ARTICLE IN PRESS

Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Unexpected negative outcomes of community participation in

low-cost housing projects in South Africa
Gonzalo Lizarralde, Mark Massyn
Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

Abstract

It is often argued that users’ participation is crucial for the performance of low-cost housing projects. It is also believed
that users make the most appropriate decisions about their own housing solutions and that they know what is ‘best’ for
them. Following this belief, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in housing projects in Cape Town (South
Africa) have based their interventions in community participation initiatives that respond to what they call ‘the decisions of
the community’. However, this community-based approach has had unexpected consequences that perpetuate some of the
shortcomings that profit-driven builders, planners and public projects have inflicted in South African cities: low densities,
urban fragmentation, limited opportunities for economic growth, etc. The unexpected negative consequences found in
three case studies show that (i) the overall performance of low-cost housing projects does not depend on community
participation (as some authors and NGOs suggest); (ii) some of the mechanisms and the advantages of community
participation need to be reconsidered. They also suggest that the desires of a community cannot legitimate a wrong
decision, particularly if the desires of a group negatively affect the urbanities and the city at large.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Community participation; Low-cost housing; Project performance; Users’ participation; South Africa

Community participation

The advantages of community participation for low-cost housing projects have been largely studied in the
last 50 years. It has been more difficult, however, to determine the appropriate type of participation (and the
intensity of it) that is required. Some efforts have been made to overcome this difficulty. In 1969, Arnstein
proposed a model of evaluation of citizen participation in urban and anti-poverty initiatives in the United
States based on an eight-level ladder. This work was later used by Marisa Choguill to propose a ‘classification
for the evaluation of participation within underdeveloped countries’ (Choguill, 1996, p. 431). Choguill
adapted the ladder proposed by Arnstein and proposed eight levels of community involvement: empowerment,
partnership, conciliation, dissimulation, diplomacy, informing, conspiracy and self-management. Empower-
ment represents ‘the highest level of participation’ in which community members demonstrate actual control
of the project and influence the process and outcomes of development. Conspiracy (the seventh level, at the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 343 2108; fax: +1 514 343 2455.
E-mail addresses: glizarra@ebe.uct.ac.za (G. Lizarralde), mark.massyn@uct.ac.za (M. Massyn).

0197-3975/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.06.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

bottom of the ladder) represents the cases in which ‘no participation in the formal decision-making process is
allowed or even considered’ (p. 439).
Community participation and housing initiatives have often found a common ground in mutual self-help.
Harris (1998) and Valladares (1987), among others, have studied the different forms that self-help initiatives
have taken in the last 5 decades. They have also identified different scales of participation and different levels
of community involvement. Da Silva (1980) highlighted that self-help goes beyond the participation in the
construction stage of the project and suggested the study of participation at five levels: management,
financing, design, construction of construction components and assembly of components.
More recently, Davidson et al. (2007) have used the model proposed by Choguill and the approach
proposed by Da Silva (1980) for the evaluation of low-cost housing projects in developing countries and have
claimed that ‘Contemporary literature about the performance of housing projects hinges around a widely
accepted paradigm: the value of community participation’. However, they continue, ‘community participation
actually takes on many different forms in the field of housing’ (p. 100). They also highlight that community
participation has become extremely fashionable but ‘has been so widely expressed that it does not seem to
mean anything clear anymore’ (Davidson et al., 2007, p. 102). They explain that the term ‘community’ has
been—often arbitrarily—used to refer to a neighborhood, a slum, a group of local non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), a group of militant leaders, a workers’ union, a group of women, etc. Despite the
useful model proposed by Choguill, the term ‘participation’ has also been randomly used to denote civil
debate and communication, consultation, delegation of activities, partnership, self-help construction, political
decentralization, etc.
Community participation is usually associated with the bottom-up approach (so called by El-Masri &
Kellett, 2001). It is targeted at the ‘grass roots’ development and is based on the argument that this approach
helps build self-reliance in the affected communities. This approach is usually contrasted with the top-down
approach in which less input and resources are obtained from the local community.
The focus on the advantages of community participation has lead many to believe that it is often the only
acceptable approach towards sustainable development (CIDA, 1999; UNDRO, 1982). Although very little is
discussed about the negative aspects and disadvantages of community participation, some studies suggest that
this approach needs to be carefully considered and should not be overestimated in the field of low-cost housing
in developing countries (Emmett, 2000). Some of the common constraints to the community-based approach
include: (i) difficulties to integrate the community in the design and management of the project; (ii) difficulties
in building up mutual trust between agencies and communities; (iii) reluctance on the part of the governments
to give substantial power to low-income groups (Ishmail, 2005) and (iv) the reduction of participation to sweat
equity instead of active participation in decision making (Davidson et al., 2007). Despite these constraints,
very little is still discussed about alternative ways to achieve social and economic development in urban
interventions in poor communities.
In the highest levels of Choguill’s model, community participation is closely related to community decision
making. In his paramount publication Housing as a Verb, the ‘father’ of the community-based approach in
low-cost housing for developing countries, J.F. Turner, claimed that ‘As housing action depends on the actors’
will and as the dominant actors in economies of scarcity are the people themselves, they must be free to make
decisions which most concern them’ (Turner, 1972, p. 174). Following this, it is often argued that a legitimate
process of design must account for the desires of local residents—the beneficiaries (Ishmail, 2005).
However, what happens if ‘the decisions which most concern them’ (using Turner’s terms) affect a
neighboring community or what if this decision affects the collectivity at large? It could be expected that the
desires of the community do not (cannot) legitimize a decision that negatively affects the built environment
and the collectivity at large particularly if this is done over a long period of time. However, before discussing
this argument it is important to review the way community participation has been implemented and perceived
in post-apartheid South Africa.

