Informal Settlements: A New Understanding for Governance and Vulnerability Study

Abstract

This review examines current knowledge in the literature on informal settlements, specifically those contributions that include emphases on governance and the role of public administration. Given that informal settlements task the public sector with specific challenges that test the limits of infrastructure, while also presenting considerable human demands, there is a need to better understand how informal settlements and governments’ capacities to respond to such phenomena potentially deepen concerns with already vulnerable populations. After an introduction to the concept of informal settlements, the paper considers the approach to the literature review, which included an initial group of 272 papers from peer-reviewed, English-language journals, from the period 2019 to June 2024. Major themes are discussed, with opportunities for future research identified. Informal settlements are still an emerging topic within the larger land use and urban planning literature, but the significance of this research extends beyond the immediate areas of the settlements themselves to critical areas of governance and vulnerability study.

1. Introduction

Population displacement has long been a concern in developing nations [1]. While slums and squatters are not new, the language of informal settlements in peri-urban areas dates from the 1960s and 1960s with the work of Charles Abrams [2] and Keith Hart [3] and continued into the 1980s as a global phenomenon affecting populations displaced from agricultural positions [4,5]. Put simply, informal settlements first appeared in the literature as a seeming counter to “planned settlements” [6]; these settlements were set forward initially as unplanned and thus temporary. Informal settlements are frequently associated especially in the earlier literature with slum areas [5] and “squatter housing” [1]. Vulnerable groups have been impacted by poor planning in formal housing, such that no amount of reform or infill efforts could address the need for existing populations, much less the rapid influx of groups from other areas into the fringes of urban regions. It has been suggested that “that increasingly capital-intensive production is consistent with a large and growing pool of structurally unemployed people” [7]. While certain segments of society no doubt benefited from economic development, there has been less consideration of full employment for groups that had previously benefited from more agrarian and less industrialized work.

Greater efficiency has a surplusing effect for workers, pushing individuals and their families to the margins where challenging circumstances grow even more difficult. The failure of agriculture to sustain populations, remaining static in the face of technological advancement, and the ever-present threat of poverty, may be seen as beyond the control of governments. However, governments are frequently called upon to address the outcomes of change, whether they are vulnerability, homelessness, the breakup of families, or societal breakdowns. Informal settlements present grave concerns and may be seen through a variety of lenses: as matters of personal survival, societal and planning incompetence or lack of care, or sources of vulnerability that portend increasing disruption alongside other calamities, such as the pressures of climate change and political strife [4]. How a government chooses to address informal settlements says much about policy and values, but also the government itself, and how the government is or is not adjusting to changing expectations and contexts.

This review examines foundational knowledge and current research on informal settlements, specifically those contributions that include emphases on governance and the role of public administration. Given that informal settlements task the public sector with specific challenges that test the limits of infrastructure, while also presenting considerable human demands, there is a need to better understand how informal settlements and governments’ capacities to respond to such phenomena potentially deepen concerns with already vulnerable populations. After an introduction to the concept of informal settlements, the paper considers the approach to the literature review, which includes an initial group of 272 papers from peer-reviewed, English-language journals, from the period 2019 to June 2024. This review begins with a discussion of the concept of informal settlements as distinct from their formal counterparts and how the literature has sought to define these areas and their associated concerns in the past. Sections on the lines between formal and informal; water supply services; climate change and disaster risk; the role of government; and various approaches to planning, follow. A conclusion with opportunities for future research closes the paper. Informal settlements remain an emerging topic within the larger land use and urban planning literature, but the significance of this research extends beyond into critical areas of governance and vulnerability study, and more work on the topic is warranted.

2. Defining Informal Settlements

Informal settlements can take many forms. They may constitute unplanned or temporary housing developments, often on the periphery of urban areas, but not exclusively as some informal settlements occur in cities and even in city centers [8]. The pattern of settlement is often incremental [9]. Informal settlements may also arise on urban land and in buildings without proper permits, which often fail to conform to expected building standards. Informal settlements are the result of poor planning on the part of governments and untenable situations in the housing markets, including speculation and the failure of housing markets to be affordable to the broadest portion of the population, including underserved groups. A basic view is that both a lack of housing and migration lead to informal settlements [10]; the totality of the problem though is more complex.

In developing areas around the world, rapid urbanization and poor planning have resulted in suboptimal development outcomes, including “socio-spatial inequalities and unequal development among neighbourhoods”, which impact informal settlements that are typically located on otherwise objectionable land [11] in hazard-susceptible urban areas characterized by overcrowding, with a resulting increase in congestion diseconomies [12,13]. A “lack of tenure security, severe deprivations and infrastructure deficiencies” [14] may be evident. These concerns are seen around the world in developed and developing nations. Some one billion people around the world live in informal settlements and slums [15,16], and the expansion of megacities into the future [17] signals a challenge to be addressed. It has been suggested that some 2.2 billion people may find themselves in a condition of informality over the next thirty years [18].

