INFORMAL BACKYARD DWELLINGS AND DIGNITY

Informal housing, most often in the form of large informal settlements or slum areas, tends to be synonymous with a lack of dignity.Footnote ² However, in this paper we specifically consider the unique challenges to dignity that emerge from renting an informally constructed dwelling in the backyard of someone else's formal home (see Figure 1), or informal backyard dwellings (BDs). This type of housing is the fastest growing form of housing in South Africa (Brueckner et al. Reference Brueckner, Rabe and Selod2019) and is also common in places as diverse as Chile, Haiti, India, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Thailand and Australia (UN Habitat 2003; Baqai & Ward Reference Baqai and Ward2020; Shrestha et al. Reference Shrestha, Gurran and Maalsen2021). More generally, renting of small dwellings from small-scale landlords in poorer, neglected neighbourhoods is common in Africa, including urban Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria.

Figure 1.

Urban landscape with mix of formal housing and backyard dwellings.

BDs create extra accommodation for family, friends and/or tenants and provide an important income stream for the landlord (Banks Reference Bank2007; Lemanski Reference Lemanski2009; Gardner & Rubin Reference Gardner, Rubin, Cirolia, Görgens, van Donk, Smit and Drimie2017). They comprise dwellings of various quality, ranging from rudimentary ‘shacks’ to more robust brick and mortar structures. While the latter have seen considerable growth in recent years (Scheba & Turok Reference Scheba and Turok2020), the vast majority are still low-quality dwellings made of timber-frames and iron/zinc metal sheets (so-called shacks) or wooden structures (so-called ‘Wendy houses’). Almost one seventh of the entire South African population live in BDs, with the proportion significantly higher in urban areas (Brueckner et al. Reference Brueckner, Rabe and Selod2019). Those living in BDs tend to have improved access to services (such as clean water, sanitation and electricity) and better access to urban opportunities than residents located in peripheral informal settlements. Given that the main house in the yard is connected to piped water, electricity, rubbish collection and improved sanitation facilities, BDs can more easily access these services than those in informal settlements (Morange Reference Morange2002; Lemanski Reference Lemanski2009; Shapurjee & Charlton Reference Shapurjee and Charlton2013; Brueckner et al. Reference Brueckner, Rabe and Selod2019). This suggests that for many, it is a positive choice to live in a BD because it improves upon other informal living options (Turok & Borel-Saladin Reference Turok and Borel-Saladin2016).

However, BDs are also associated with a lack of safety and security (Lemanski Reference Lemanski2009; Turok & Borel-Saladin Reference Turok and Borel-Saladin2016), challenges regarding increasing rents, and difficult negotiations with landlord and other tenants about accessing services (Lategan et al. Reference Lategan, Erasmus, Zietsman, Cilliers, Wolf and Springer2020, see Table I in their publication for a summary). Importantly, a high density of shacks made of highly flammable material alongside illegal connections to electricity and more people cooking over an open flame in one yard all contribute to a greater chance of fire that can spread from one BD to another (Tshangana Reference Tshangana2013; Zweig Reference Zweig2015). The inadequate material conditions of most BD dwellings pose serious health risks to tenants, although there is a surprising lack of research regarding health (Lategan et al. Reference Lategan, Erasmus, Zietsman, Cilliers, Wolf and Springer2020).

While limited resources and the stopgapFootnote ³ nature of BDs are key reasons preventing people from investing in their BDs, we find that questions of dignity (especially those driven by relations with the landlord) further discourage backyarders from making improvements to their BDs even when they have the desire for and/or the means to make such changes. While a number of studies have investigated the ways in which informality undermines dignity due to a lack of privacy, lack of access to land, overcrowding, etc. (Bryant Reference Bryant2008; Corburn & Karanja Reference Corburn and Karanja2016; Oni-Jimoh et al. Reference Oni-Jimoh, Liyanage, Oyebanji, Gerges, Almusaed and Almssad2018), this study is the first to investigate the role of dignity in preventing improved living conditions among those living in BDs. This is especially important given the large number of people in South Africa living in BDs and those living in rental units in poor neighbourhoods throughout the Global South.

