Analyzing Social Residential Disparities as Influenced by Physical Planning and Self-Organization ()
1. Introduction
The increase in urbanization rates in the developing world is expressed by increasing population, change in spatial structure, as well as changes and variations in the shape of the built environment. Eastern Africa is reported by [1], as the world’s least urbanized, but fastest urbanizing region. The region’s cities exhibit high poverty levels, fast-growing slums and informal settlements, and inequality in service provision and access.
Uganda, the third largest East African country, is home to Kampala, its largest and the capital city. Kampala is one of the fastest-growing African cities, with a 4.03% population growth rate [2] and a resident population of 1,875,834 persons according to the 2024 census preliminary result [3]. The city is overwhelmed by its population as observed by KCCA [4] and this has led to inadequacy in provision of housing, utilities and other amenities.
Kampala’s planning dates back in the 1900s when European colonial rule introduced organizing and shaping spaces for various purposes. The city runs on physical development planning, i.e. structure plan (10 years) and detailed plans (5 years). The overall aim of physical planning is to achieve orderly, coordinated, and efficient land use development, and secure the proper use of land [5].
Besides the social, environmental and economic disparities, the city sustains spatial gaps exhibited in the built-up environment’s quality and typology. The built-up area continues to increase as population rapidly grows, but most of this growth and increase is unplanned, undesirable and inequitable; there are such sharp disparities in the spatial organization.
Even with the physical planning and its intentions, coupled with efforts and initiatives of communities and the private sector, there are persistent variations in residential development. These are visible on space through the different classifications - residential enclaves, residential pockets and citadels [6], structured settlements, and formal rental developments all scattered and concentrated in particular areas of the city.
The city has allowed and promoted intolerable densification of informal settlements to the level of slums in some areas; some concentrated in an inner ring around the City Centre and others in the outer ring on the fringe of the Inner City [4]. Such areas and neighborhoods have grouped/dense developments, in many cases with temporal and semi-permanent housing, single room and double room housing which sometimes comes with inadequate services. On the other hand, are parts characterized by well-structured, well-built, and planned residential zones, with defined land-uses, storied buildings, gated single houses, and scattered low-density-developments. These classifications are a representation of different social groups occupying particular types of housing.
Currently, there are mixtures in residential developments, high-income housing in areas known for the urban poor, temporary semi-permanent housing close to or within structured zones. There are vivid and sharp differences in residential developments in terms of appearance and quality within and among neighborhoods. The housing is socially characterized based on income, ethnicity and lifestyle, which social segregation is depicted in space through social residential disparities.
Physical planning as a spatial organization process influences the development of residential disparities, but there is presumably also the contribution of the non-linear interaction between citizens, local stakeholders, and private initiatives. This un imposed, complex, non-linear interaction, [7] is referred to as self-organization—another process of spatial organization.
It is probably normal and expected that neighborhoods in a city will not all be the same, but the extent of the disparities among residential structures is sharp and should be of concern to policies, as well as of interest to research.
Studies done on spatial disparities have explained disparities with focus on the economy, particularly the level of income of households. The focus in this research was more on the processes of organizing space i.e. physical planning and self-organization, the differences in the organization, particularly residential development, and how these processes contribute to these differences. Hence this research’s aim was to explain ways in which formal physical planning and self-organization in communities influence the development of social residential disparities.
This is generally fundamental research; geared towards acquiring scientific knowledge about the correlation between physical planning and self-organization with the development of social residential disparities in the city.
For this study, motivation stems from the original belief that plans guide city development and ensure that undesirable developments do not occur. This is contrary to reality, especially in Kampala, and this study helped in understanding what exactly happens to the wonderful write-ups, what happens in the processes, what role other actors play and how this all works together for the unexpected and sometimes the unwanted. It was also helpful in understanding better how space works and evolves and how people and plans work together or against each other in developing space.
From the literature, there are controversies about planning’s power and complexities related to planning theory. In this complex era, Gerrits [8] acknowledges the challenges that plans collide with, which are related to the perception of the object of planning. They emphasize, that the object of planning (space), is not lifeless, and the planner is not in full control of the object. Planning objects are self-organized, they evolve, they develop and therefore there should be mutual interaction between the planner and the planning object, in which planning is able to adopt to changing environment and synchronize planning activities with the nature of the planning object. This mutual interaction between planning and planning object also needs the planning context, in this case a local community, which calls for self-organization; hence the interaction will later influence the physical spatial shape. In addition, planning and self-organization may play their specific parts, but are also mediated by social economic status, Access to capital, Institutional trust and Governance, market forces and social capital, among other variables that will determine whether people navigate and comply with formal physical planning, or, adapt to, and rely on self-organized solutions.
Kampala’s planning processes and outcomes have been very much a product of its evolving governance structures. Kampala was established as a municipality in the period before independence, and became Uganda’s capital in 1962 when Uganda got her independence [9]. The land administrative system then was characterized by dualism (Mailo land and crown land), which created a spatially divided city; with better-serviced European spaces (on crown land) and under-serviced native spaces (on mailo land). After independence, crown land transformed into public land, and some of it was transferred to Kampala City Council which governed the city at the time. In 1968, the city’s boundaries were extended to include Mengo hill, which created a dual city; with both planned and unplanned areas under the same jurisdiction. KCC lacked effective control over the privately owned mailo land [10] and attempts at modernist planning faced financial challenges [9]. Kampala’s current governance is structured through the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), established by parliament in 2010, and later becoming a government agency in 2011, which places the city’s administration under the central government [9]. The governance structure comprises of both a political and technical wing [2]. Governance currently is challenged by high level of politicization, informality, dual land tenure system, infrastructure deficit and mismanagement among other, which all definitely affect planning processes, and influence the spatial patterns of the city.
Physical planning directly impacts on social residential disparities, the self-organized initiatives through linkages, and in response to a need or crisis, also influence disparities in residential development. Moreover, the interaction between these two variables results into processes of social stratification, or has influenced particular residential categories in the past. There are also market forces characterized by speculative real estate’s dynamics, strong community networks, and socio-economic status, which can either influence navigation of and compliance with planning, or distort planning’s outcome and amplify self-organization’s effectiveness. All the above actions, processes and outcomes lead to variable results in the city’s residential development based on social stratification, which finds its roots also in historical colonial practices and systems. (See Figure 1)
![]()
Figure 1. Conceptualizing the interaction between planning, self-organization and spatial residential disparities.
This research, therefore, set out to explain ways in which formal physical planning on one hand, and self-organization in communities influence the development of social residential disparities. To explore the objective, the research aimed to answer the following questions:
a) What are the actual residential differences in Kampala?
b) What Particular physical development plans have been implemented, and how have they influenced residential disparities?
c) How has physical planning (processes and procedures) in Kampala impacted residential development?
d) How does the community influence social residential disparities. What is the role of self-organized initiatives in the process of residential development?