Because informal settlements are in areas that are vulnerable to disasters, including places with problems exacerbated by climate change, residents are severely limited in their options to improve their lot in life. Informal settlements are particularly at risk of flooding [19]. The constant threat of flooding destroys home goods and appliances; the threat of home fires, aggravated because of wood buildings and illicit electricity connections, may destroy the homes themselves [14,20].

Even though informal settlements have been studied for decades, there is still no universal definition of the term; usually, definitions center on the traits and context of the settlements, including legal, planning, and regulatory aspects beyond the individual experience of residents [21]. In some respects, the literature has regularly revisited old theories and discussions, but there is a paucity of new material or thinking about the phenomenon of informal settlements and how society might try to address needs, so research arguably remains an “emerging” topic in this area.

One standpoint is that the presence and continuation of informal settlements ha much to do with interactions between the expectations of self-help on the part of settlement residents [22,23], and a general ”systemic neglect” that leads to poverty and its exacerbation [14].

2.1. Legality and Displacement

Another question that is at the core of work in this topic area is the legality of settlements. One form of informal settlement is a squatter settlement, where buildings are not built with applicable authority and residents have no lawful right to the property [24]. The inhabitants may lack tenure on the land, so their development and housing on the land may be illegal. Even in cases where the lease of the land is clearly established, use may be in violation of various laws or regulations for permitting and planning, placing the development in an extra-legal standing. People who live in an area without any right to the land might be thought of as squatters. People with unclear titles live with an uncertain legal status that might add to their vulnerability, in that they lack resources to defend themselves and their rights, given their already precarious contexts and personal predicaments [5]. Another form of informal settlement, slum areas, are characterized by insecurity in residential status, including problems with infrastructure, overcrowding, and poor building quality [24]. The terms squatter, slum, and even informality are problematic and bring with them harmful views emphasizing what these areas lack, and further seeking marginalization of people that are already underserved and vulnerable [25].

Not everyone who lives within a situation of informality was forced into this context; some choices are made on a voluntary basis, understanding that regulations are in place (the hukou residence system in China, for example, noting some recent reforms, which emphasize socio-economic criteria) [26]. However, those who live in these areas are most frequently disadvantaged in some respect [18].

Government responses to informal settlements may take a number of courses, from no action, allowing the informal settlement process to progress, and its endemic problems to potentially grow more challenging, to eviction from the disputed area. Governments may choose to simply allow for informal settlements, and provide some stipend to inhabitants, rather than providing more comprehensive policies to ameliorate the root causes of informal settlements [1]. Eviction may occur when problems in an area, such as violent crime, poverty, and drug use, among other potential issues, grow out of control, or when a third party has an interest in the area and wishes the informal settlers removed from the location(s) [5]. As a public matter, informal settlements are potentially dangerous places and sources of community blight, so the third party may not have a direct interest from a land tenure perspective but instead might have a community or quality of life interest, such as reducing the threat of high crime from the neighboring informal settlement. Governments also have other options beyond eviction, such as improvement (including granting infrastructure access or enhancing building approaches) [27,28], though upgrades may re-create marginalization for some groups if concerted efforts are not made to avoid such outcomes [29].

While investment in an informal settlement may be of little interest to those outside the community itself, considerable resources from the perspective of the individuals there had gone into building the settlement. In the event of eviction or displacement, these resources would be potentially lost, leaving residents with even fewer resources or assets. After displacement, alternative forms of housing would likely be out of the range of reasonable affordability for those living in an informal settlement [5]. This is to be expected, given residents’ choice of housing in the first place, which is not much of a choice at all. Without more formalized or government-based sources of stability and services, residents of marginalized communities like informal settlements must rely upon family and extended families for help [7]; the ability of such communities to withstand shocks, such as from individual or societal emergencies, would be thin and uneven at best. Being either in or close to poverty, large populations in informal settlements are already near destitution, making their plight a society-wide issue, particularly in instances of disaster or other crisis, given an inherent lack of individual capacity to respond to such challenges within these communities.

2.2. Identifying Government’s Role in Addressing Informal Settlements

The question of whether a government should allow informal settlements to persist, having allowed them to take hold in the first place, is a central question that has been at the center of public debates since informal settlements were first identified. Jenkins [4] outlined reasons for and against the removal of informal settlements. Among the reasons for wanting to remove informal settlements are that they may constitute an eyesore, pose public health challenges, including a lack of access in the event of a fire or a need for an ambulance, and lack an acceptable level of administration; these areas also lack typical community services including schools, hospitals, and community meeting places. However, informal settlements may be allowed to persist simply because the alternatives, including displacement without any alternative housing, are themselves unacceptable [4].