Community participation in South Africa

Defenders of community participation for development in South Africa, such as Cheryl McEwan, claim the
need to ‘bring government to the people’ and argue that ‘community participation is an end in itself’
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14 3

(McEwan, 2002). Participation is perceived to be closely related to empowering the historically marginalized
communities and therefore to long-term development. However, community participation is presented
alternatively as the end, the means and the indicator of developmental objectives. It is seen, for example, as an
important indicator to assess the performance of relocation projects (Viratkapan & Perera, 2006).
Community participation still enjoys a high level of support across various sectors in South Africa.
However, Emmett (2000) has pointed out that its practice is fraught with ‘conceptual and practical difficulties’.
He highlights—for example—that when third parties enter a poor community, they bring with them the
promise of resources to help the community. Emmett explains that, the desire of the community to capture
these resources—more than the desire to benefit the community at large—is what motivates the community
members to participate in the projects (Emmett, 2000). For Emmett, there are a number of ‘problems and
limitations associated with community participation, including the heterogeneity and fragmentation of many
poor communities, the lack of social and material resources and community members’ expectations of
receiving a return from their involvement in development projects’ (p. 501).
Williams (2000) identifies that recent planning principles in South Africa have included holism, capacity
building, self-reliance, community integration and participatory democracy. This approach gives strong
support to community-based decision making. In fact, in the case of Cape Town, there has been active
criticism to recent projects that assume a top-down approach, such as the ongoing N2 Gateway project
(Houston, 2006).

South African cities and housing

Research in urban planning demonstrates that South African cities are largely fragmented and suffer the
post-apartheid consequences of social segregation and compartmentalization aggravated by suburban-type
low densities (Western, 2002; Wilkinson, 2000; Williams, 2000). Commenting on the housing delivery systems
in South Africa, Ian Low argues that ‘the result has been the fragmentation and compartmentalization of a
reductive design and delivery process’ (Low, 2005). These characteristics of the built environment carry
negative effects in social development, in economic performance and in the costs of infrastructure and services
(a detailed explanation of the inefficiencies of low density in housing was proposed by Schoenauer, 1994).
Ambitious plans of housing construction have been proposed in South Africa since the end of the apartheid.
In fact, more than 1.6 million houses were built between 1994 and 2004, mostly through the subsidized
program of the national government (CIDB, 2004). The policies of the National Department of Housing to
reduce the urban housing deficit (estimated at 2–3 million units; Gilbert, 2004) have resulted in the creation of
a tertiary sector of subsidized housing. Three sectors now coexist: the private formal sector, the informal
sector and the publicly subsidized sector (Lizarralde & Root, 2007).
This subsidized sector is largely affected by the centralized intervention of the government and public
agencies, often relying on direct housing procurement by the municipalities (Gilbert, 2004). The final products
of this sector are mostly detached houses built by NGOs or private builders with public subsidies allocated to
individual beneficiaries (Department of Housing, 2006a). Within this subsidized program, the bottom-up or
community-based approach in South Africa has taken the form of the people housing process (PHP). This
program of the national government explicitly promotes active participation of the beneficiaries in the
development of their own housing products (Department of Housing, 2006b). The initiatives often take the
form of mutual self-help projects supported by local or international NGOs (PHP Policy Working Group,
2006).

Performance of low-cost housing projects

A number of technical, urban, social and economic factors have been associated with the performance of
low-cost housing projects in South Africa. However, there is a common consensus that the following four
aspects are linked with the possibility of enhancing long-term project development: (i) the capacity of
dwellings to integrate economic activities; (ii) urban densities; (iii) the capacity of housing units to permit
progressive construction and (iv) variety and multiplicity. These four aspects have been largely studied in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