A better understanding of the concepts as used for this research is provided in the methodology in Table 1.
2. Methodology
2.1. Operationalization (See Table 1 and Table 2)
Table 1. Main concepts.
Concept |
Literature definitions |
Formulated definition for this research |
Source |
Definition |
Self
organization |
(Meerkerk, Boonstra, et al., 2012) |
The emergence and maintenance of new structures as a result of local, complex, non-linear interactions in which local stakeholders take the lead, and this kind of emergence is not imposed or
determined by a single actor. |
Initiatives in which local actors, including, users, residents, land owners and the
private sector take the lead and
responsibility towards collaborative or
individual actions to shape urban space, with limited external influence and
control. |
|
Boonstra and Boelens (2011) |
Spatial intervention initiatives that stem from the civil society itself through
autonomous community-based networks of citizens, and these interventions are outside government control or
procedures. |
|
Spatial
(physical) planning |
Albrecht (2004) |
Strategic spatial planning is a
socio-spatial process by the public sector, through which visions, actions and means of implementation are produced and these shape and frame what a place may become, or what a place is. |
Processes carried out by the public sector which are aimed at shaping spaces, by
influencing which developments will and should occur and when they should occur. |
Spatial
disparities |
(2007) |
The unequal amount of qualities or
resources and services depending on
particular areas or locations. |
A variation in the arrangement,
appearance and distribution of built social features and people. |
Social
Residential disparities |
Li and Wu (2006) |
Residential segregation is
three-dimensional division of
neighbourhoods in social status, lifestyle and ethnicity. |
Variations in residential structures
depending on social segregation in the
dimensions of social status, Ethnicity and Lifestyle. |
Table 2. Social residential classification.
Category |
Description |
Construction |
Ownership/ tenancy |
Housing space |
Architectural style |
Price |
Structured residences |
These follow particular designs. Well-designed, planned and formal
residential zones.
Usually associated with the elite, high and
middle income groups. These are mostly areas earlier planned for
residential development. |
Private developers/ Public
property |
Private - bought/Rented. High and upper middle class. Elite |
Low density, scattered/spaced. Big houses with big
compounds. |
Gated single houses Story houses, multiple rooms |
Very Expensive |
Residential Enclaves |
Small distinct areas,
clusters of houses
isolated from the
surrounding. Usually occupied by a particular group of people -
ethnic/cultural, or
income group. |
Self-
constructed Constructed by private
developers |
Mostly Owner occupied Can be rental |
Tight-spaced Moderate sizes
depending on the setting |
Single houses Multifamily houses storied
apartments |
Moderate |
Formal Residential rental |
Socially recognizable and acceptable housing structures. They can be single family or
multifamily residential with moderate space. |
Real estate Private
developers Constructed by land
owners |
Owned by
developers/
entrepreneurs. Rented by
occupants |
Tight-spaced Or Moderate |
Grouped gated houses .Storied
apartments Usually more than one
bedroom, up to three
bedrooms Semidetached |
Expensive Moderate (depending on
location) |
Residential pockets |
an impoverished,
neglected/
disadvantaged area of the city (K1, 2001) - slum. A quarter of the city in which members of the minority group live,
because of economic, social or legal forces. |
Self-
constructed/constructed by tenants |
Owner occupied |
Tight-spaced, dense
developments |
One-room houses, rental linear houses (Muzigo, poor structures). Duplex |
Very cheap Free
sometimes |
2.2. Approach/Strategy
This was Single embedded case research because emphasis was on a single unit of study, and data was collected from different sub-units. Kampala is divided into five urban divisions; Kawempe, Makindye, Lubaga, Central and Nakawa division, each of which is divided into parishes, and further into villages [2]. The study focused on central division, which has 20 parishes and 135 villages. The three areas of study exhibit different spatial shape outcomes though they share planning similarities. This therefore was a similar-cases-with-different-outcomes case study, the similarity here is in their location (in central region), and the fact that they all appear in the physical development plans, and all have levels of self-organized initiatives’ activities and influence.
2.3. Study Areas
The areas of study are, in many ways, representations of different neighborhoods in Kampala and their spatial organization. There are basically three categories of neighborhoods; those that are well structured, organized, zoned and tendered, with, mostly gated houses, high rise buildings, security and inhabited by the higher and upper middle class. Second is neighborhoods which are informal, densely populated, with mostly temporal or semipermanent informal housing, many informal activities, inhabited by the urban poor mostly and usually disorganized due to random developments. The third category is areas with mixed neighborhoods, i.e. some structured and organized zones, close to or surrounded by informal zones with informal housing and activities, and with a mixture in the inhabitants.
Below is a description of the study areas and justification for their selection (See Table 3).
Table 3. Study areas description and justification.
Area |
justification |
Description |
Kololo |
These areas are a representation of the housing situation and styles in
Kampala. They clearly depict the
differences in housing appearance and conditions. Other neighbourhoods are mirrored in one of these in terms of residential classification. They are examples of social
stratification; particular income groups concentrate in particular areas,
lifestyles vary and there is a
concentration of specific ethnicities in specific locations. The history of
residential development in these areas is distinct, although all in central
region with history dating back to the colonial era, the processes and periods of structure development define the
areas and are portrayed in space in the different classification. |
Lies in Kampala central division close to the city centre, it has been an upscale residential area since before Uganda’s
independence because of its central location and the nice view the hill offers. Kololo is a developed area with spacious plots and single-story structures mostly, it is a low-density area and by implication with high income groups/people. Mostly
inhabited by the elite, high and upper middle-income groups. A known location for Uganda’s diplomatic missions, it houses several embassies and many ambassadors’ residences. |
Kisenyi 2 |
Kampala’s biggest slum, located in the south-western part of Kampala’s central division. Characterized mostly by temporal and semi-permanent housing, inhabited by the urban poor,
migrants and refugees. Mixture of residential and commercial settings |
Makerere (Kagugube) |
Located north west of Kampala. Vibrant area, both residential and commercial. A representation of some formal housing,
informal, tight-spaced development. |
From each of the parishes, two zones were selected for focus, basing generally on the identified residential classifications as described in Table 2. Zones were purposively selected to reflect extremes and transitions in residential development outcomes: Upper Kololo is a planned elite zone, Ngabo village is mostly planned with minor informal extensions, Kakajo zone reflects self-organized marginalization, and Kagugube Village—a hybrid decay. Church Area and Makerere Kivulu capture institutional peripherality. A stratified random sampling approach was adopted to capture Kampala’s residential spectrum. Parishes served as primary strata, with zones as sub-strata. Households were randomly selected within each sub strata, proportional to housing typologies (formal/informal/hybrid). This ensured balanced representation of planned and self-organized settlements. This sampling well ensured proportional representation of housing typologies, with findings cross-validated through spatial and survey data.