One of the markers for vulnerability in informal settlements is a lack of access to necessary resources. Informal settlements lack access to services that would normally be expected from a municipality or found in an urban area, even if the settlement itself is adjacent to a city—including “street layout, water, [and] sewer” [30]. Informal settlement residents may lack access to government services because they do not live in a city proper, or other government-zoned area that provides jurisdiction for providing services [5]. A solution might entail a nearby government deciding to provide services, such as water and sewerage treatment, some administrative support, and the encouragement of enhancements that reduce settlement vulnerability (such as reducing the potential for fires) [4].

Essential services may include police, health-related services, or access to jobs and public transportation. To help such residents in vulnerable positions make an appropriate transition from informal settlements to a context that is healthier and more stable, efforts must be made to provide a fuller social safety net. This would typically be provided through government or not-for-profit (NGO) auspices. Incomes in marginalized areas may be thought to be unreliable. Proximity to services and the certainty of a location in a city are important to stability [7].

For its part, a government may not see a need for addressing informal settlements through the provision of low-cost public housing and land [1]. The problem with this thinking is that there will, for the foreseeable future, be a large population in both developed and developing countries that cannot meet its needs for subsistence and housing, and the problems presented by these groups to the larger society are indeed societal problems, which will be paid for by governments, and thus the rest of the population. The shortage of safe and stable low-income housing is chronic and has been so for an exceptionally long time, as we now see projections for shortfalls of such housing [31] come to fruition. Even when a government recognizes a need for low-income housing, programs are sometimes faulty, in that slums are cleared out, only to be replaced with housing that is unaffordable to the populations targeted for help; the process of informal settlement thus begins again [32].

There is something positive to be said for informal settlements, in that being constructed out of necessity, they evidence some seeds of resilience. People in these areas show considerable self-help in building their own homes, despite the neglect of nearby local governments or responsible entities at higher levels [30]. Informal settlements do constitute a solution to the problem of homelessness and poverty [4], even if one may criticize the quality of the solution itself or the policy context that precipitated it. Rather than simply being seen as a source of vulnerability, informal settlements could be worked with by neighboring communities [31] in advance of crises. Otherwise, it is entirely reasonable to believe that the vulnerabilities of the informal settlements may spread and grow to become vulnerabilities of the neighboring communities as well, if not whole regions.

The private sector has frequently been called upon as a potential source of support for areas where a government lacks resources, and informal settlements are no different [31]. However, it is unreasonable to believe that the private sector would engage in such work altruistically; if the private sector can be shown a business interest in working toward the improvement and enhancement of the interests of informal settlements, there may be opportunities for work in this area. Among landowners, renters, and irregular owners (informal settlers or squatters) [32], stakeholder needs are different. High land prices affect people in a way that reduces their potential spending habits, so they may spend less on actual shelter construction or purchase. Many problems might continue to extend from the intractable problem of land being out of reach for all but the very wealthy [32]. From a theoretical basis, it could be suggested that the workings of capitalism prevent the resolution of the problems of informal settlements, not to mention balancing urban and rural development [30,33].

One might ask the following: First, is the problem of informal settlement considered a problem by a government, and second, if it is a problem, does the government see the problem as one it is responsible for solving? From the perspective of dependency theory, we may gain “an understanding of underdevelopment, an analysis of its causes, and to a lesser extent, paths toward overcoming it” [34], including seeing an increasing gap between developed countries and others, and technical progress concentrated in ”core countries”. This directly impacts social structure and culture and the range of what is possible; challenges are heightened in the context of globalization and complexity [34]. The dependency theory suggests that addressing such issues is the government’s role, not only because of the micro-level inequality that exists between urban and rural, and those with means and those without, but because of the larger dynamics globally between developed and developing nations. However, with the dependency theory, a preferred solution might be localized, and provide a counter to the urbanization that led to the informal settlement dynamic [30]. Because capitalism has left so many behind as surplus workers [30], who might be considered from an economic standpoint superfluous by ruling elites [7], any change to the existing system resulting in improvement for informal settlements or the circumstances leading to their development must result in system-wide reform; this level of reform is unlikely on any level beyond a localized case, heavily driven by government and not-for-profit efforts, because there is little reason for the private sector to cease its practices freely.

We now turn to the methodology for the literature review.

3. Materials and Methods

As identified above, research on informal settlements is not new. Recent work [35,36] was inspirational in encouraging the author to examine what newer contributions may exist in the peer-reviewed journal literature. There is a clear need to reduce vulnerability in these areas, from the perspective of not only the informal settlement residents but also from a societal standpoint and from a government outlook, since the government will be called in to address any shortfalls in resilience should a crisis occur. What is less clear is whether the capacity exists to address the concerns and challenges that are associated with informal settlements. How informal settlements are defined contributes to the field of available solutions, so it is worth noting how settlements are perceived from a government or public policy perspective, and what case studies have shown in terms of responses—whether those responses are individually oriented and focused on filling gaps in infrastructure and services, for example, efforts to remove or replace informal settlements, or a combination of the two extremes.

