Comparing the levels of housing satisfaction between the site and services and settlement upgrading housing projects : a case study of Tshelimnyama phase 3, Illovo phase 4 and Old Dunbar and Bester's Camp.

Abstract

This dissertation compares the levels of housing satisfaction between the site and services and informal settlement upgrading projects. In South Africa, the government embarked on the incremental approach to housing as a way of addressing housing challenges such as slow delivery rate, poverty and budgetary constraints. Within incremental housing polices, site and services and informal settlement upgrading housing projects are two housing delivery methods that are being used to provide housing to low income households. One of the challenges with the implementation of incremental housing delivery method in South Africa has been over-emphasis on the implementation of site and services at the expense of informal settlement upgrading housing projects. The broad aim of this dissertation is to compare which of the two delivery approaches yields higher levels of satisfaction. The research method employed in the study was Normative Style of comparism which is used to compare the levels of satisfaction and usefulness of housing to the user. To evaluate the levels of housing satisfaction between the site and services and informal settlement upgrading, the researcher set indicators of housing satisfaction, specifically location, the size of the dwelling unit, the quality of building materials, residential quality, security of tenure and the ability to use a house for income generating opportunities. Polices such as Chapter 13 of the National Housing Code (2009) and the Breaking New Ground (2004) indicate a significant shift in respect of informal settlement upgrading. The study’s findings showed that there are higher levels of housing satisfaction in the informal settlement upgrading housing projects than in the site and services because, beneficiaries make conscious choices about where to locate their housing. It emerged that beneficiaries satisfaction with the choice of specific settlements was usually linked to their livelihood strategies for example, proximity to jobs, cost of transport and cost of living. Such satisfaction was not forthcoming in poorly located sites and services schemes, whose strength was therefore only on their formality, secure tenure and basic services. The contribution of this study is not only to highlight circumstances that make housing satisfactory but also to ensure that informal settlements upgrading becomes entirely practiced on an equal basis as site and services.