Kololo is divided into four parishes, Kololo 1, 2, 3 and 4, this study covered Kololo III and IV, selecting one zone from each. From Kololo III, the study covered the zone between Upper Kololo terrace, Mabua road and Elizabeth Avenue (area 1 in the map below). And from Kololo IV Ngabo village was the area of focus particularly because a residential pocket was spotted in one corner of this structured zone.
Kisenyi has three parishes. Research was conducted in Kisenyi 2 parish which comprises of 10 zones including Kakajjo and Church area (zones 3 &4 in Figure 2). Church area became of interest because of its on-going transformation. Kakajjo is close to church area and in this, interesting disparities were identified, making it relevant for the study.
In Makerere, Makerere Kivulu and Kagugube zone were areas of concentration. Kivulu is a nationally known slum making it interesting to look into residences in the area and how physical planning and self-organization are influencing its condition and existence.
Figure 2. Mapped study areas.
2.4. Data Sources and Methods
Table 4. Data collection methods.
Method |
Category |
Study population |
Sample size |
Number of respondents |
Documentation |
Interviews [13] |
Public sector (Ministry and other planning
departments) |
5 |
4 |
4 |
Audio Recording/Notes |
Local leaders/resident (LC1) |
24 zones |
6 zones |
5 |
Audio Recording/Notes |
Other (researchers/NGO) |
5 institutions |
2 |
2 |
Audio Recording/Notes |
Private Developers/
companies |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Audio Recording/Notes |
Discussion [2] |
Local leader/resident |
5 groups |
2 groups |
2 members |
Audio Recording/Notes |
Other (Institution/police) |
3 members |
Notes |
Observation (3times) |
Study areas (parishes and zones) |
3 parishes |
6 zones |
6 zones |
Notes and Photos |
Documents review [8] |
Public sector |
|
|
5 documents |
Notes |
Other (researchers/NGO) |
|
|
3 documents |
Notes |
Table 4 above shows the data collection methods used, and Table 5 below gives details of the documents reviewed for secondary data.
Interviews were conducted with 13 respondents as broken down in the table above. Notes taking and audio recording were used for information capture then later transcription of the audio messages.
In addition to one-on-one interviews, focus group discussions were conducted with two groups.
The observation method was used in all study areas with the purpose of comparing physical plans, standards and policies with what actually is on ground. In the process, the researcher walked through the study areas to ask about land management and administration issues, and observe land development outcomes, specifically housing development outcomes. It was through this method that the disparities were identified and housing outcomes classifications were confirmed existent in the areas of study.
Table 5. Reviewed documents.
Document title |
year |
Author |
Organization |
Kampala Urban Study (Structure Plan) |
1994 |
Jon Van Nostrand
Associates Limited |
Ministry of Lands, Ministry of Local government, Ministry of Justice, KCC |
Kampala Physical Development Plan |
2012 |
Jos, Hana, Yigal, Moshe, Larry, Adi, Shuaib. |
Kampala Capital City Authority |
National Physical planning standards and guidelines |
2011 |
Directorate of physical planning and urban
development |
Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Urban Development |
The National Land Use Policy |
2006 |
|
Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Urban |
|
|
|
Development |
The Physical Planning Act |
2010 |
|
Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Urban Development |
The data collected was compiled on a daily basis. ATLAS Ti software was used for data analysis.
3. Results/Findings
3.1. Study Areas and the Identified Actual Residential Disparities
Kampala is home to 1,509,750 persons in 529,057 households [11], characterized by unplanned and scattered settlements; its residential development has been demand-driven by the urban poor hence is mostly (Muzigo) tenement as observed by the KPDP [4]. UBOS [11] reported 54.9% of Kampala’s housing as tenements. The differences in the residential structures serve different socioeconomic groups. Following is a detailed presentation of the study areas and the actual residential disparities identified in each zone. (See Table 6)
Table 6. Residential disparities.
Parish |
Zones |
Residential
development
responsibility |
Categorization of
occupants |
Characteristics of
developments |
Residential
Classification identified |
Kololo |
Kololo iii |
Government Private sector |
High income, upper middle income |
Spacious structures, fenced, single-detached houses, apartment
buildings, lawns, direct vehicle access to street. |
Structured
residential |
Kololo iv (Ngabo Village) |
Government Private sector Occupants |
High income Upper middle income Low income -
policemen and families |
Spacious structures, fenced, single-detached houses, vehicle access, Tight-spaced, no direct street access,
single-room housing. |
Structured
residential Residential pocket |
Kisenyi2 |
Church area |
Private - land
owners |
Lower middle income, upper lower income groups |
Vertical buildings,
semi-detached double room houses,
tight-spaced. |
Formal rental Residential
enclaves |
Kakajjo zone |
Private - land owner, occupants |
Immigrants, lower middle income Very low-income groups |
Storied building,
semi-detached rental, tight-spaced, too close to streets Small, single-room,
temporary houses. |
Formal rental Residential pocket |
Makerere (Kagugube) |
Kivulu |
Private - plot owners Occupants |
Very low/no income |
Old, tenements,
temporary, small,
tight-spaced. |
Residential
pockets Formal rental |
Kagugube |
Private -
developers/invest ors, land owners |
Low income, university students |
Old, temporary,
tight-spaced Storied buildings. |
Residential
enclaves, Formal rental |
Kololo Parishes
From interview sources, housing in Kololo iii was developed mostly by government during colonial times when Kololo was selected and designed to house European colonialists. Some newly constructed buildings are by private developers, and housing is very expensive given the location of the area and the lifestyle of the people it accommodates.
Kololo IV has five [5] zones/villages including Ngabo village in which research was carried out. A big part of Ngabo shares similar designs and residential characteristics with upper Kololo. It is the police barracks (pink area, in Figure 3) that is distinct in its appearance from its surrounding - this is a residential pocket. It was reported by interviews and observed to be a high-density area with free housing since it is owner-occupied; It is covered with unipots.1 Housing establishment was done after population in this area increased and the then available housing was insufficient so policemen had to improvise.
Figure 3. Kololo and residential classification.
Kololo in general gives a picture of a well thought through, well planned and structured area with particular designs and patterns. Emphasis was put on greening; the houses are built at a distance from the streets and each house is separated from the road by a well mowed lawn. All houses apart from the residential pocket, are fenced off—single detached to ensure safety and privacy, with a few semi-detached. These areas are well serviced with water, electricity and tarmacked roads/streets.