As a result, the research question that guided the literature search and analysis was the following: What do peer-reviewed journal articles published from 2019 through to June 2024, which include selected keywords, say about themes in informal settlement study?

Search strategy: A corpus of peer-reviewed journal articles upon which this review is based was collected via a search of the ExLibris CDI database at the University of West Florida, on 23 June 2024. The search parameters were “informal settlement” AND governance AND “public administration” AND “vulnerability”. Articles were limited to those in English, published between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2024. The year 2019 was selected to include approximately five years of recent publications. The search provided 272 articles included here; some were not available via the ExLibris CDI and had to be requested manually via interlibrary loan. The formation of topics, which employed WordStat 2024.0.2, 2024 included all 272 articles, though this paper does not refer directly to all articles.

Data extraction/synthesis/analysis: The WordStat 2024 program was used as the tool for analyzing the collected text of the 272 articles for broad themes that may not have been easily discernible through manual processing. The inclusion of a computer-based analysis tool also served as a check on the reality of the connections among what is a fairly substantial group of articles. A total of 272 articles were included in the review. This resulted in a topic analysis based on over 86,600 paragraphs, 170,700 sentences, or more than 2,373,000 words. Approximately 42% of all words in this sample were included in the analysis, with an average sentence length of 13.9 words, and 27.4 words per paragraph. WordStat’s keyword-in-context feature allowed the author to examine passages related to keywords like informal and informality relative to the major themes identified by the software.

Several iterations of topic modeling were undertaken, from deriving twenty topics, to ten topics, to five topics; each time, the software connected the articles differently to identify overarching themes and subtopics. Topics were refined (removing noise like university press information and the presence of extraneous strings like DOI information), finding two large topics, informal settlements, and climate change, and then five thematic areas within the corpus. These five themes are presented in

Table 1. Identified topics and coherence, informal settlements corpus, from WordStat analysis.

Topic	Keywords	Coherence (npmi)
Water supply services	Services; water; access; sanitation; basic; health; service; infrastructure; supply; quality; public; provision drinking water; water services; sanitation services; basic sanitation; water and sanitation; health care; access to water; water quality; water supply; basic services; universal access; water sources; water access; piped water; public services; supply chain; clean water; ecd centers; rural sanitation; water infrastructure; service providers; service provision; care and support; public health; public transport; public service; aids orphans; social workers; social services; water scarcity; water resources	0.374
Informal Settlements low income	Informal; housing; income; low; settlements; residents; areas; land housing units; income groups; formal housing; homeless people; income households; street vendors; informal settlers; housing market; higher income; middle income; resettlement colonies; low income; low income households; informal housing finance; high income; low income housing; lower income; informal housing; middle class; labor market; slum dwellers; otodo gbame; housing projects; informal settlement; elang etas; informal sector; income areas; tenure security; housing finance; access to housing; people living; residential areas; land rights; poor people; informal economy; low cost	0.354
Climate change disaster risk	Climate; change; risk; adaptation; disaster; vulnerability; impacts; reduction; events; flood; mitigation; hazards; extreme adaptation to climate change; climate change related; impacts of climate change; climate change; climate change impacts; panel on climate change; intergovernmental panel on climate change; climate change adaptation; adaptation strategies; extreme events; climate-induced; climate-related; risk perception; flood risk; disaster risk; sea level rise; disaster risk reduction; extreme weather events; extreme weather; risk assessment; climate migration; natural hazards; sea level	0.352
Local government	Local government officials; national government; local government; central government; government agencies	0.324
Urban planning social	Urban; social; sociopolitical ecology; urban political ecology; critical urban; urban form; socio-ecological; urban social; socio-political; environmental justice; socio-cultural; social and political; good urban governance; urban systems; economic and political; socio-spatial; urban informality; autonomous democracy; social equity; urban design; urban space; planning practices; urban environmental; social justice; theory and practice; planning processes; social relations	0.311

and contributed to the section headings for this article. The articles themselves were manually reviewed and read/coded with an eye toward alignment with the topics as defined in the analysis. The papers included in this review had a strong focus on African nations, with other nations less well represented. This was a function of the papers included in the review, as a result of the search and not by design, though this may skew the results of the analysis and topic selection.

Each of the five thematic areas, and exemplary references to the journal articles that formed the corpus, follow. The full list of articles included in the corpus is available on request to the author.

4. Major Themes in the Literature

4.1. Lines between Formal and Informal

In setting the stage for a review of the more recent literature, this paper has highlighted that there has been an ongoing effort in the research to highlight informal settlements by effectively defining the line between these areas and formal settlements. The line might be viewed as a “breach” in an unbalanced urban setting, where informal settlements and their contexts may lack an acceptable level of dignity [37]. A reasonable question is whether the lack of action to assist those in informal settlements is purposeful or neglectful. Brinkley [38] suggested that “The Commons were dismantled by the state to make room for the formal economy and higher income user groups”, and consistent with the idea that informal settlements allow for some self-direction, they might serve as a form of commons that is at direct odds with the prevailing formalized economy as directed, if not demanded, by the state.