We follow Marriam-Webster's definition of dignity: ‘the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed’. How exactly can the conditions of BDs undermine dignity beyond the ways in which informality undermines dignity, as noted previously? The typical backyarder tends to live in a one-room shack that is about 4 m² small. They often share the backyard with at least one other shack. While those living in informal settlements face the same issues of overcrowding, lack of privacy and space, health and security risks, we find below that backyard dwellers are directly affected by their relationship with the landlord, who has considerable control over the backyard space. Often the landlord lives in the main house on the property and is thus very present in a backyard resident's life (Brown-Luthango Reference Brown-Luthango, Rigon and Castan Broto2021). Our respondents indicated that the landlord can see when those in the BDs come and go, when they do or do not go to work, how they spend their money (what items they carry into their homes), and who visits them at home. Even if a landlord does not actively monitor, the knowledge that the landlord is present can induce a feeling of being monitored. This feeling of a lack of independence, control and privacy could potentially undermine dignity in an entirely different way that compounds the lack of dignity that comes from living in informality (Bryant Reference Bryant2008). We seek to explore this possibility through an in-depth study of BDs in Cape Town, South Africa.

THE POLICY CONTEXT: INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND LOCAL

Informal settlements are diverse and dynamic places, where residents incrementally improve, extend and change their homes and environments, often over multiple generations (Gouverneur Reference Gouverneur2014; Deboulet Reference Deboulet2016; Kamalipour & Dovey Reference Kamalipour and Dovey2020). Global and national policies increasingly commit governments to informal settlements upgrading (UN Habitat 2020). At the same time, there are countless community and non-governmental organisations that aim to support governments in designing or implementing upgrading interventionsFootnote ⁴ from the bottom up. Despite progress, governments’ engagements with informal housing have been uneven and ambiguous (Deboulet Reference Deboulet2016; UN Habitat 2020). United Nations Habitat (2014) set out seven ways in which governments have typically responded to informal housing, whereas the sub-sector of informal rental housing has remained largely neglected (Baqai & Ward Reference Baqai and Ward2020; Scheba & Turok Reference Scheba and Turok2020). South Africa is a typical example of this neglect.

The national government developed the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme; however, this excluded backyard structures as they sit on ‘formal’ plots of land. The national Department of Human Settlements has not formulated, let alone implement an equivalent programme for this sector (Gardner & Rubin Reference Gardner, Rubin, Cirolia, Görgens, van Donk, Smit and Drimie2017), despite the fact that backyard dwellings contribute to key urban policy objectives, as outlined in the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Republic of South Africa 2013): spatial efficiency, spatial sustainability, spatial justice and spatial resilience. BDs are certainly an efficient use of space (Figure 2), they contribute to social and economic sustainability and resilience of local areas through increasing density and viability of services, employment and facilities; and BDs provide urgently required affordable rental accommodation.

Figure 2.

Diagram to illustrate densification of site with additional housing installed into the backyard plot surrounding the formal house.

The National Department of Human Settlements has recognised the potential of informal backyard rental housing, even developing a preliminary policy in 2016 (NDHS 2016). National and local government departments also launched a limited number of pilot projects and programmes (Shapurjee & Charlton Reference Shapurjee and Charlton2013; Felix Reference Felix2014; Rubin & Charlton Reference Rubin, Charlton, Guney, Keil and Ucoglu2019), but the vast majority of all BDs continue to be poorly constructed and fall well below acceptable standards for quality, comfort or safety (Gardner & Rubin Reference Gardner, Rubin, Cirolia, Görgens, van Donk, Smit and Drimie2017; HSRC 2019; Isandla 2020; Lategan et al. Reference Lategan, Erasmus, Zietsman, Cilliers, Wolf and Springer2020). Similarly, provincial governments have largely neglected the backyard rental sector in their housing policies and programmes, although there has been growing interest more recently, especially in the (potential) role of provincial rental tribunals in mediating tenant–landlord conflicts (HSRC 2019; Isandla 2021). In addition to health and safety risks, planners are concerned that the informal growth of BDs has led to densification of formal settlement areas and exerts a strain on existing infrastructure and public services (HSRC 2019; Isandla 2021).