context of post-apartheid South African housing and were chosen in this research for the analysis of the case
studies.
The combination of domestic and economic activities coupled with higher densities has multiple economic
advantages, including helping urban dwellers increase their income generation (Bhatt & Rybczynski, 2003).
After extensive research in this area, Kellett and Tipple (2000) have concluded that the ‘recognition of the
symbiosis between domestic and productive activities can enrich our understanding of the meaning of home
and could lead to more sensitive and supportive policy responses. These could, in turn, lead to healthier
communities and encourage economic development.’ (p. 213). For the poorest sectors of South African
society, home-based economic activities (shops, services, area for rent, etc.) represent a considerable source of
income, and one that frequently permits poor families to escape from total poverty (Napier & Mothwa, 2000).
Napier (2005) has criticized the urban qualities of subsidized projects in South Africa, and has highlighted
important deficiencies such as repetition, fragmentation and low densities. The following negative
consequences are often associated with low densities in urban projects: (i) increased costs of infrastructure,
(ii) low optimization of scarce serviced land that is close to jobs and services and (iii) higher costs of
maintenance of infrastructure, public services, police, fire departments, etc. (Napier, 2005; Schoenauer, 1994).
Progressive construction of the houses (through enlargement of the units and self-help improvements) is one
of the most important strategies for increasing affordability in the low-income sector. It also allows poor
residents to improve their dwellings through improvements that follow the pace of their own economic
possibilities and income growth. These improvements help poor residents to break away from poverty,
stigmatization and marginalization (Bhatt & Rybczynski, 2003; Keivani & Werna, 2001a, b; Lizarralde &
Davidson, 2006).
Variety and multiplicity are also crucial in low-cost housing. In fact, housing units and plots in informal
settlements vary in size largely to accommodate different types of household structures, with different
household sizes, different incomes and different economic activities. Different plot sizes reflect different
purchase power, household sizes and family priorities. Houses are always kept to the minimum size growing at
the pace of each individual family when more space is required and resources are available (Lizarralde &
Davidson, 2006). This is a powerful way to increase affordability because—through this progressive process—
the house always reflects at each point in time the invested capital and the resources that the family is willing to
invest in housing. This characteristic is common in informal housing in most developing countries and has
been largely studied in Bhatt and Rybczynski (2003) and Bhatt (1999).

Research methods and fieldwork

This research project was conducted between December 2005 and December 2006. It included direct
participation of the researchers in the object of study (following the methods described by Marshall &
Rossman, 1999; Robson, 2002). ‘Participant observation is to some degree an essential element of all
qualitative studies’ (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 106). This method has various advantages, the ‘immersion
offers the researcher the opportunity to learn directly from his own experience of the setting’ (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999, p. 106). The researchers got directly involved in various low-cost housing projects in the
province of the Western Cape (South Africa). One of the researchers had more than 15 years of experience as a
housing developer in the area. The other one got involved in four housing projects attending weekly
construction committees, community gatherings and acting as a volunteer in construction activities. Both of
the researchers participated for more than 8 months in discussions with the community members, in interviews
with the officers of the NGOs responsible for the projects and in interviews with public officers.
One of the early activities conducted in March 2006 was to get immersed in the project of an international
NGO working in the township of Wallacedeene. One of the researchers volunteered to work with the NGO for
construction activities that involved participation of community members. This allowed the authors to have
insight information about the decision-making process without modifying the variables under study. One of
the most significant observations of this early stage was that the NGO repetitively built detached houses and
low-density layouts that are often associated with the fragmented suburban landscape of low-density
settlements in South Africa (as explained by Low, 2005; Napier, 2005).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14 5

The researchers started to gather information from the officers responsible for the project in order to
understand the reasons behind this decision. The answer obtained was that residents preferred and demanded
detached units. The reply suggested that the desire of the residents justified the decision. This argument puzzled
the researchers because it suggested that a wrong decision was being justified by the desires of the community.
Discussions with specialist in urban studies and architecture (from the University of Cape Town and
Witwatersrand), with officers from other NGOs, and the review of literature confirmed that in South Africa
this practice reinforces a vicious cycle in which residents ‘demand’ the same housing typology they see being
built in upgraded areas and private developers and NGOs build the single detached units that the residents
‘demand’.
The next step of the research was then to identify the consequences in the built environment (particularly
unintended outcomes) of integrating community participation in low-cost housing projects in the Western
Cape. The objectives of the study were defined as:

1. To identify the decision-making process used in community-based projects developed by NGOs.

2. To clarify how community participation has been implemented in the projects (following the framework
proposed by Choguill, 1996).
3. To identify positive and negative consequences (both expected and unexpected outcomes) of the
implementation of community participation, particularly in the four aspects previously identified in the
literature: (i) the capacity of dwellings to integrate economic activities; (ii) the capacity of housing units to
permit progressive construction; (iii) urban densities and (iv) variety and multiplicity.

An extensive review of the literature in South African housing was conducted between December 2005 and
March 2006. The fieldwork started in March with the study of various projects developed by NGOs but it
finally concentrated on three case studies located in the periphery of Cape Town and in historically
marginalized areas that were designated as non-White areas during the apartheid. The three projects
corresponded to three PHP initiatives commonly known as: (i) Netreg, (ii) Freedom Park and (iii) Mfuleni.
The three projects have the following characteristics in common:

1. They follow a community-based approach including mutual self-help.

2. They are subsidized by the National Department of Housing.
3. They include new housing in urban contexts (192 housing units built in Netreg, more than 300 units to be
built in Freedom Park and more than 700 units in the process of construction in Mfuleni).