At a basic level, formal and informal settlements are fundamentally about a common need for housing, but the dividing line has often been income, with those below a certain line unable to afford the access and opportunities of formal settlements and their associated services. Even providing formal documentation of land tenure requires resources that may not be available to those without financial means [39]. Further, this housing line extends to permanent (formal) and what is thought to be impermanent (informal), yielding different behaviors for responding to risks [40]. The disconnect between needs and services continues, with governments in disaster scenarios not being able to provide for search and rescue in informal areas [41]. The impermanence of informal settlements may be a social or social–legal construction though, given that the reality is that informal settlements may persist over a period of many years. Some traditional housing structures may end up being permanent [42]. Solutions that stress permanent solutions for housing may downplay the idea that those in informal settlements could be drawn in by what are more temporary or impermanent economic opportunities [43].

As mentioned above, the decision to live in an informal settlement is not necessarily an active decision on the part of people living in these communities; given circumstances and context, the decision might well be made for one and one’s family to live there rather than in a formal and more stable dwelling. With income, though, comes opportunity, as well as access to the trappings of stability, such as formal land tenure and a stable environment to support ongoing work. Without significant income, individuals and families can fall into unhealthy patterns of vulnerability and instability. Breaking these patterns might not be helped by the most obvious paths in public policy, which are removal, restriction, or regulation.

Adams and colleagues found a close association between feelings of vulnerability and the looming threat of eviction among informal settlers [44]. The threat of eviction is real; the Philippines case, for example, highlights how slums might be seen as sources of danger for the larger metro area in “territorial stigmatization” [45], and how bias may exist against those in informal settlements by those in the middle class [46]. Informal settlements are a multifarious problem, demanding complex sets of solutions [47]. Informal settlements might be demonized as the reason why development cannot occur [48]. Eviction has occurred in places where activities in the informal settlement created a pollution issue for the larger area, resulting in significant legal dilemmas [49].

It has been suggested that neoliberalism produces informal settlements, but the reality is actually a complex relationship between formal and informal reliances [9]. Given the limitations of space in megacities today and in the future, though, governments have plenty of neoliberal-serving reasons for removing people from informal settlements, even if eviction further serves to disenfranchise and alienate people from their rights and a reasonable level of opportunity to live gainfully for themselves and their families [50]. There should be an awareness that “against the backdrop of the neoliberal mode of governance, existing social or cultural cleavages are politicised not only to sharpen the class divides between the upper and lower segments of the society but also to fragment the poor” [51]. Those in informal settlements may be subject to discrimination for a number of reasons, including ethnic and social issues, in addition to income [52].

Neoliberal solutions, such as “subsidies and credit facilities, combined with the massive construction of low-cost housing by private developers”, have failed to work and have had negative repercussions for the same citizen groups that were supposed to benefit [53]. Instead of protecting the poor or environmental quality, some policies may be seen as supporting a corrupt development mindset above all else [54].

People who are in informal settlements may not perceive themselves in this extra-legal, informal definitional view [55]; they may have little awareness of a societal or academic effort to categorize them as a grouping outside a formal, acceptable community, or of their settlement as something other than a place to live, despite its concerns. There is some awareness of this in the more recent literature, but empathy for these regions is appropriate. Tempering the view above, people who live in informal settlements, being part of society, still have responsibilities. If sustainable approaches are required of everyone, then there should be a reasonable expectation of compliance in an informal settlement as well. Putting off addressing issues with informal settlements, either way, will likely make the situation worse [56]. Even with the symbolic value of policies that focus on sustainability in informal settlements and quality of life, it is difficult to hold that concept in mind while some areas are dealing, or failing to deal, with gang crime and societal instability [57].

Public health issues can take on even more serious overtones during outbreaks, such as COVID-19, where infrastructure in informal settlements is lacking [58,59]. Epidemics have shown that existing systems have been unable to respond to health-related threats, as inequalities become increasingly evident when crises occur [60]. From a public health perspective, sanitation in informal settlements can be difficult, increasing the potential for the spread of illness [61], or just addressing the need for a clean public space and access to restrooms [62,63]. The difference between informal and formal areas extends to food and nutrition because marginalized areas tend to show greater consumption of heavily processed foods, leading to obesity [64].