An important aspect of the limited success of policy developments and pilot projects is the critical role of the local municipality. Local municipalities have crucial responsibilities regarding planning, building control and service delivery that affect the quality and quantity of backyard dwellings (HSRC 2019; Isandla 2021). The City of Cape Town has spearheaded some innovations regarding this sector and has officially recognised the important contribution of the backyard rental sector to affordable housing, urban densification and economic development (City of Cape Town 2021). The City has launched various research and pilot initiatives to explore how building regulations and procedures can be adapted to formalise backyard rental accommodation, and specifically to incentivise and support the growth of higher-density brick and mortar flats, or what is referred to as small-scale rental accommodation (City of Cape Town 2021). At the same time, the City has provided basic services to some backyard dwellings located on council-owned property, although these pilot projects have received mixed responses (HSRC 2019). While these policy developments are an important step in the right direction, questions remain regarding what kind of interventions are required for lower-quality backyard dwellings on privately owned land, which is the dominant form of backyarding in South Africa (Brueckner et al. Reference Brueckner, Rabe and Selod2019; HSRC 2019). Here the common problems of poor thermal control (too hot in summer, too cold in winter, draughty), structural instability, limited space, increased fire risk, poor sanitation and hazardous materials are most prevalent (Figure 3).

Figure 3a/b

‘Wendy house’ example.

Figure 3c/d.

Metal shack example.

Developing effective and scalable interventions for this sector requires an understanding of the complex socio-spatial conditions and relationships underlying informal backyard rental dwellings. The living conditions of backyard tenants considerably depend on the relationship with the landlord, which are influenced by whether the tenant is a family member or stranger, the economic conditions of landlord and tenant, socio-political context of the settlement and broader trends in the city and country (Morange Reference Morange2002; Bank Reference Bank2007; Lemanski Reference Lemanski2009; Scheba & Turok Reference Scheba and Turok2020).

The review of both scholarly and policy literature has illustrated that previous efforts have been insufficient in addressing the needs of backyard tenants. This suggests that we need a better understanding of the challenges backyard dwellers face or what they actually want/need in order to enjoy more dignified and secure livelihoods. We seek to help facilitate more effective support by sharing viewpoints from backyard dwellers themselves about their situation and potential upgrading interventions. What they voice is a concern over dignity.

METHODOLOGY: LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF BD RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND CHALLENGES, DIGNITY AND SOLUTIONS

The study is based on data collected in September 2019 in the City of Cape Town, South Africa. We conducted fieldworkFootnote ⁵ in three low-income communities in Cape Town: Delft South (DS), Parkwood (PW) and Beacon Valley (BV). The three communities almost exclusively house black African and coloured populations,Footnote ⁶ are all situated in the urban periphery (Cape FlatsFootnote ⁷) located approximately 20 miles from the city centre, exhibit high levels of poverty, informality and unemployment, and experienced significant densification in past decades through the construction of informal backyard dwellings (Scheba et al. Reference Scheba, Turok and Visagie2021).

While these three communities are broadly similar in terms of socio-economics, they also vary in key ways. First, Delft sits at an important public transportation junction, which makes it appealing to young professionals who need cheap accommodation and an easy commute into the city centre. As such, there is a remarkably high concentration of backyard shacks, probably due to its prime location in the transportation network of the Cape Flats. Delft is also racially and ethnically diverse, made up of black African and coloured residents. The type of backyard housing is quite diverse: beyond the basic corrugated iron and wood shacks that are quite typical, there is a growing number of more robust (cement, bricks, etc.) single and double storey flats given a growing population that is able to afford higher quality flats (Scheba & Turok Reference Scheba and Turok2020).

Beacon Valley, a neighbourhood in Mitchells Plain and just a few kilometres south of Delft, represents a less transient and more established neighbourhood than dynamic Delft. Beacon Valley is almost exclusively inhabited by coloured residents. The backyard shacks are quite typical and not overly robust and are on a mix of private and council land.

Parkwood is close to the affluent Southern suburbs of Cape Town and is moderately racially diverse, but it is a majority coloured area. The shacks in Parkwood, like Beacon Valley, are on a mix of private and council land. Unlike the other locations, Parkwood has been part of a municipal pilot programme for shacks on council-owned land in which Cape Town Municipality has provided basic infrastructure specifically for backyard shacks including toilet facilities, drinking water access and meters, and electricity access and meters.

Our interdisciplinary (social sciences and architecture) approach informs our diverse set of methods, which includes interviews, focus groups and architectural surveys/site visits. Using these methods, we seek to use the viewpoints and lived experiences of key stakeholders (backyard dwellers and local civil society leaders) to better understand problems and solutions for the difficult living conditions that backyarders in Cape Town face. The aim of the fieldwork was to understand, from the perspective of those living in BDs, the challenges, opportunities and barriers to upgrading of backyard shacks, both historically and contemporarily.