Yin (1984) has pointed out that the aim of a case study is not to derive the findings from statistical
generalization, but to generate patterns and relations of theoretical importance, called ‘analytical
generalizations’. Following the case-study research method proposed by Yin, the authors compared first
the patterns found in the three case studies and later the patterns found in this research with patterns found in
previous research in order to obtain valuable generalizations.
Five officers of the NGOs were interviewed through semi-structured interviews: namely the person
responsible for community empowerment, the person responsible for materials provision, the assistant
responsible for community empowerment, the architect in charge of the project and the person responsible at
the NGO for developmental projects of housing. The architect and both persons responsible for community
empowerment were questioned about the project on three different occasions during the project. Other
participants on the project were also interviewed in informal meetings, including: the external auditor, the
foreman and the public relations representative.
Official reports were collected and analyzed, including: publications made by the NGOs responsible for the
projects, the catalogues of the NGOs, the websites of the institutions involved (including public organizations)
and articles and press releases related to the projects.
The researchers attended five sessions of the construction committees (three in Mfuleni and two in Netreg),
taking notes and pictures of the discussions. One of the researchers attended a community consultation for the
project of Freedom Park in which 8 women acted as representatives of the community. One of the community
meetings in Netreg (with the majority of the neighbors) was taped. This registration was later translated from
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

Afrikaans to English. The minutes of three other community meetings were also collected and studied.
Additional information included budgets, project schedules, plans of the houses and the settlements, aerial
photos, pictures and a video of a community meeting.
The authors visited the construction site in March, July, August and October in order to follow up the
advancement of the project and the changes in the buildings. In some instances the researchers worked as
construction volunteers, noticing the real development of activities during a typical working day. The final
visit was conducted at the end of November 2006, when various houses of two of the projects were already
completed. Pictures of the modifications made by the residents were registered and compared with the pictures
taken during the construction. One of the most important constraints of the study was to guarantee safe
conditions for the researchers in the townships. In a number of instances a local driver (knowledgeable of the
area) was hired. The contacts established with the NGOs proved to be very useful to guarantee that the
researchers had insight information of the projects.
Some residents were informally interviewed before, during and after the construction. Pictures and videos of
their original dwellings were recorded and they were interviewed about their expectations and their
involvement in the process. In Mfuleni, the community representative on council was consulted about his
perception of the project. All the information gathered from the project participants was triangulated with
official reports and printed documents. In some cases there were differences in the information obtained. This
demanded extra analysis by comparison with additional sources.

Case study: Netreg

In 1986, shack dwellers in Netreg started the initiative of developing economic opportunities and housing
solutions for themselves. Ten years later, after continuous delays and minimum success in obtaining subsidies
for housing, the community demanded the cooperation of the Development Action Group (DAG)—a South
African NGO that acts as a support organization for local communities. The project was initiated with a
strong emphasis on community participation; DAG’s mission clearly states its commitment to ‘building
people’s skills, integrating social and physical development processes and enabling communities to be involved
in their own development’. With the help of DAG, the community identified a piece of land in the settlement,
surrounded by a railway on the one side and highway connectors on the other. Various political and
administrative barriers further delayed the project. Three years were required to identify the owner of the land
and to arrange a process of transferring it to the community. Ultimately, the land—that belonged to the
municipality—was subdivided into 192 plots of 81 m2 and was sold to the beneficiaries at a sum below the
market price.
The community steering committee was created in 2003. The construction of infrastructure started in 2004
and the construction of the houses started in January 2006 using the PHP procurement model. The units were
completed in October 2006 (20 years after the community started the initiative). In October 2005, the Niall
Mellon Foundation (NMF)—an Irish NGO—got involved in the project providing additional resources which
would allow the community to upgrade the conventional 36 m2 PHP house to 42 m2. These extra resources
also allowed for additional features which are not standard on PHP units; for example, cement roof tiles
instead of corrugated sheets, electric points inside the house, indoor sinks, hot water geysers and roof
insulation.
The community accepted the involvement of the NMF knowing that it could impact on its role in the
decision-making process. However, this was seen as a unique opportunity to upgrade the standard houses that
would have been obtained from the subsidies alone. Ultimately, the NMF assumed a leading role in the
architectural design and in the construction process of the project.
According to the PHP policy, projects must be driven and managed by the beneficiaries themselves.
However, one of the first initiatives implemented by the NMF was to appoint a private procurement officer to
procure the materials and subcontractors required for the project. In most cases the PHP houses are directly
procured by the municipalities and not through private procurement officers. However, a comparative
analysis of costs made by DAG showed that the units were 20% more expensive if procured by the
municipality and not through private procurement.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14 7