Essential to the break between formal and informal settlements is the difference in capacity among dwellers to respond to threats, and to a large extent, this is driven by income. Informal settlements evidence considerable unemployment rates more than formal settlements nearby [65]. Those informal settlements lack the capacity to respond to shocks, and a crisis may make a perilous situation into one where survival is threatened; this shortage of capacity is represented in social and economic terms, but also political and institutional contexts, where a different, less forgiving system of rules may appear to apply to those in informal settlements [44]. The housing system in place in cities is set to favor those who can afford it, and inequality for those who cannot is the natural consequence of the system. Addressing this inequality might require politically unpalatable redistributions [66]. As a result, informal housing can be seen as a response of individuals wanting to provide for self-help, in building a place for one to live. Informal housing could also be emblematic of exploitative forces at work, or a combination of these factors [67]. In addition, residents of informal settlements may engage in aspects of the informal economy, which creates further legal barriers [68] and reduces the potential opportunity for any movement from informal to formal livelihood.

4.2. Water Supply Services

The level of poverty experienced in an area is related to a variety of criteria, including meeting primary needs like clean water for the requirements of a community [69]. Water services infrastructure is a major theme within the literature on informal settlements. Water unites humankind as a need, and the provision of clean water is a requirement for healthy living places. Access to water might be thought of as a first, most basic public utility, as so much of quality of life and public health is tied to its successful provision. This is thought of as a primary local government responsibility [70]. Still, water provision is undermined by scarcity and poor infrastructure, even in cities with formal infrastructure.

It has been suggested that “billions of people around the world will be unable to access safely managed household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services by 2030” [71]. The problems of water supply in informal settlements are clear and immediate and are a major focus of the recent literature.

Previous works have focused on water supply infrastructure and stormwater management. Safe drinking water is a constant issue [72]. A government might improve standards in an informal settlement by providing access to clean water through infrastructure grants and agreements [28]. It has been suggested that the private sector may have a role to play in filling the gap in water supply services needs; this model stresses incentives to the private sector and an investment focus [73]. Elsewhere, there is a reference to a dichotomy of sorts between formal and informal water provision [74], which alludes to the topic above of formal versus informal ways of thinking.

Muzorewa [75] found an association between illegality and lack of water infrastructure in informal settlements. Informal settlements may be associated with polluting waterways, which potentially creates environmental concerns well beyond the immediate area [49]. Even where water infrastructure exists, the threat from flooding to disrupt this infrastructure is great [76]. Sometimes service is irregular, with pipes that leak or sewers that are easily blocked [77].

In the South African case, water insecurity was seen as a historical trait, with elites receiving essentially unlimited water supplies while those in poverty, due to apartheid or otherwise, were held to a minuscule offering by comparison [78]. It is worth considering how history informs current decisions regarding not only water infrastructure but informal settlements in a larger sense.

Changes in water governance may be precipitated by crises [79] and unfortunately, the path of climate change portends further crises ahead; it remains to be seen whether a climate change-induced crisis will help overcome governmental or policy inertia.

4.3. Climate Change and Disaster Risk

In the WordStat analysis, the impact of climate change was associated with keywords like disaster, vulnerability, hazards, and extreme. Climate change was also associated with words that might point towards ways of thinking about climate change and how humankind addresses it, such as perception and adaptation strategies. Problems like sea level rise [5] and extreme weather events, already seen today and notably felt in the world’s most susceptible areas, are not going away, and worsening conditions make informal settlements a greater source of vulnerability for residents and a challenge for society and governments.

Many of the papers in this group mention the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and specifically the goal for “safe and affordable housing” as directly connected to informal settlements [80,81,82,83], among others.

Climate change and rampant urbanization create a nexus that invites an increasing threat of vulnerability to disasters. Vulnerable areas and areas likely to host informal settlements may overlap [84]. Threats like landslides [11] or earthquakes impact informal settlements; buildings not constructed to code [85] represent a harmful factor that increases vulnerability, even if regulation might be a tool to reduce informal settlements’ ability to provide self-help. Climate change has made existing risks worse [11] by enhancing the level of potential destruction and the frequency of events. It is essential to think about climate change for informal settlements because climate change is occurring and it is already impacting vulnerable areas in severe ways; in disasters, one may expect the devastation experienced in these areas to grow [86].

Climate change has led to increases in extreme weather, from flooding events to heat waves. These events have impacted not only lives and survival but also productivity and economic viability of places that are already vulnerable [76]. Some places, like the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, are so impacted by climate change and extreme weather events that the extremely unusual has become all too commonplace. There are now “everyday floods” that are typical, or normal and major floods [87]. This does not, however, mean that governments have come to terms with the threat of climate change, in the Philippines case or elsewhere, especially where informal settlements are concerned. Notably, national government policies may limit learning and the growth of resilience at the local government level [88].

Governments are finding that providing more participation and involvement through hybridized governance can be the key to mitigating the risk of flooding [89]. Some places have found that they perform well in mitigating disaster risk because they exhibit traits like mutual help and a variation of livelihoods while providing a ready and able bond between local and national response efforts [90]. There should be an awareness of groups that are more vulnerable to climate change and disasters; gender has been noted in the literature as a focus for vulnerability, with female-headed households having reduced capacities to respond to disasters [91].