Kisenyi 2
This was originally a wetland, a swampy area in which settlements were not planned, expected or even desired. It, according to the Ministry of Lands informants, accommodated part of Kampala’s population influx during the colonial period, and its number of residents increased as the city grew. Structures in Kisenyi developed with no planning guidance, hence settlements took on the haphazard patterns evident today [12]. It is a high-density area as per the physical planning residential classification, meaning smaller plots, and many people. In addition, Kisenyi is a multi-cultural area with native Ugandans of different tribal groups, and a mixture of other immigrants like Somalis, Congolese and Rwandese. Most of its residents are low-income earners engaged in the informal sector, many in garages, doing mechanics, and others working in markets or local retail shops.
Kisenyi in the past years has been used as a study area being one of the biggest slums in Kampala, now it is a developing area with improved construction.
The overall picture in church area zone, with the mixture of upcoming developments and the old ones gives the impression of uncoordinated developments, with many buildings only a few inches apart. This is generally a formal rental area although some new buildings stand out from the surrounding, forming residential enclaves, with traces of temporary small houses hidden behind some big developments.
Kakajjo zone has a mixture of residential structures with all kinds of people. Houses behind the enclave are free of rental costs since occupants construct them. Those that rent pay a low price (less than UG 50,000/15USD), This is a residential pocket (Figure 4 - Pink).
Figure 4. Kisenyi 2 and residential classification.
Makerere (Kagugube)
Kagugube has 7 zones including Makerere Kivulu which is a nationally known slum with a mixture of ethnic groups from different parts of Uganda as well as outside the country. Housing in the residential pocket is also referred to as transitional, survivalist housing which does not follow any conventional designing or planning standards during its development.
Kagugube, particularly the area between LDC road, Makerere Hill road and Gadhafi Road is mostly with formal residential structures but with spotted enclaves (mainly hostel buildings). The setting here is complicated because of the sharp mix and interaction of residential structures. It is a rapidly growing neighbourhood on the outlook, but a deeper look and a walk through the narrow paths gives a different picture. Hidden behind the nicely painted flats are temporary, congested single room houses with a few improved structures scattered among. (See Figure 5)
Figure 5. Pictorial of the residential classifications.
3.2. Implemented Physical Plans and Their Impact on Residential Development in Kampala
3.2.1. The Planning Process
Planning is undertaken by different bodies and in a detached manner where each sector and body determines their own goals, targets, projections, boundaries etcetera. The legislative framework for physical planning is the Physical planning ACT 2010 and the National Planning Standards and Guidelines 2010, which provide the basis for physical development and regulation in the city. On a general note, the physical plan says something for every place in the city because it covers the boundaries of the planning area.
Up until 2012 when the Kampala Physical Development Plan (KPDP 2012) was released, the city developed in reference to the Kampala structure plan 1994 whose basis was to encourage mixed land-use, to achieve a good proportion of housing and employment in a particular zone (KSP 1994). Studies preceding this structure plan revealed that about 45% of Kampala, within the city boundaries was available for development, the plan therefore had emphasis on infilling within those boundaries.
With physical planning in general, residential development is classified into high density, low density and medium density basing on income levels and groups. It is expected that the low-density areas are designated for high income groups since they can afford the bigger and spacious plots, and living away from the CBD. The high-density areas are reserved for the low-income earners, here plots are a lot smaller and population higher, the houses are tight spaced. According to the planning trend, the further away from the city, the bigger the plots so high-density areas are proposed close to the CBD. The justification for the classification lies in the difference in the needs of different social classes, and the ability and ease of access to these needs.
The planning process is driven and influenced by governance, which comes also with complexities in decision making especially in urban areas. In addition, market forces, socio-economic status and historical pass dependencies all influence planning processes, and implementation in one way or the other.
3.2.2. The Plan and Implementation
From the planning process is derived the course of action, goals and objectives, standards, regulations, and the desired/set outcome for particular areas.
In Kololo, the idea was densification by way of subdivision, it was an already developed area but with big plots, this kind of subdivision somehow happened especially on government plots (public land). A big part of Kololo still enjoys the spacious plots, the protection of fences and a seen and felt diplomacy. As planned earlier in the colonial times, Kololo is still a structured residential area inhabited by particular social groups.
For Kisenyi, the 1994 plan was looking at regularizing these informal settlements but no real conscious effort from the state or KCCA was put into this. However there has been some joint effort with donors to implement social projects in some areas. It is important to note that Kisenyi was in the 1994 plan marked for industrial development and not residential. In addition to the informal housing that was there, there have been and still are more developments happening but it is more the private sector and civil organizations than the state authorities’ efforts.
Makerere, Kivulu in particular was designated purely residential and partly institutional. The 1994 plan advocated for neighbourhoods with uniform housing development based on particular designs and standards, which has not happened. The area has been redeveloped in some parts but still not consciously to the plan, it is the private developers who see a business opportunity and put up mainly hostels for students. Due to the fact that residential development in these areas has been driven by private persons, development happens as demand dictates, which may not be the plan’s preferred path. For example, there is a lot of mix of residential types, making social disparities sharp which is not the plan’s intended result.
The Physical Planning Act 2010, part iv section 31, requires that a land owner shall use the services of a qualified physical planner to prepare a local physical development plan before construction. Further, that a person shall not carry out a development within a planning area without obtaining permission from a physical planning committee. One of the powers of the local physical planning committee is to control or prohibit use and development of land and buildings so that there is proper and orderly development in the local area [13].
A number of people acknowledge that all major developments are approved and monitored by the Authority, and are guided by plans and standards. However, residential development in pockets and some residential enclaves is reportedly not guided or dictated by particular plans or standards, or even monitored; people build as they please and within their means. There are instances where people manage to beat the system when they rapidly put-up buildings or bribe some enforcement officials. There are observed developments that are very closed-in, with no direct access to a road which shows that some regulations are violated regardless of the claim that all construction is monitored.
Assessment/plan performance; the impact of plans on residential development
After processes are done, goals and outcomes set, and implementation attempted, there seem to be varying responses to the plans, regulations and standards. These responses either by the enforcers, the land owners or residents’ impact on planning’s performance and influence the success/failure of plans.
The structure plan 1994 is widely known for its implementation failure, which is attributed to its nature; it was comprehensive i.e. there were no smaller/neighbourhood plans to guide development at the lower urban levels. There was a general plan saying something for every area but had not been clearly subdivided into smaller plans to indicate which kind of development should occur where. And yet people own this land, they have needs and their lives had to move on. Hence, as Goodfellow [14] observed, the 1994 Canadian-designed structure plan guided Kampala city’s development only in theory.
The absence of detailed neighbourhood plans influences the development of residential disparities. Since there is no guidance on what kind of construction should be done on a particular place, developers do as they please, even without consulting guidelines and regulations.