The community members agreed in the early meetings of the steering committee to build row-housing. This
housing type was already used in the rest of the settlement and was seen by the residents as being economically
efficient. The NMF, however, proposed a change to the design to the construction of semi-detached and
detached units. After consultation, the steering committee agreed on this change and the NMF reported that
‘beneficiaries were involved in the design of semi-detached houses’ (Niall Mellon Foundation, 2006). In a
conventional low-density layout, the 81 m2 plots were ultimately occupied by 42 m2 units located in the middle
of the lot (this translates into a 51% usage factor).
The low occupation of the plots was aggravated by the fact that the remaining unbuilt area cannot be used
for future additions. The final design of the units did not take advantage of the natural process of progressive
construction. Fig. 1 shows that, as constructed, the remaining space around the detached units in Netreg is not
big enough for building extra rooms of a reasonable size.
In the case of the semi-detached units, the backyards are just large enough to allow one additional room;
however, the windows of the bedrooms have not been properly positioned to accommodate future additions.
If built, the new room will suppress the natural ventilation and lighting of the existing bedrooms. The
additional door of the living room redundantly duplicates the main entrance of the house and creates a
diagonal circulation that fragments this social space. This same door, located in the back of the unit, could
have permitted the access to future spaces for rent or economic exploitation.
The future vertical expansion of the semi-detached units with a second floor is also discouraged as the roof
trusses span between both the units. The residents who anticipate undertaking additions in the near future
have been obliged to adopt the rather strange option of sharing a semi-detached unit with another person
willing to improve the unit. This will force both parties to coordinate their improvements and to ensure that
they happen at the same time and pace.
At the urban scale, no attempt was made to allow for a variety of housing solutions and plot sizes (see
Fig. 2). With the exception of a few corner plots, all the plots are identical in size (5.4 m front). The same
applies to the housing units. With the exception of few detached units, the rest of the houses are all a rubber
stamped version of the semi-detached model. This repetition does not correspond to the level of variety and
multiplicity that exists among the residents of Netreg; particularly considering the following characteristics
that were found in the settlement:

1. The residents have a large variety of economic activities, jobs and occupations that range from industry
workers to scrap collectors (DAG, 2004).
2. Housing is not a priority for all residents: A study conducted by Boaden and Karam (2000) emphasizes that
housing is not always a priority for low-income families. They found that many low-income families in the
townships of South Africa sell their homes and plots ‘when Christmas approaches and people urgently need

Fig. 1. Layout of a detached unit in Netreg.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

Fig. 2. Urban layout in Netreg.

cash’. Others sell their subsidized units at a fraction of the real replacement costs in order to pay for family
funerals or to pay debts. A study conducted by DAG demonstrates that residents of Netreg are three times
more likely to stop paying rent during bad times than stop paying funeral insurances and funeral savings.
The study concluded that ‘more than 40% of households skip rent payments, electricity payments, etc.
during bad times’ (DAG, 2004). If housing is not an equal priority for all, it could be expected that different
solutions are required for different types of users.
3. Different household sizes: Despite the fact that the household sizes in Netreg vary from less than 5 members
to more than 10, all the new houses have 2 bedrooms and the same built area (although some provisions
were made for disabled residents).
4. Residents have different priorities and economic levels: By implementing a savings plan, DAG discovered
that residents have a very unequal capacity of saving that reveals different incomes but also different
priorities in the use of their resources.

The design of the houses does not live up to the objectives of the Constitution of the Netreg Housing Project
that stated in 2003 that the main objective of the project was ‘fostering local economic development initiatives
to create income generating opportunities for all’ (Netreg Committee, 2003). In fact, the design of the house
and its location in the plot do not make allowance for spaces for family-based economic activities. Sixty-five
percent of households in Netreg are headed by a woman who is likely to work while taking care of the children
and domestic activities. However, the low density of the new project and the poor design of the front fac- ade of
the units discourage the development of home-based economic activities. The fac- ade of the units pays little
attention to the possibility of creating a shadowed front in which commercial activities such as a store or a
small office can emerge. Even worst, Fig. 3 shows that the possibility of later building a porch or a verandah
for these activities is undermined by the shape of the roof (whose slope runs parallel to the front fac- ade).
Similarly, the small windows of the fac- ade do not encourage the relationship of the interior of the house with
the street, a characteristic that is crucial for commercial activities that require capturing the attention of
pedestrians and motorists. Transforming this fac- ades for the efficient exploitation of commercial activities will
prove difficult and expensive.
Defenders of community participation argue that it is important to use local labor and local resources in
housing projects. In the case of Netreg, a number of informal construction enterprises operate in the area.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14 9

Fig. 3. Semi-detached units in Netreg.

However, these enterprises were not employed on the project. Ironically, some of the subcontractors used (for
example, for the roof trusses) were not from the area or even the province. This decision brought other
negative outcomes when the suppliers were late in delivering the products and the local subcontractors had to
be trained in the use of external technologies.
The Netreg project scarcely contributes to the consolidation of the fragmented structure of the area. The
project enlarges an enclave settlement that has one single access and is surrounded by high-speed highways
(see Fig. 2). This character gives to Netreg the aspect of a gated community. Its enlargement contributes to the
consolidation of the neighborhood and the community itself but does very little for the integration of the
largely fragmented urban fabric of the city. The isolation of Netreg (not resolved through this project) also has
negative implications for its own residents. A document produced by DAG in 2004 highlights that residents of
Netreg are socially isolated from the surrounding communities and are often regarded by their neighbors as
‘dirty’ and prone to stigmatized jobs such as money lenders, drug lords and bar owners. Unfortunately, the
character of ‘closed community’ will do very little to erase this common idea and to integrate its residents.
With the limited resources available DAG attempted to achieve ambitious objectives of social development:
community empowerment, development of social skills and social capital, community building, training and
leadership (various workshops were conducted by DAG in 2002 and 2005). The result was the establishment
and empowerment of the community executive committee in which many women participated. Giving
considerable importance to community ties and intern structure empowered the members of the committee
and consolidated their membership and skills. All of this can make them less dependent on external aid and
more autonomous in the future.
However, the community involvement decreased when the NMF started to assume a leading role in the
project. Contrary to the spirit of conventional PHP, the officers of the NMF acted as construction managers
and project managers in fieldwork meetings. In the latest phase of the project, the participation of community
members was limited to attending the steering committee meetings, helping with the security of the site and
painting some of the fac- ades of the units. Even convincing the residents to paint their houses as a sweat equity
contribution proved to be difficult and had to be enforced with well-regulated measures.
This community-based development approach is contradictory to the real needs of development in Netreg.
The major problem that was initially identified in the area was not one of little representation (the community
was active 10 years before the involvement of DAG) but was the isolation of the Netreg community from the
large society of Bonteheuwel. A study conducted by DAG in 2002 concluded that ‘Strained relationships
between the communities of Netreg and Bonteheuwel further prevents the Netreg community to access the
health and educational facilities located in Bonteheuwel they desperately require to enhance their livelihood
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