In each of the three neighbourhoods (DS, PW and BV) we conducted one focus groupFootnote ⁸ discussion with 8–11 participants. Interviews were also conducted with one NGO or grassroot organisation leader in each location that is engaged in housing struggles in the local community (these leaders did not differ substantially in terms of age, race, gender or socio-economics relative to focus group participants). We selected focus groups because they offer a setting in which respondents can actively discuss issues and build on one another's experiences – which is not possible with only interviews – to create a clearer picture of the BD community's experiences, challenges and desired solutions. In addition to the focus groups, we interviewed three tenants of BDs (one was the community leader and others were recruited in the same manner as the focus group participants) in each community to better understand their perspective on their past and current living conditions, the nature of changes desired and thoughts on improving BDs. Both the focus groups and interviews were roughly equally divided between men and women. The age range of our participants was 18–65 with an average age of 35. In total, the research involved 44 respondents across the three communities.

We undertook architectural surveys to record the existing conditions of BDs and to trace longitudinal physical changes or upgrades made to BDs over time (this was done by asking respondents for dates of residency and for any upgrades during their time; therefore, the longitudinal aspect is simply respondent reporting from memory). We invited participants from each focus group to take part in the architectural survey and conducted them with three from each focus group. Photographic surveys of a selection of backyard shacks and buildings in each of the three case-study areas were conducted and architectural survey drawings were made (in our field journals) of the house and the material conditions of the shacks and buildings recorded. This documentation, some of which is reproduced in the figures in this article, was used to give the research team a first-hand account of conditions and efforts at upgrading. The team surveyed and coded the images based on overall conditions and presence and degree of upgrades. We then used these data to structure the discussion and reach the conclusions in the ‘Social context of upgrades and potential for design interventions’ section below. This information supplemented focus groups reports of very few upgrades and confirmed, in the few we investigated, that upgrades are rare.

Convenience sampling was used to recruit all participants: using contacts the research team had from previous research in each location, we contacted local leaders among BD residents, who then recruited other BD residents to participate in the focus groups. We therefore recruited respondents in each location that could be conveniently obtained, but also asked the local leaders to recruit respondents of varying socio-economics, age, race and gender. Our sample is not representative, but is potentially composed of those that are more connected and/or more involved in issues surrounding BDs, which is precisely the type of highly informed respondents we were hoping to recruit as they could probably more easily articulate and discuss the issues that most BD residents face.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

We first explore the status of low-cost backyard dwellings, looking at the contemporary context and the issues residents see as germane and in need of improvement. Understanding these is the first step in designing more effective and appropriate interventions. We find that, in line with past research, respondents are most concerned with access to basic services, health and safety, which is considerably influenced by the landlord–tenant relationship. We break with past research, however, in that our respondents link these challenges to the issue of dignity, which we highlight here as an important and yet overlooked driver of poor living conditions.

We then examine what people want with respect to their physical homes and explore the potential future design qualities for BD accommodation. We then turn to the challenges and barriers to upgrading BDs. We find that some residents are hesitant about any kind of government upgrades due to fears that this would disqualify them from receiving a free-standing, government-built house. Others are worried about the possible rent increase and potential displacement caused by upgrading interventions. Throughout this discussion we centre our analysis on backyard dwellers' voices. As such, we provide a number of quotes from our focus groups and interviews. We identify focus group respondents with codes that identify the respondent's community (DS = Delft South, PW = Parkwood, BV = Beacon Valley) and the individual respondent with their anonymised respondent number (i.e. DS1). When quoting key stakeholder interviews, we indicate ‘interviewee’ along the lines of ‘BV-interviewee’.

Social context of upgrades and potential for design interventions

We found above that the BD structure is a key driver behind health and safety concerns; therefore, we now turn to possible structural responses that could address these concerns and once again we focus on what backyard residents themselves want. However, while the BD structures themselves are the main source of health and security problems, relationships to landlords, control over one's own housing situation, and thus dignity are key barriers to structure upgrades that could address these problems.

The limited and small changes observed to many BD structures is somewhat different to the improvements occurring to informal housing elsewhere in the South (Deboulet Reference Deboulet2016; Kamalipour & Dovey Reference Kamalipour and Dovey2020). Even when a tenant had been resident for years, sometimes decades, the dwellings remained unchanged. Participants in the focus groups reported only very few instances of upgrades or improvements that they or their landlord made, which we also observed during our site visits (see Figure 5). Figure 4 illustrates how the basic structure of one BD was not upgraded since construction (no efforts at insulation or reinforcement) and yet some efforts to upgrade the kitchen area with additional plugs and electrical appliances were made (though the safety of these upgrades is questionable).