Following physical planning with its standards and regulations comes with its own hassles. The inspection and approval of plans is not a free service, developers have to pay for it, just like they have to pay for cadastral surveys. What makes this even more complicated is that there haven’t been fixed rates for these services; because there has not been a legal provision. In addition, this also takes time because people have to wait to go through the planning inspection-approval processes. Due to the hassles of payments and the waiting, many people opt for other strategies; they build houses rapidly—one gets a gang to construct within 3 - 4 days. This partly explains the uncoordinated new constructions in church area zone especially, and the mix of permanent, semi-permanent and temporary houses in Kagugube.
Planning in Kampala is at peace-meal where a planner sits with a specific developer and they draw plans for a particular selected piece of land. The implementation enforcement of regulations and standards is on the basis of just a few whose plans are received for approval by the authorities. This means that the development plans are scattered around the city on small plots, which usually is limiting because then the planning of that application is only up to the boundary and the saturation around it, beyond it there is no connection. Beyond about 100 meters from the approved development is of no concern while the plan is being reviewed, the results of this are the mixtures and disparities in residential development.
Developers, land owners and residents do not see the value or importance of planning, they do not understand why their use of their own land should be controlled and restricted. Still, although sometimes people may be willing to comply, the awareness about the physical plans is limited, most people do not know what the plan says about developments in their specific areas, so they end up doing what they think is best or what they can afford to do. Planning in general is still not very much valued and appreciated, and the developers are mostly the private sector, the community, individuals, companies and organizations.
Ministry [15], acknowledges that there is inadequate Human Settlement planning which had resulted not only into haphazard developments but also wasteful and inappropriate settlement systems and patterns. With the low density, high and medium density classification of residential development, it is possible for physical planning to reduce the disparities within neighbourhoods if the particular standards and guidelines are enforced and implemented. But this has not happened this way, Kisenyi for instance, now that it is developing has attracted other income groups which were not there before, same as Kagugube hence the differences in housing structures between the new income groups and the original occupants are tremendously visible. The patterns and residential developments interaction in space in the study areas, compared with physical planning intentions, standards and regulations (Table 7), and linked to the KCCA vision for the city show that physical planning has not exactly realized its aim of “achieving orderly, equitable, efficient and coordinated development”.
Table 7. Residential development standards and regulations vs Actual situation.
Set Standards and regulations |
Low density |
High
density |
Actual situation |
|
Kololo |
Kisenyi 2 |
Kagugube |
Kivulu |
Plot area |
1000 - 2000 sq m |
300 - 600 sq m |
Big plots about 4000sq m |
Tight-spaced shared plots |
Shared plots |
Tight shared plots |
Front building line |
8 m |
3 m |
Above 5 metres |
Less than 2 metres mostly |
Less than 3 metres |
Less than 2 metres |
Side building line |
3 m back 2 m. 2 m sides |
2 m. 2 m |
3m and above |
Less than a metre. Closed in |
1 metre or above in some places |
Less than a metre |
Every plot with direct vehicular access |
|
On some plots. Mostly
footpaths |
On Some plots |
Just houses by the roads, rest access footpaths |
Detached developments must be designed to ensure privacy |
|
Houses closed in with door along foot paths |
Closed-in |
Houses
closed-in with entrances along footpaths |
Residential buildings must not be used for business purposes |
|
Restaurant
activities in houses |
Retail shops in houses |
Mixture |
Exceptions are allowed for a 1-meter side building line on condition that one, there are no windows on the house side, and secondly that all houses on the street are constructed by one developer. The standards and guidelines are much respected in areas where the formal private sector is operating than in the informal areas.
Despite the plans, the city’s development continues to be unplanned and outside planned areas especially with housing. The failure in implementation and enforcement is attributed to the rapid increase in the urban poor population, the low-income groups in the unplanned areas [4]. The current plan also recognizes that planning is only responsive and not proactive or even transparent; plans are inaccessible to the wider public.
Housing is mostly regarded as a private sector responsibility; as a result, the formal private sector has catered for the housing needs of the high- and middle-income groups, leaving needs of the low-income groups to the informal private sector.
3.3. Self-Organization and Impact on Residential Development
Ernston and Mukwaya [9] acknowledge Kampala’s rich tradition of civil society and community organizing activities; including mutual aid networks and alternative infrastructure arrangements, which have a big impact on the shape of the city. Self-organization represented by residents, private sector, social groups and land owners steers residential development. In some areas (Kisenyi), all developments are by residents themselves, either the occupants themselves or developers who own land and live in the parish, not external developers.
Self-organization in the selected communities is depicted mostly in individual actions or social groups. However, it is done and no matter who does it, residential development has been driven by conditions: interaction and communication, partnership and collaboration, information flows, gaps in housing service provision and the need for housing; these are expressed as boundary spanning activities and incentive/trigger.
Boundary spanning activities involve interactions and communication that results into a group’s desired outcome—housing in this case. For instance, Somalis have influenced particular standards of housing and found refuge in Kisenyi (“little Mogadishu”). This is the area around Malinga road which covers a part of Kakajjo zone and a part of church area.
Incentives drive residential developments in particular directions. The fact that the government does not involve much in housing development, yet populations need shelter triggers the private sector to provide and meet the demands. How the housing demands are met depends on social classification, and therefore, the difference in housing standards and quality. When planning for developments in an area, consideration is put on the surrounding so that what is constructed serves and benefits the community around.
Construction companies target the elite—high income groups in Kololo, which informs the quality and standards there. In Kisenyi, Kivulu and Kagugube, the private developers are the land owners and sometimes residents who see gaps in housing service provision which triggers their actions and decisions.
Housing needs in Kampala are largely provided for on individual basis, people construct their own housing and because of this, every one constructs within their means, according to their preferences and needs. The actions and decisions of one resident influence actions of another; resulting in multiple residential styles and standards
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Explanation and Justification of Social Residential Disparities as a Result of the Interaction between Physical Planning and Self-Organization
The interaction between Physical planning and self-organization manifests through processes; including actions and decisions either taken in the past or still being taken.
4.1.1. Processes and Procedures
The actions and decisions of land owners, private developers, residents, ethnic and income groups, and institutions play a big role in shaping residential structures on one hand. On the other hand, formal physical planning processes and procedures, policies, standards, regulations as well as actions and decisions of enforcement authorities play a role in shaping residences as well. The residential disparities discussed in the previous sections, as seen are as a result of different factors. Here the purpose is to analyze each of these factors in context—in particular areas to see how formal physical planning and self-organization influence development of residential disparities. The focus here for better analysis is on particular disparities identified in the three areas of study.
4.1.2. Processes and Procedures Influencing Structured Residential
The land ownership and occupancy influenced the processes of residential development, and still is influencing these processes in current development. Traced back to colonial planning practices where residential areas were structured and planned for colonialists on public land, Kololo was part of this land, and was one of the first planned residential areas. Development standards, patterns and regulations were observed which gives the neighbourhoods in this parish their current residential appearance and quality.