Fig. 4. Urban layout in Freedom Park.

opportunities. The failure to do so would relegate generations of Netreg inhabitants to the periphery of society
(DAG, 2002).

Case study: Freedom Park

This project is currently being developed for informal dwellers who occupied an open area located between
two well-established low-income settlements in the township of Mitchell’s Plain. As it was the case in Netreg,
DAG assisted the steering committee in developing the project through a strong community-based approach.
One of the important characteristics of the place is that the two communities that surround the open area that
was developed for the informal dwellers of Freedom Park have been in conflict during many years. The
conflicts are mostly based on violent disputes between gangs that belong to the two opposing communities. In
order to respond to the needs of the informal residents, the urban design (developed by an urban design
company based in Cape Town) gave priority to the security of the new settlement. The residents did not want
to get involved in the disputes going on between the two opposing neighborhoods, and the solution accepted
by the community was then to create an enclosed settlement for the new residents.
The result is an enclosed settlement with only four entries and with roads that are not articulated and
connected to the urban fabric. Fig. 4 shows that this settlement (similar to Netreg) follows the pattern of a
gated community. In this case, a strong emphasis in the short-term benefits of the community (security,
independence) has negative consequences in the long-term development of the city. As proposed, the
settlement reinforces the fragmentation of the township and disturbs the functioning of the urban fabric.

Case study: Mfuleni

The NMF is also involved in Mfuleni, a township located about 40 km outside Cape Town. This settlement
was developed by the local authority as a site-and-services initiative about 5 years ago in order to relocate
squatters who had illegally occupied open land in the area. The residents were then given individual plots that
included service connections and a portable pre-fab toilet. The residents built informal houses on the plots and
opened home-based economic activities like shops, stores, garages, etc. The NMF is currently replacing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14 11

informal shacks by 42 m2 concrete block detached houses. According to the NMF, the objective of the project
is to ‘build 209 houses by the end of 2006, taking the same number of families out of shacks and into decent
brick homes’ (Niall Mellon Foundation, 2006).
Due to the location of the detached houses in the middle of the plot (similar to Fig. 1) the future
construction of backyard shacks will be deliberately discouraged. Residents are required to give away their
shacks after they are given what the NMF calls ‘a decent home’. This is a controversial measure that certainly
requires further analysis. Opponents of informal shacks, such as officers of the NMF, argue that these
informal constructions are not appropriate for living and therefore need to be discouraged and ‘eradicated’
once ‘proper’ housing is built to replace them (Niall Mellon Foundation, 2006). This naı̈ve attitude
underestimates four important realities.

1. The rental space in backyard shacks provides an additional source of income to poor families.
Accommodation in an informal shack in the Cape Town area can range (in 2000) from R75 to R200 for a
single room (Boaden & Karam, 2000). Various studies have found that this is an important source of
income for low-income families (DAG, 2004).
2. A shack is a way of accumulating capital for the poorest families. A study conducted by Shisaka in various
cities of South Africa allows us to understand the real value of that capital. According to this study,
residents of informal housing perceived (in 2004) that their units had a value of R4000 (Shisaka, 2004). This
value is further confirmed by most recent analyses of the pre-fab industry in the Cape flats, in which ‘new’
shacks of 5.5  3 m are sold for an average price of R4000.
3. Backyard shacks are an important rental housing solution in the Cape Town market, providing a housing
solution for the bottom poor families that cannot have access to property or governmental subsidies.
4. Shacks are environmental friendly. Professionals used to traditional standards of formal construction tend
to consider shacks as unpleasant anomalies in the urban landscape. However, a careful look of the
townships demonstrates that this is a prejudice that ignores various advantages of this informally driven
solution. Shacks take full advantage of space, their construction relies on local know how and skills, they
utilize locally available materials, minimize transportation costs and are an example of reuse and recycling
of materials.

Despite this, the community (represented by the committee) accepted the help of the NMF and was
enthusiastic about the promises of a ‘decent’ detached house.