Figure 4a.

Interior of backyard dwelling.

Figure 4b.

Kitchen area in backyard dwelling.

Figure 5a.

Upgraded shack exterior.

Figure 5b.

Improved shack exterior.

Figure 5c.

Upgraded shack interior.

These physical changes were generally small attempts at improving the quality of the dwelling or access to basic infrastructure. Respondents across all focus groups expressed that they simply lacked the funds to upgrade their BDs. In addition to the poverty of the residents, the survival conditions of landlords limits upgrades because they simply need all the extra money generated from the rental business to pay for necessary subsistence costs such as food, education, transport and so forth (Scheba & Turok Reference Scheba and Turok2020). Aside from access to resources, however, our research uncovered two additional aspects that influenced whether or not backyard dwellings were upgraded: ownership/tenure security and relationship between tenant and the landlord.

Given that backyard tenants rent from the landlord, it is not surprising that they do not invest large sums of money into their structures. Even if they stay in the same yard for many years, they are aware that the landlord owns the place and can ultimately evict them. Investments are therefore limited to small upgrades to the dwelling that immediately improve the living conditions for the tenant. This was especially the case for more transient backyard residents. BD residents tend to be quite transient: ‘especially backyarders they here now and tomorrow they not, they live here for 3 weeks and then they not … they be lucky living on the same property for more than 10 years but it's not a common thing because backyarders move consistently up and down’ (BV11).

There were, however, cases where backyard dwellers attempted to secure a more permanent and higher quality living situation. They were reportedly prevented by landlords from investing in their dwelling and infrastructure. For example, ‘My husband was blessed with a toilet and basin, and we wanted to install them, but the landlady would not allow us to do that’ (BV7). Possible reasons for the landlord's resistance include a threat of loss of power and control over tenant's resource access and use. Separate utility connections provide tenants with more transparency and control over the use of basic services, which can be a key tool for the landlord to generate income. Thus, the landlord's greater authority and need for income undermines backyard residents’ ability to improve their living conditions, which further undermines dignity. At the same time, investments in the dwelling and infrastructure would increase tenant's claim to the space, making it more difficult to evict and replace them in the future.

The situation differed for backyard dwellers renting from immediate family members, who demonstrated that under a situation of tenure security and sense of collective ownership, investments are more likely. Characterised by longer tenancies and more durable relationships, familial relationships often provided more enabling conditions for tenant-led upgrades to the structure and service provision; for example: ‘I have put in a toilet, a basin; I´ve water. I linked up the electricity. But that was an agreement [because I'm] living with family’ (BV4). Yet even in those situations of permanency and tenure security, the architectural survey recorded that improvements were modest and the quality of accommodation would still fall well below reasonable standards. Only few BDs surveyed had been considerably extended, with improvements such as the use of more solid building materials, distinct kitchen areas, bathrooms inside the home, and separate spaces for bedrooms (see Figure 5).

Clearly, the evidence provided here suggests that resources for upgrades, while an important issue, is not the only issue preventing upgrading. Landlords and their relationship with tenants also play a key role in undermining dignity and ability to upgrade one's BD.

The serious shortcomings in the material quality of the backyard dwellings, and the challenges of accessing infrastructure, demonstrate the need for solutions to improve backyard dwellers’ living conditions. Design interventions that improve the quality of dwellings and basic services could ameliorate major physical and mental health concerns and contribute to improved well-being (Wekerle & Whitzman Reference Wekerle and Whitzman1995; Colquhoun Reference Colquhoun2004; Rice Reference Rice, Jones, Rice and Meraz2019). To explore what changes the residents would like to see made, we asked focus group participants: ‘If you can choose one thing about your current home, what would you change?’ The respondents focused on repairing leaking roofs, adding dedicated electricity supplies and additional sanitation infrastructure. Space and overcrowding (i.e. the size of the dwelling) are also concerns for many. Participants therefore expressed a desire to improve their living standards to meet basic human needs.