In current development attempts, private developers take into consideration the setting and composition of an area to influence decisions on typology and standards of residential development. This explains the differences in residential structures. Kololo is occupied by rich people, there are embassies, consulates and the neighbourhood attracts people from different countries, so the structures put up have to meet those standards. The spacious, storied and well serviced apartments set up by private companies fit these purposes. The area is also safe and secure, attracting such developments.
Kololo is still public land therefore controlled and administered by the Kampala district land board, it is on leasehold2. This makes it easy to control development since every unit of land is planned and controlled, as compared to Kisenyi and Kivulu which are under private mailo3. Kololo’s structure can be traced back to colonial planning and organization of space, but even today, the land users are obligated by certain regulations so nothing is done without the consent of the authorities. As a result, all housing in Kololo has similar patterns and designs; it is a structured residential area.
4.1.3. Processes and Procedures Influencing Residential Enclaves and Formal Rental
Kisenyi and Kagugube were, and still are part of the mailo tenure, which has complications of ownership and usage especially after the multiple subdivisions. In Kakajjo zone, land has multiple owners and everyone has their own interests. The area in which the residential enclave is, is owned by one resident and the surrounding by other owners. This is contributing to the establishment of residential enclaves in communities where one owner decides to plan and develop his land ignoring the appearance and quality of the surrounding. In some cases, this particular owner will approach a physical planner, has this piece of land planed and developed according to particular standards. This is the piecemeal planning, and implementation on selected plots. A few meters from the planned development area is of no concern, the neighbours are doing business as usual; constructing outside regulations and standards. This therefore leads to one developed plot looking different from the surrounding, creating an enclave.
In some cases, a land owner or developer will not even consult physical planners, so long as they have the requirement—a title, at times they just go ahead and construct. This, in most cases, is done to avoid hassles and delays, or avoid extra expenses that come with the consultation of a physical planner. Many upcoming developments have little input from physical plans because developers just hire surveyors for purposes of getting a land title, then they sub divide acres and just start with constructions without consulting the physical development plan.
It is routine for developments in these areas especially the informal settings to go against the plans and acceptable standards and this is to some extent because of poor enforcement of regulations. Regardless of institutions or land ownership, the regulations according to the physical planning standards and guidelines [5] apply to every developer on every land. But even with those regulations, it is common to find a house developed where the plan says there should be a road, being that the government does not come in to show where the road should be and to compensate the owner. Failure to compensate pushes people to do their own developments in isolation of the plans.
Agreements and discussions between enforcement officials and residents/developers results into unplanned and unauthorized developments. Because of these relations, several deviations go un noticed and not penalized.
The enclaves and some formal rental houses are set up mostly by the private developers to meet the needs of the lower-middle or higher low-income groups. The developers target higher profit and construct as demand dictates and wherever they get a free zone.
4.1.4. Processes and Procedures Influencing Residential Pockets
In reference to the colonial planning period, land which was owned privately (Mailo) and used by natives was not planned, developments just happened and these differences are still evident. In addition, after independence many people came from their villages, and could not set up standard structures for accommodation because they had no income so they joined the informal sector, which was the genesis of slums. Until now, land in Kisenyi and Kivulu is privately controlled by people who sometimes do not use it as regulated by the planning authorities.
The individual and multiple ownership makes this even more complicated. There are multiple squatters in the residential pockets, each puts up their little temporary dwelling and this is partly because the land owners do not allow permanent structures on their land as they fear to lose it to tenants who might become bona fide. In these areas in most cases the registered land owner does not occupy the land, also, the kibanja owners have several other tenants using/occupying pieces of this same land. It is not easy to develop because it is hard for the multiple owners to come to a common agreement. So this multiple ownership emphasizes the residential disparities. The residential pocket in Kakajjo is surrounded by other plots owned by other people. Even if the land owner decided to sell for redevelopment, there is not access to it. The settlers on this land have lived on it for a long time, and it has always been the way it is.
In regard to land being controlled by the land board, and this making it easy to control development, the situation in this pocket does not seem to indicate that this is working out well after all. The housing in the pocket is attributed to the fact that land belongs to the government and therefore people build with uncertainty, government may decide to demolish and redevelop as it wishes. It is actually not acceptable on this particular land to put up houses for rent, no private developer can come to put up buildings.
Some pockets develop as a result of restrictions on construction. For the pocket in Ngabo for example, police housing was shared and people were not allowed to put up more structures. But policemen were required to stay within the premises, their population kept increasing and the houses were not enough anymore. Out of frustration they decided to put up self-help housing. Families moved out of shared houses and used the free space in the barracks to construct small houses to provide their own shelter. This all points out the ways in which police as a self-organized entity pushed by the need for housing, history and their level of income contributed to the appearance and architectural style of the housing in this area.
There are plans drawn for areas like these, Kivulu in the 1994 plan was designated for residential development, Kisenyi, particularly Kakajjo was actually in the redevelopment plan designed industrial. But this has not been realized partly because of land ownership and occupancy. It is quite difficult to execute public plans and arrangements given the fact that land does not belong to the state. Land owners decide what to do with their land and the plans do not dictate what it is. In addition, plans have not been detailed enough into controlling what happens, for the residential pocket in Ngabo village for example, the plan indicates that there is a barracks but does not follow up on what really happens, it is up to the police what they do.
There are regulations yes, but most times people do not know about them and those who know choose not to follow them. There are efforts for redevelopment, upgrading and making these areas better. These are not either well communicated to the people who live in these areas because they do not know about them, there is no knowledge in communities about KCCA or donors’ redevelopment plans. Interventions come sometimes after developments have come up and this can be disturbing.
As much as need for housing, institutional “preference” and income among other factors have impacted on the residential structures’ appearance and influenced disparities, formal physical planning’s contribution can be seen in the lack of detailed plans, the poor enforcement and the pressure and uncertainty that comes with the fact that occupants are temporary and so cannot set up standard permanent housing. The processes leading to interaction between different actors all work together to influence residential disparities in the different neighbourhoods.
Generally, procedures require that someone must have a land title to be eligible to receive a building plan or approval. Many people for instance in Kisenyi 2 and Kivulu are squatters on pieces of land and therefore do not have land titles. On top of that, the plan and approval are not free of charge and most people are not able to afford, yet these same people have housing needs. So they decide to construct without a plan and in most cases in violation of the standards. One person’s decision and actions influence another’s and then a big part of the community ends up with similar structures, legal or not.