Discussion and conclusions

The three projects were initially designed as initiatives of ‘empowerment’ (as defined by ladder of Choguill,
1996). However, in reality, the partnership with the NMF and the transfer of representation to DAG reduced
the level of participation of the members of the community. Table 1 shows the different methods of
participation used in the projects. It also explains the different levels of participation that were used in
different stages of the projects. This table adapts some of the terms used by Choguill (1996) such as
‘partnership’ and ‘consultation’ and adapts the possible dimensions of self-help as proposed by Da Silva
(1980). In the three cases the participation in design took the form of consultation of pre-established layouts
(made by architects working in the NGOs) with the steering committees. Project management was reduced to
informing or consulting the communities about decisions taken by the NGOs. Financing was obtained
through partnership between the resources given to the beneficiaries and the additional resources offered by
the NGOs. Participation in construction activities was reduced to a marginal contribution of sweat equity in
some final finishes. Decision making in construction management was not given to the members of the
community.
The second part of Table 1 shows the patterns found in terms of unexpected outcomes. Limited integration
of economic activities, low densities, urban fragmentation, limited possibilities for progressive construction
and limited variety and multiplicity were found in the three projects (Freedom Park had more variety of
housing types and is at the stage of construction, therefore some of the patterns do not apply to it).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

Table 1
Summary of participation and unexpected outcomes

Netreg Freedom Park Mfuleni

Methods of participation used:

Representation in the steering committee Yes Yes Yes
Workshops and training Yes No No
Direct participation in community meetings Yes Yes Yes
Direct participation in weekly fieldwork meetings Occasional NA Occasional
Representation from the support organization (DAG) Yes Yes Yes
Financial contribution through individual PHP subsidy Yes Yes Yes
Participation in the stages of the project:
Design Consultation Consultation Consultation
Project management Information Consultation Information
Financing Partnership Partnership Partnership
Construction activities Sweat equity NA Sweat equity
Construction management No participation NA No participation
Unexpected outcomes:
Limited integration of economic activities Yes Yes Yes
Low density, urban fragmentation Yes Yes Yes
Limited possibilities for progressive construction Yes Yes Yes
Limited variety and multiplicity Yes No Yes

This outcome can be explained in two different ways:

1. Defenders of the community-based approach might argue that the community participation was wrongly
implemented. In other words that the principle is ‘good’ but the implementation failed.
2. The performance of low-cost housing projects does not really depend on community participation.

In reality both conclusions are true. It could be easy to present the three communities as victims of wrong
community-based projects. However, this would distort the reality because it was the communities that
accepted (through the steering committees and supported by DAG) the help of the NMF knowing that their
members were yielding decision-making power. In other words, the steering committees deliberately sacrificed
control of the project for additional short-term benefits.
It is not possible to argue that with more control over the decision-making process, the community would
have dealt any different with the outcomes described earlier. In reality, the performance of low-cost housing
projects depends on a complex interaction of participants, interests, objectives, resources and processes that go
beyond the benefits of the participation of the beneficiaries. This does not mean that the participation of the
beneficiaries is not positive, in fact it is crucial. However, it means that it is not that participation what
legitimates and gives value to the decision-making process. In other words, there are good and bad projects
that apply community participation and the users do not necessarily make those decisions based on what is
‘best’ for them or for the city at large. As these case studies demonstrate, communities can make bad decisions
that negatively affect themselves and the city at large. The following conclusions can be drawn from the case
studies:

 The performance of low-cost housing projects does not depend on community participation.
 Some of the mechanisms and advantages of community participation need to be reconsidered in low-cost
housing projects.

These conclusions do not correspond to the rhetoric of some NGOs, but are not isolated remarks in the
current debate about community participation. In fact, Davidson et al. (2007) had previously found that
community participation can easily become rhetoric in its implementation. Emmett demonstrated that there
are conceptual and practical difficulties in the implementation of community participation. Emmett pointed
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14 13

out that ‘as one would expect the degree of disintegration to vary between communities, community-based
development may be appropriate in some communities but not in others’ (Emmett, 2000).
The case studies presented here confirm that—despite their well-intended objectives of development—
NGOs find it easier to adopt the community participation discourse than to implement multiplicity of choice,
variety and principles of good practice in the built environment.
In the case of urban low-cost housing initiatives, community participation cannot be an end in itself (as it is
argued by Cheryl McEwan for the case of South African Integrated Development Planning). The ultimate end
of urban interventions in developing countries is producing sustainable environments that can foster
development and that improve the quality of life of its inhabitants. Presented in this way, this is
simultaneously an objective and a challenge (the statement of the problem of the cities themselves). As this
research demonstrates, community participation in itself cannot guarantee this objective and does not bring all
the means to deal with it as a challenge.

Acknowledgments

The corresponding author is a Fellow of the South African National Research Foundation. We
acknowledge the Foundation and the officers of the NGOs consulted for this project. Only the authors are
responsible for the views expressed in this article.