Backyarders on council-owned land

The researcher team also asked the BD community for any examples of government-led upgrades to their shacks. As mentioned above, the City's programme of extending basic services only applies to backyard dwellers living in the backyard of council-owned flats, which do not exist in Delft or (in large amounts in) Beacon Valley. In contrast, backyard dwellers in Parkwood have participated in and benefited from the city's programme. Many backyard households received their own pre-paid electricity meter, water meterFootnote ¹¹ with access to 350 kl per day (controlled with an electronic tag) and access to a prefabricated toilet structure including trough and tap (see Figure 6). As one respondent indicated: ‘Yes, so like me I've got my own toilet because I'm staying alone in the yard. Then the next neighbour, she got her own toilet with her own tag. She can't use her tag on my thing, because it won't work’ (PW11). While this city-led programme has improved the material access to services for some backyard dwellers living on council-owned land, it has also encountered several challenges of implementation, including the disruption of existing tenant–subtenant relationships, power struggles over resource flows, technical difficulties, and unclear and unfunded responsibilities for the maintenance of the facilities (HSRC 2019: vi).

Figure 6a.

Example of water meter installation within backyard area.

Figure 6b.

Shared backyard toilet facility.

Backyarders on private land

During discussions on the potential for design interventions on backyard dwellings on private land, some participants, especially from Beacon Valley, expressed resistance to any sort of upgrades to their backyard dwellings. For example, BV5 indicated that ‘I don't want any improvement; I want to get out!’ and BV4 added, ‘If I'm gonna be [in a shack] for the rest of my life, then that's not much improvement.’ The motivation behind this seemingly surprising perspective is a clear political demand for one's own house, as this has been a major promise from the nationally ruling party, the African National Congress, since the end of apartheid. Housing became a cornerstone of post-apartheid redress policies, and a socio-economic right enshrined in the constitution (Turok & Scheba Reference Turok and Scheba2019). Receiving one's own house is seen as fundamental to gaining citizenship, and as such human dignity (Lemanski Reference Lemanski2020). However, there is a decades-long waiting list and some of the participants from Beacon Valley were convinced that a government-led upgrade into backyard structures could squander one's right to a housing opportunity. For example, BV4 and BV11 clearly articulated how most respondents felt about upgrades on private land: ‘the thing I fear is that if government is going to improve my living conditions, I feel like that is going to be my ‘housing opportunity’; they not gonna build me a house’ (BV4). ‘I think … [the local government] intention is not to build anymore social housing and so in this project it's kind of like an upgrade … their upgrade it's now their housing opportunity’ (BV11). While, officially, the government has not stated that they will stop building houses and there is no evidence of backyarders losing their ‘housing opportunity’ due to upgrades, it was a widespread belief among our respondents. The desire to be given a government house, combined with apprehension for the fickle unpredictability of the housing ‘waiting list’,Footnote ¹² meant that BD residents were unwilling to accept government interventions to BDs in case it threatened their housing opportunity.

Other fears about negative consequences of the upgrading intervention relate to heightened state control over infrastructure and backyard space. Residents in Beacon Valley were concerned that government water management devices would restrict their water consumption to 350 kl per household per day, which was deemed inadequate for families. This illustrates the fear over further limitations to the BD residents’ ability to control their own life choices; further limiting dignity in addition to limiting the amount of water one can access. While backyard residents in Parkwood accepted this technology, Beacon Valley focus group participants rejected it outright. Other participants stated that their landlords would resist government interventions, because they were afraid that this would bring tenure security to their backyarders, making it difficult to evict them in the future.

Another concern expressed over upgrading interventions was economic in nature. The BD community feared that improvements to BDs would lead to rent increases; as the quality of housing improves, the landlord can therefore increase the price of rent. ‘We have to put up and be satisfied with what we got. If you accept the improvement, then your rent also goes up from 800 to 1000 rand a month’ (BV6). There is a clear catch-22 here: the BD needs upgrades, but this will increase rent, but residents live in BDs because this is all they can afford and any increase is unacceptable. Further, if shacks were to be improved, upgraded or made more substantial, then they could become more of a target for demolition by the authorities. There is a fear amongst the community that neighbours would inform the local government of more permanent housing, leading to the threat of demolition. ‘The [local government] sen[ds] out law enforcements, if you build a structure on Friday, by Monday, the neighbours, they phone law enforcement and law enforcement come out and give your 7 days or 14 days to [demolish the structure]’ (P11). Thus, the legal situation partly leads to the context where upgrades are rarely encountered. Arguably, if BDs were legalised and barriers from landlords and economic constraints were removed, then it is likely that more investment and improvements would be made over time (as is evident in other countries).