4.4. Adaptation and Migration

As mentioned above, economic reasons are a major impetus for people to live in informal settlements, even when they are aware that their level of vulnerability to risks like floods may increase [44]. With this in mind, improving adaptive capacity in these areas can be a help in reducing vulnerability [92], since the decision to live in informal settlements may not change on its own. Climate adaptive strategies may make sense for areas that are already hot and bound to experience even more extreme heat as a result of climate change [93].

The nature of climate change means that some places are or will be simply too dangerous for habitation [94], and decisions have to be made about where people can safely live to mitigate risk before more people are hurt or die. Communities should plan for climate change-related migration as a matter of sustainability on a large scale. These programs should reasonably allow for participation and co-production so that services offered align with needs [95].

4.5. Government’s Roles

Papers mentioning informal settlement typically focus on local government and its role, though national or central governments are sometimes mentioned for specific initiatives. The papers in this corpus have a general theme of governments stepping in to provide services to address the gap that exists in informal communities. This gap is a source of vulnerability without other stressors in place; with the impact of climate change and hazard events, a lack of access to basic services becomes insurmountable. The typical involvement is addressing infrastructure needs, as noted above in the section on water security, housing, and electricity [96], but also in other types of basic infrastructure and utilities. In addition to providing more obvious infrastructure services, governments can also provide education and healthcare [92]. Illiteracy is a major issue in informal settlement areas [41].

Governments, however, have been characterized in some cases as not providing services needed; services have instead been exclusive and out of reach for client groups that need them. Participation has been lacking in governance [97]. When a government does not provide services, the activities of informal settlements may result in pollution [98]. If a government passes unreasonable laws and regulations, those in informal settlements may be tempted to avoid complying with these rules [99]. Obstinance aside, the nature of risk raises the possibility that the government will have to pay either way, either before or after pollution occurs, and it might make more sense for the government to act proactively to reduce the vulnerability of individuals in informal communities and protect the natural environment at the same time. Governments have a responsibility to address climate change and make plans for how impacts could be mitigated [100]; some governments are still behaving as if climate change is a possibility rather than a reality, other priorities are simply more important, or that climate change is some sort of hoax. All three responses are irrational and irresponsible, and yet they reflect the lack of understanding, the effectiveness of misinformation, or a failure of concern on the part of the electorate (or in some instances, those that have failed to remove authoritarians from power).

Cities have a social function [101], and through government, efforts can be made to bring informal settlement residents into civic life. A role for government can be to provide for such opportunities through the planning process, as discussed next.

4.6. Planning Aspects

Planning is the final major topic area, but it is perhaps less well defined than the other topics given the variety of approaches to planning and addressing the phenomena of informal settlements. The connection between out-of-control urbanization and the growth of informal settlements has been starkly illustrated in the literature [102]. Bhanjee and Zhang [103] wrote that “formally planned urban areas are associated with higher levels of quality of life and mobility”. In Africa, a tremendous growth of informal settlements has been seen, and much of this growth is unintended and has attendant risks in poor infrastructure [104]. Yet, instituting planning approaches in informal settlements has been seen in the literature as problematic [105].

There is a tendency to want to find quick solutions to problems, but in the case of wicked problems that have taken decades or even hundreds of years to develop, quick solutions do not address underlying conditions that led to problems like vulnerability or informal settlements. Sometimes informal settlements are in place because they serve some interest, and political collusion may be at work [47]. The status quo in informal settlements may keep levels of risk the same, or see them worsen over time because the status quo is favored over the arduous work of true community engagement [106]. Corruption and collusion may play a role in decisions that are made [107]. Planning solutions are made law and implemented, and yet informal settlements persist [108]. Questioning these policies is justified.

Akola noted the importance of including traditional authorities in planning to reduce disaster vulnerability, but while enhanced participation may increase the acceptance of planning efforts and a willingness to abide by programs to reduce vulnerability, such efforts must be accompanied by improved data-driven analyses and efforts to fix infrastructure. It could be said that some recommendations in the literature for improvements to infrastructure, from better housing and roads to acceptable utility infrastructures [109], might amount to providing municipality-level services to informal settlements. Also, it is worth noting that not all authorities in settlements may be ethical and honest; strongmen and people who make a living by taking from others may disrupt efforts to provide assistance and opportunity [110].

Alam and colleagues [111] noted that some programs that focus on helping people in informal settlements gain work may not fully address the needs of migrants, and specifically migrant women, and their unique contexts and challenges. Amoako and Frimpong Boamah [112] suggested that planning efforts for informal settlements might be seen as oppressive, leading people in these areas to avoid or challenge such efforts. It is important to consider that vulnerability and resilience across a community are not necessarily uniform, even in informal settlements [113].