Absence of a policy that allows the planning authority to determine what happens on the land is a challenge and a limitation to physical planning. The whole country was declared a planning area, but the land for which development is planned belongs to the people not to the government. All they do is regulate, and guide but the people still have a choice on which kind of housing they will construct on a particular space. On the other hand however, although land belongs to the people, it has to be used in accordance to the physical plan which means that people have to use it in a certain way as specified even in the land ACT. The fact that land belongs to the people makes physical planning a little more complicated, however, planning is organizing land no matter who it belongs to.
Social status and income levels play a big part in processes and procedures influencing residential development and leading to different disparities. Kampala is reported by the recent housing and population census exercise to have a high engagement in the money economy, with 98.3% of households in either salary/wages earning, or income generating activities [11]. However, the city also has the lowest home ownership (15.3%) and the highest rental market (70%), meaning the city has more people depending on rental housing than those living in their own dwelling units. The different income levels dictate different housing needs and therefore hosing development outcomes.
4.2. Current Residential Development and its Implication on Disparities
Kampala Physical Development Plan 2012’s primary goal is to reduce the scale of demand for basic shelter and enable access to basic housing, but there are plans to meet the inevitable residual demand for basic shelter through improvements, redevelopments and upgrading.
Table 8. housing standards and type.
Standard/Socio-Economic Category (SEC) |
Current
situation |
KPDP 2012 long term target |
High Standard/High &
Upper Middle SEC |
Large Single Houses |
Mix of large houses, top end
townhouses and exclusive apartments |
Reasonable Standard/Upper & Lower Middle |
Single Houses, some apartments |
Mix of single & semi-detached houses, townhouses, apartments and top end row-houses |
Improved Housing/Lower Middle and Low (Working class) |
Single & Semi- detached houses |
Mix of single & semi-detached houses, row-houses and apartments |
Basic Housing/Low (Working Class) SEC |
Mix of houses and Muzigo (Tenements) |
Mix of low-cost houses, row-houses, and apartments (hostels for students and service providers as interim
housing). |
Basic Shelter/Subsistence SEC |
Muzigo, some houses |
Mix of Muzigo and improved basic shelter (primarily hostels). |
Source: Compiled from information from physical plan-KPDP 2012
With reference to Table 8, areas like Kisenyi and Kivulu are targeted for redevelopment, upgrading and new developments to improve the housing standards and quality. Kololo is targeted for densification and mixed-use development. If achieved, with residential standards and regulations enforced, these targets are set to reduce the social residential disparities in the study areas and in Kampala as a whole. The redevelopments and new developments are already happening especially in Kisenyi 2 and Kagugube. This situation and implication on residential disparities is further elaborated in the following paragraphs.
From physical planning, the tendency now is to promote and encourage mixed-use development. The residential mentioned in the current physical development plan does not mean exclusive housing, there can be schools, hospitals, churches within the designated residential area, the desire is an organized mix of compatible uses; the smart growth strategy. There is a recent development in Kololo, the Speke lounge next to Speke apartments, which was planned to be a mix of residential apartments with a shopping mall and Leisure facilities.
Although the whole country was declared a planning area, the law recognizes that the land belongs to the people, but obliges the land owner to work closely with a physical planner to do the planning of how they would like to utilize their land. When a physical planner is approached, the first thing is to consult the structure plan and see what it provides for the particular developer’s area, and whatever plans and suggestions made should align with the requirement and suggestions of the structure plan. However, this does not seem to happen as desired or set out.
Most people do not consult physical planners, they deal with surveyors, subdivide land and just continue with construction. It is believed that enforcement officials show up at every new development, but still uncoordinated developments and tight-spaced constructions are observed. The tight-spacing is justified by the plan allowing 100% construction in mixed development areas, hence not spaces are expected. The planning and standards implementation is still piecemeal, not many people go to have their plans approved or their constructions monitored. The implementation on and planning for selected plots is one of the strong influences of residential pockets in residential development.
Some people are frustrated the late interventions after developments have occurred. KCCA’s plan is densification in terms of vertical (above four stories) development, single-story building plans are discouraged. Going vertical is not an option, it is the way to go, this, it is believed will lead to better buildings, better housing, and a better city. The problem however is that these developments are not taking into consideration the people in these areas, especially the urban poor who are pushed out.
The development process is suppressing the urban poor, they are forced to leave after land owners sell to developers. Those who cannot afford just have to leave and find where they can afford and fit to live. The gentrification process taking place in Kisenyi 2 especially involves silent evictions, where a developer identifies a desired piece of land, identifies the owner who he meets and discusses with, makes offers, process payments and the squatters have no choice but to leave. In cases where the land owner does not comply, the developers opt to work with local authorities, the structure owners and tenants who the developer pays off to go and construct somewhere else, the landowner then will have no other choice but to sell to the developer since he is not getting money from the land anymore.
Kisenyi 2 in particular is a transforming area, as the poor are pushed out, higher income groups are coming in. The urban poor survive on the CBD, they cannot live far from their work. The implication with the gentrification is that these people will still look for a place to live and since they work in the city will find places in or close to the city, free zones most likely. In the end those who cannot afford the new residential developments will be forced to concentrate in particular area and likely in temporary dwellings. This intensifies the social residential disparities.
Without a tittle people are not allowed to construct so developers are buying small plots and combining them to get space big enough to qualify for a building plan approval for new developments which are mostly storied semi-detached houses. The acceptable least plot size is 50x100, and standards here in the high-density areas allow for just necessities on every plot of land. There are no luxuries such as swimming pools or car parking spaces.
The time for building permissions was reduced from one month to 72 hours according to the annual report [16]. This means that people won’t have to wait long to have their plans approved and it is a good step towards encouraging developers to work with physical planners. In addition, KCCA introduced the “smart permit project” [17] which allows housing developers to submit applications and upload necessary documents online from their location, which suggests an enhancement in efficiency for the permit process. On the other hand however, this does not eliminate the issue of piecemeal planning and implementation, it does not really ensure that all developers have approval before constructions. The costs that residents and developers have to incur for building permits and plan approvals are another push factor. Worst part is that there are no fixed rates, for these costs since there is no legal provision as yet.
Bertaud [18] affirms that urban spatial shapes are, in most cases, the unintentional result of unpredicted consequences of plans or policies that were designed without a reflection on spatial concerns. In other words, the particular outcome in spatial organization may not really necessarily be the intended result of spatial planning.
4.3. Conclusions
Overview of answers to research question
The assumption was that formal physical planning guides physical development in a certain direction and therefore ensures that undesirable developments do not occur, hence providing orderly and coordinated development.