References

Bhatt, V. (1999). Architecture for a developing India. Harvard Design Magazine, Summer, 1.3.1–1.3.11.
Bhatt, V., & Rybczynski, W. (2003). How the other half builds. In D. Watson, A. Plattus, & R. Shibley (Eds.), Time-saver standards in
urban design (pp. 1.3.1–1.3.11). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boaden, B., & Karam, A. (2000). The informal housing market in four of Cape Town’s low-income settlements. University of Cape Town,
Cape Town.
Choguill, M. B. G. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 431–444.
CIDA. (1999). CIDA and cities series: Urban development and poverty reduction. CIDA.
CIDB. (2004). South Africa construction industry: Status report, 2004. CIDB. /http://www.cidb.org.za/Resource/report.pdfS, accessed 28
October 2006.
Da Silva, R. (1980). La participation de l’usager dans le processus de construction. Unpublished thesis, Université de Montréal.
DAG. (2002). Swot. Unpublished document.
DAG. (2004). The Netreg livelihood analysis. Unpublished document.
Davidson, C. H., et al. (2007). Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat International,
31, 100–115.
Department of Housing. (2006a). Department of Housing, official website. /http://www.housing.gov.za/S, accessed 5 November 2006.
Department of Housing. (2006b). Housing programs and subsidies. Department of Housing, Communication Services, Pretoria.
El-Masri, S., & Kellett, P. (2001). Post-war reconstruction: Participatory approaches to rebuilding the damaged villages of Lebanon, a case
study of al-Burjain. Habitat International, 25(4), 535–557.
Emmett, T. (2000). Beyond community participation: Alternative routes to civil engagement and development in South Africa.
Development Southern Africa, 17(4), 501–518.
Gilbert, A. (2004). Helping the poor through housing subsidies: Lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International,
28(1), 13–40.
Harris, R. (1998). A cranck’s fate and the feting of a visionary: Reflections on the history of aided self-help. Third World Planning Review,
20(3), 2–11.
Houston, A. (2006). Long term vision needed to truly solve our housing problems. Cape Argus, Cape Town, 24 May.
Ishmail, Z. (2005). Evaluating the utility of participation in development projects: How project management techniques contribute to efficiency
of upgrading informal human settlements: A case study of the N2 Gateway project. Unpublished thesis, University of Cape Town.
Keivani, R., & Werna, E. (2001a). Refocusing the housing debate in developing countries from a pluralist perspective. Habitat
International, 25(2), 191–208.
Keivani, R., & Werna, E. (2001b). Modes of housing provision in developing countries. Progress in Planning, 55, 65–118.
Kellett, P., & Tipple, G. (2000). The home as a workplace: A study of income generating activities within the domestic setting. Environment
and Urbanization, 12(1), 203–213.
Lizarralde, G., & Davidson, C. (2006). Learning from the poor. In i-Rec conference proceedings 2006: Post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting
the stakeholders’ interest. Florence: i-Rec.
Lizarralde, G., & Root, D. (2007). Ready-made shacks: Learning from the informal sector to meet housing needs in South Africa. In
Proceedings of the CIB congress, Cape Town, South Africa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 G. Lizarralde, M. Massyn / Habitat International 32 (2008) 1–14

Low, I. (2005). Design as instrument in transformation: Settlement as empowerment opportunity for socio-economic development. In
World congress on housing, conference proceedings. Pretoria: IAHS.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.
McEwan, C. (2002). Bringing government to the people: Women, local governance and community participation in South Africa.
Geoforum, 34, 469–481.
Napier, M. (2005). Core housing and subsidies in South Africa: Addressing the unintended outcomes. In World congress on housing,
conference proceedings. Pretoria: IAHS.
Napier, M., & Mothwa, M. (2000). Push and pull factors in the initiation and maintenance of home work in two Pretoria settlements: The
myths and realities of South African home-based enterprises. In CARDO conference on housing, work and development: The role of
home-based enterprises. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Netreg Committee. (2003). Constitution of the Netreg project. Unpublished document.
Niall Mellon Foundation. (2006). Netreg, Niall Mellon Foundation townships initiative website. /http://www.irishtownship.com/htm/
netreg.htmS, accessed 23 October 2006.
PHP Policy Working Group. (2006). Report on progress in the PHP Policy Working Group. CSIR, Pretoria.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell
Publications.
Schoenauer, N. (1994). Cities, suburbs, dwellings. Montreal: McGill University.
Shisaka. (2004). Township residential property markets: Final report, findings, conclusions and implications. Shisaka, Rosebank.
Turner, J. F. C. (1972). Housing as a verb. In J. F. C. Turner, & R. Fichte (Eds.), Freedom to build (pp. 148–175). New York: Macmillan.
UNDRO. (1982). Shelter after disaster: Guidelines for assistance. UNDRO.
Valladares, L. (1987). Les initiatives d’autoconstruction dans les villes du Tiers Monde: Revue de la literature. Revue Internationale
d’Action Communautaire, 17, 13–24.
Viratkapan, V., & Perera, R. (2006). Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: What has contributed to their success or failure. Habitat
International, 30(2), 157–174.
Western, J. (2002). A divided city: Cape Town. Political Geography, 21, 711–716.
Wilkinson, P. (2000). City profile: Cape Town. Cities, 17(3), 195–205.
Williams, J. J. (2000). South Africa: Urban transformation. Cities, 17(3), 167–183.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.