Planning efforts may fail when the approaches are too focused on top-down solutions and do not include adequate grassroots place-making [114]. Some informal settlements are starting to show participatory forms of governance, rather than simply implementing international solutions or approaches; creating a system, for example, a land tenure system, for an informal settlement may require considerable resources and time to develop an approach that pays due regard to specific context and needs [115]. The Global South’s context, which has shown profound injustice over time, suggests a need for local engagement to identify and reduce vulnerabilities [36]. Local knowledge is valuable and should serve as a resource to guide climate change efforts that work and make sense for specific communities [116]. Efforts that focus on informal settlements would do well to actively engage local knowledge, including bringing in people that are from lower echelons of hierarchies, and to find consensus [117]. Informal settlements, being organically produced, might provide some important information about what is needed with respect to housing futures [46,118].

Some works have identified that certain extraordinary aspects of informal settlements, like being able to establish electrical service to the area without support from the outside government, are consistent with more of a tone of autonomous democracy, as a counter to neoliberalism [119].

Aging infrastructure is an issue that affects both formal and informal settlements, but because of a lack of capacity, informal settlements face a grave threat, which could result in future slums [120].

Good urban governance has a focus on the capacity of residents, and in the case of informal settlements, this aligns well with directions elsewhere in the literature to make better use of local knowledge. The concept also implies that people are entitled to services in an urban environment. However, this thinking implies a relatively thick public context, including society-focused, non-government organizations, and alignment among stakeholders [121]. Good governance programs succeed where top-down approaches fail because they are more context-driven and creative. However, planning systems that are indifferent may prevent efforts to provide for more responsive governance [122].

Stakeholder involvement and improved analysis and understanding of indicators are essential to holding government to account [102]. Local place-making in urban areas of Africa is occurring in informal settlements, where peri-urban areas allow for determination beyond the reach of city regulators [114].

5. Conclusions and Opportunities for Future Research

This review has examined the concept of informal settlements through an exploration of the term in recent literature, to identify how the concept is evolving and changing in its exercise and utility. The paper makes sense of existing knowledge through an identification and discussion of topics on the collective texts of papers over the past five years, focusing on informal settlements, governance, and public administration.

The lack of trust in government institutions among members of the public is a common theme in the public administration literature. Focusing on informal settlements, which exist in an environment particularly prone to the consequences of corruption [123], societal inequalities, and a gross inattention to poverty [65], is valuable because the break between the informal and formal is at least, in part, a broken trust. Programs may not work because there is a lack of trust in the government and its efforts [124]. Symbolic efforts are not enough [106]. It seems essential for future research in informal settlements to not make assumptions based on theory or prevailing international wisdom [125] but rather to understand the unique perceptions informal settlement residents have of their own risk and opportunity [113]. Only then can efforts make the best use of the existing capacity to grow resilience and optimally employ scarce public sector resources. Efforts to rebuild trust between informal settlements and various levels of government would be appropriate for future study. Where resilience is raised, social equity should be part of any proposed solutions [126].

Informal settlements as phenomena are persisting, with such a substantial portion of people living in them. There is a need to understand informal settlements, and more broadly, concepts of informality for what they are, on their own terms [127]. Informality can be seen as a survival mechanism [128], and policy might want to take this survival mentality seriously if policy seeks to be relevant. Informal settlements can be seen as a marker of resilience and a solution to problems that society is either unable or unwilling to resolve. It is essential to not confuse the problem with a solution [129], even if the solution (informal settlement) is not itself a preferred solution. The focus on informal settlements is arguably late from the perspective of the United Nations SDGs and might tend to be more symbolic and performative than amounting to a moment for positive change. The literature here heavily favors Africa and South Africa, specifically, and this indicates that there are opportunities for future research on other areas of the world where informal settlements exist. The problem of informal settlement is not a matter affecting only the Global South, and the literature should reflect the totality of the subject and its impacts, especially in the context of the exacerbating impacts of climate change. As an example, a paper in this review focused on tent cities in the Western United States [130]; it is reasonable that future research will continue to focus on informal settlements wherever they occur so that more can be understood about the inequality that leads to their development.

Clearing and evicting is, as noted in some of the research, illustrative of processes that have created the problem of informal settlements in the first place. Eviction will not prevent further informal settlements. Further, it is disruptive and traumatic to peoples’ lives [131] and serves as a form of oppression [132]. Having noted this, it would be wiser to improve the state of informal settlements if possible, reduce vulnerabilities in place, and make these areas more resilient. New research can focus on how best to encourage governments to meet the challenge with opportunity. For example, further research might focus on how to improve build quality in informal settlements at low costs [133]. Providing for the needs of people who desperately need help would say more that is positive about the transformational potential government has to do good for people, than to destroy lives and serve the ends of private interests that frankly have enough as it is.