This research set out to answer questions related to physical planning in Kampala; which plans have been implemented and how they have shaped the city. It was found out that the city has been running on the 1994 structure plan which was said to have expired in 2004 [16]. KCCA with the assistance of the world bank and other projects started the preparation of the greater Kampala plan whose final draft was completed in 2012. Between the 1994 structure plan expiration and the 2012 physical development plan publication, there was no other formal physical development plans. Although some reports show that there were/have been projects running, funded and implemented both by KCCA and government in collaboration with donors. For example in Kisenyi was the Kampala integrated environmental planning and management project funded by the Belgian cooperation, projects in Kagugube and the national slum upgrading action plan by the ministry of lands and UN-Habitat, among other projects.
The study leading to the 1994 plan acknowledged detailed plans were never completed, that 90% of the city was never planned in detail [19]. This same study recommended more detailed planning. Two decades later, it is still the same problem, the same weakness with planning in Kampala. Physical planning through its weakness and gaps, i.e. the absence of detailed plans, the hassles and delays related to its implementation, the deviations encouraged by enforcers through negotiations and corruption, all have influenced the development of social residential disparities. If there is a general plan that says something for every area, but no detailed plans to guide development on every unit of land or even emphasize acceptable standards, then people end up doing what is in their financial reach and what they deem basic.
Next focus was on how community and private self-organized activities influence the development of residential disparities. Self-organization in Kampala is manifested through the private sector/developers, the residents and the land owners. Boundary spanning activities and incentives spur actions and decisions of these three groups, and these have directly influenced residential development and the development of social residential disparities in the communities. Some of these actions and decisions are triggered by the need for housing, some by the desire for higher profit, some by the pressures from one group of agents like the land owners, and hassle and pressures of physical planning among other issues.
The private sector, land owners and residents on the other hand respond to physical planning in different ways as they meet their own needs and demands. Land owners have a tremendous impact of residential development since they largely influence the type and quality of residential structures. Income also plays a part in determining which structures and quality are appropriate. Residents’ actions and decisions in the bid to meet their housing need are influenced by income and the demands of the land owners, which demands are outside acceptable standards and regulations. Planning in this case does not seem to be an obstacle since residents can after all ignore the regulations and standards.
Focusing on the question of actual residential disparities in Kampala; A combination of different residential characteristics, with the social exclusionary processes based on income, ethnicity and lifestyle led to the classification of residential disparities into residential pockets, residential enclaves, formal residential and structured residential (Table 6). These classifications are backed by history, that is, the period of establishment and processes of establishment.
The social residential disparities as identified cannot be explained by one single force or blamed on one single actor. It is a combination of factors and an interaction between different actors and systems that has led to the development of residential disparities giving Kampala its current spatial configuration.
So; In what ways does formal physical planning on one hand and self-organization in communities on the other hand influence the development of social residential disparities in communities in Kampala? By analysing processes and procedures of both formal physical planning and self-organization, analysing responses and reactions, several answers to the question were derived.
Source: A compilation of findings from collected data.
Figure 7. In what ways has formal physical planning and Self-Organization in Kampala influenced the development of social residential disparities?
The coloured ovals represent the root of residential disparities, which is either an actor, a situation or a part of a process. Outside the ovals and the squares (not coloured text) are the effects from the root; the actions, decisions and processes which directly influence the particular disparities. (See Figure 7)
The situation in Kampala, the interactions among different forces, the demands and needs of social systems on one hand and physical planning on the other hand; and the outcome of these interactions is proof that a city is not shaped by one single force. Physical planning is trying to make the city what the planners want it to look like and what they think it should look like, but the object of planning on the other hand does not seem to respond to the plans as desired. The social systems are both formal and informal and both ends respond in different ways. All systems and actors are pushing to shape the city.
The fact that the object of planning, is mainly controlled and owned by social systems seems to give planning not much control over the spatial organization of the city. This confers with Gerrits and Teisman’s [8] acknowledgement that the planner is not in full control of the planning object. Land ownership therefore is one big influence and a problem to the implementation of physical plans. But this is fueled by failure of regulatory enforcement. There is so much that planning is doing, there is also so much that physical planning is not doing right, and enforcement is a big part of it.
Instead of ensuring that “undesirable developments do not occur” [20], physical planning through gaps and weaknesses in its processes encourages and influences these very developments. KCCA with its planning mandate for the entire city has been able to enforce standards on the formerly public land which is leased out but not on the bigger mailo land where chaotic and unplanned [21] developments continue. Residents, land owners and developers take advantage of these weaknesses to meet their needs, in many cases against the standards and regulations of the plan thereby contributing to plan’s undesirable outcomes and creating disparities.
Generally, Kampala’s physical structure, like many other African cities is always explained and justified by European colonial planning. It is true that history of places has influenced the current appearance of the different areas. The structured and well laid residential set up in Kololo is credited to European colonial planning. This same colonial planning is blamed for the uncoordinated, unplanned and unmonitored developments in Kisenyi and Kivulu. The blame on colonial planning for the appearance of Kampala and social residential disparities in its communities is not reason enough, there is more to the problem than just European colonial planning. Uganda got independent in 1962, more than fifty years down the road, there has been all chances, opportunities and time to change the status quo.
In the structure plan, observation was made that urban planning in the city “has proceeded on an uncontrolled basis, programs and procedure made although remain legal bear less reference to what has actually happened on ground”. This was remarked more than 20 years ago, after the comparison of regulations and set targets with the actual condition, this very observation can apply to the current situation.
The effort and initiatives are really commended; the plans are in place, ACTs, guidelines, statutes, action plans and policies among other guiding documents, but the challenge remains translating these into outcomes, onto space so that it is not just plans on paper but success stories as well. Among planning challenges and limitations is the fact that it is not well funded, which also affects its effectiveness and efficiency.
The actions and decisions of self-organized systems play a part in deviations from desired outcomes. In reality, these systems will always be there, working and forming patterns. Plans and policies need to accept them, come in and “…help to direct such processes to desired directions…” [22]. There is indeed more to the problem than history or self-organized systems response, but above all, physical planning in Kampala is not respected or valued both by the planners/enforcement authorities and the social systems.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to some special people with whose help I wouldn’t have completed this work or enjoyed the entire process.
My deep gratitude to Ms. Else Keunen and Dr. Alex Jachnow who supervised my masters thesis, it has given birth to this paper. To Saskia and Monika Kuffer whose input at different stages made the process intense, but fruitful!
My deepest gratitude to the Mukova family. To friends; Sharon Auma and Fifella Aziza you were always socially and emotionally supportive. Pamela Drate, Fitri, Ayin, Tyas, William, Cen, Vannak, Maricel, thank you for making my year interesting.
And in a special way, many thanks to my family, Isaac Odoch – my husband, Ella Hannah Amaro and Bernice Raphaella Tara, my lovely daughters.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
NOTES
1Single-family, one unit huts made with iron sheet - iron huts.
2Temporary right to own and occupy land for a given length of time.
3Land owned under the Buganda kingdom after the 1900 agreement.