLEI.
Satterthwaite, D., 2008. Cities’ contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of
greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), pp.539–549.
Available at: http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247808096127 [Accessed
May 27, 2014].
Satterthwaite, D. et al., 2013. Getting the Engagement of Local Institutions in the UN
Development Agenda Post-2015, IIED Human Settlement Working Paper Series.
Poverty Reduction in Urban Areas - 39, London.
Satterthwaite, D., 2000. Seeking an understanding of poverty that recognizes rural-urban
differences and rural-urban linkages, Paper commissioned by the World Bank, first
draft presented at the World Bank’s Urban Forum on “Urban Poverty Reduction in the
21st Century.”
Satterthwaite, D., 2006. Small Urban Centres and Large Villages: The Habitat for Much of
the World’s Low-Income Population. In C. Tacoli, ed. Rural-urban linkages. London:
Earthscan, pp. 15–38.
Satterthwaite, D., 2013. The political underpinnings of cities’ accumulated resilience to
climate change. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), pp.381–391. Available at:
http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247813500902 [Accessed July 17,
2014].
Satterthwaite, D., 2010a. Urban Myths and the Mis-use of Data that Underpin them, UNUWider Working Paper No . 2010/28.
Satterthwaite, D., 2010b. Urban myths and the mis-use of data that underpin them. In J.
Beall, B. Guha-Khasnobis, & R. Kanbur, eds. Urbanization and Development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Satterthwaite, D. & Mitlin, D., 2014. Reducing Urban Poverty in the Global South, London:
Routledge.
44
Satterthwaite, D. & Tacoli, C., 2003. The urban part of rural development: the role of small
and intermediate urban centres in rural and regional development and poverty
reduction., IIED Working Paper on Series on Rural-Urban Interactions and Livelihood
Strategies. Working Paper 9, London.
Schaub-Jones, D., 2006. Sanitation partnerships: can partnership make a difference to the
urban sanitation challenge?, BPD Sanitation Series.
Simon, D., McGregor, D. & Thompson, D., 2006. Contemporary perspectives on the periurban zones of cities in developing countries. In D. Simon, D. McGregor, & D.
Thompson, eds. The Peri-Urban Interface: Approaches to Sustainable Natural and
Human Resource Use. London: Earthscan, pp. 3–17.
Smith, B., Brown, D. & Dodman, D., 2014. Reconfiguring urban adaptation finance, IIED
Working Paper, January 2014. IIED, London.
Tacoli, C., 2009. Crises or Adaptation? Migration and Climate Change in a Context of
Mobility. In J. M. Guzmán et al., eds. Population Dynamics and Climate Change.
UNFPA and IIED, pp. 104–118.
Tacoli, C., 1998. Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature. Environment and
Urbanization, 10(1), pp.147–166.
Tacoli, C., 2006. Rural-Urban Linkages, London: Earthscan.
Tacoli, C., 2004. The role of Small and Intermediate Urban Centres and Market Towns in
Regional Approaches to Rural Poverty Reduction Policy, Prepared for the OECD
DAC POVNET Agriculture and Pro-Poor Growth Task Team Helsinki Workshop 1718 June 2004.
Tacoli, C., 2012. Urbanization, gender and urban poverty: paid work and unpaid carework in
the city, IIED Urbanization and Emerging Population Issues, Working Paper 7,
London.
Tacoli, C., Mcgranahan, G. & Satterthwaite, D., 2008. Urbanization, Poverty and Inequity: Is
Rural-Urban Migration a Poverty Problem, or Part of the Solution? In G. Martine et
al., eds. The New Global Frontier: Urbanization, Poverty and the Environment in the
21st Century. London: Earthscan, pp. 37–54.
Trân, T.N.Q. et al., 2012. Trends in Urbanization and Suburbanization in Southeast Asia,
Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong.
Travers, A. et al., 2012. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Guidance: From Principles to
Practice. Working Document: April 2012, Available at:
http://www.unep.org/climatechange/adaptation/Portals/133/documents/EcosystemBased Adaptation/Decision Support Framework/EBA Guidance_WORKING
DOCUMENT 30032012.pdf.
Tuts, R., 2012. Urban patterns for a green economy working with nature, UN-Habitat,
London.
UNDESA, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, UNDESA.
UNEP, 2013. City-Level Decoupling: Urban resource flows and the governance of
infrastructure transitions, UNEP.
UN-Habitat, 2006. Meeting Development Goals in Small Urban Centres. Water and
Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2006, UN-Habitat, London.
UN-Habitat, 2009. Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on Humanan Settlements
2009, UN-Habitat, Nairobi.
UN-Habitat, 2003. Rental Housing: An essential option for the urban poor in developing
countries, UN-Habitat, Nairobi.
UN-Habitat, 2008. State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009: Harmonious Cities, UN-Habitat,
Nairobi.
UNISDR, 2011. Revealing Risk, Redefining Development: The 2011 Global Assessment
Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR, Geneva.
Wackernagel, M. et al., 2006. The Ecological Footprint of cities and regions: comparing
resource availability with resource demand. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1),
pp.103–112. Available at:
45
http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247806063978 [Accessed May 23,
2014].
WaterAid, 2010. Small town water and sanitation delivery, WaterAid.
Watson, V., 2013. African urban fantasies: dreams or nightmares? Environment and
Urbanization, 26(1), pp.215–231. Available at:
http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0956247813513705 [Accessed May 13,
2014].
Watson, V., 2009a. Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s
Central Urban Issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), pp.2259–2275. Available at:
http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0042098009342598 [Accessed May 28,
2014].
Watson, V., 2009b. “The planned city sweeps the poor away…”: Urban planning and 21st
century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72(3), pp.151–193. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030590060900052X [Accessed July 10,
2014].
World Bank, 2003. World development indicators, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
46