No space for culture: ‘matchbox housing’ leaves residents unable to honour customs in a South African town – The Conversation

Report on Urban Planning and Sustainable Development Goals in South Africa

1.0 Introduction: The Legacy of Colonial Planning and its Conflict with SDGs

Urban planning in South Africa is deeply influenced by a legacy of western-centric and colonial frameworks. This historical approach, which includes social housing models, zoning regulations, and land tenure systems, has created significant barriers to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The persistence of these planning norms directly challenges the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by perpetuating spatial and social disparities rooted in the country’s colonial and apartheid past.

2.0 Historical Context: Apartheid Planning and the Violation of Human-Centric SDGs

The planning policies of the colonial and apartheid eras systematically institutionalized inequality, in direct opposition to the core tenets of the SDGs. These policies created a deeply segregated urban landscape with severe consequences for the non-European population.

• Violation of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Policies from the 1930s onwards granted European settlers exclusive rights to urban areas while severely restricting the presence and movement of African people through pass laws and spatial segregation.
• Violation of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Black populations were relegated to townships on the urban periphery. These settlements were designed as temporary residential areas, lacking adequate amenities and infrastructure, thus failing to provide safe, inclusive, and adequate housing.
• Violation of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): Housing standards were minimal, characterized by small “matchbox” houses on undersized plots. Sanitation facilities were often non-existent or inadequate, such as outdoor bucket or pit toilets, posing significant health risks.

3.0 Case Study: Cultural Needs vs. Planning Deficiencies in Makanaskop Township

A study of the Makanaskop township in Makhanda, predominantly inhabited by amaXhosa residents, highlights the critical disconnect between current planning practices and the cultural needs of the community. This misalignment undermines efforts to build truly sustainable and inclusive communities as envisioned in SDG 11.

3.1 Spatial Requirements for amaXhosa Cultural Practices

Several amaXhosa cultural and spiritual practices require specific spatial arrangements that are not accommodated by standard state-provided housing plots. These practices are essential for community identity and well-being, aligning with SDG 11.4 (Protect cultural heritage).

1. The Kraal (Ubuhlanti): A sacred rectangular enclosure essential for rituals connecting the family to its ancestors, including ceremonies for births (imbeleko), marriages (ukutyiswa amasi), deaths (kubuyisa), and the initiation of young men into manhood (ulwaluko).
2. Extended Family Housing: Cultural norms often require space for extended families, contrary to the nuclear family model upon which “matchbox” houses were based.
3. Rondavels: Traditional structures often used for spiritual and cultural purposes.

4.0 Analysis of Planning Failures in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

The research in Makanaskop reveals how state-led planning continues to fail in meeting the holistic needs of residents, thereby impeding progress on multiple SDGs.

4.1 Key Challenges

• Inadequate Plot and House Size: Small plots severely restrict residents’ ability to accommodate culturally significant structures like the kraal, house extended families, or engage in subsistence activities like gardening. This directly contravenes SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 11‘s call for adequate housing.
• Poor Siting of State-Provided Infrastructure: The placement of government-built structures, particularly outdoor toilets, often conflicts with cultural requirements. For example, placing a toilet in the middle of a backyard can render the space unusable for a kraal, which is a sacred space. This demonstrates a failure to integrate SDG 6 (Sanitation) with cultural sensitivities essential for SDG 11.
• Perpetuation of Inequality: By ignoring the cultural and social realities of Black residents, these planning systems perpetuate the inequalities established during apartheid, hindering the advancement of SDG 10. Residents are forced to adapt by either compromising sacred traditions or engaging in “insurgent planning” and “quiet encroachment” by illegally extending their plots.

5.0 Recommendations for SDG-Aligned Urban Planning

To create genuinely sustainable and equitable urban environments in South Africa, a fundamental shift in planning philosophy is required. The following recommendations are proposed to align urban development with the Sustainable Development Goals:

1. Adopt Culturally Aware Planning Models: Planners must engage in deep, participatory consultation with communities to understand their cultural and social needs before designing and implementing housing projects. This approach is fundamental to achieving SDG 11 and fostering trust in institutions as per SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
2. Revise Spatial and Housing Standards: National and municipal governments must revise minimum plot and house size standards to accommodate extended families and essential cultural land uses, ensuring housing is not just a structure but a functional home that supports well-being.
3. Integrate Service Delivery with Cultural Norms: The provision of essential services, such as sanitation under SDG 6, must be implemented in a manner that respects and integrates with the cultural fabric of the community.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues related to urban planning, social inequality, housing, sanitation, and cultural practices in South Africa, which directly connect to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The article explicitly discusses sanitation issues in South African townships. It mentions that historically, these areas had “inadequate sanitation facilities,” including a “bucket toilet system” or no toilets at all. It notes that post-apartheid, “access to safe toilets and sanitation was recognised as a human right,” leading to the construction of new toilets, connecting the issue directly to the goal of ensuring sanitation for all.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The core of the article is rooted in the legacy of inequality created by “colonial and apartheid planning policies.” It describes how these policies created “spatial segregation,” giving rights to European settlers while strictly controlling and marginalizing the African population. The continued use of “western-centric planning norms” that ignore the “cultural, social and economic realities of the residents” perpetuates these inequalities, making this SDG highly relevant.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text focuses on urban planning, social housing, land tenure systems, and the living conditions in townships like Makanaskop. It critiques the provision of inadequate housing (“matchbox” houses on small plots) and the lack of amenities. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for inclusive and culturally aware planning that accommodates residents’ needs, which is a central theme of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

• Target 6.2: Achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all

  This target is directly addressed when the article describes the historical lack of proper sanitation in townships, mentioning that “toilets either did not exist or were built outside (a bucket inside a single cubicle, or a pit or flush toilet).” The subsequent effort by local governments to build “new toilets” after 1994 is a direct attempt to meet this target, although the article also points out that the placement of these state-provided toilets can create new problems.

• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of race, ethnicity, or other status

  The article illustrates a failure to meet this target. The legacy of apartheid planning, which was explicitly designed for racial exclusion, continues to affect residents. The finding that “planning still does not fully align with the cultural, social and economic realities of the residents” shows an ongoing lack of social and cultural inclusion for the Black amaXhosa community in urban planning processes.

• Target 11.1: Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services

  The article’s description of government-built housing during apartheid as “rows of ‘matchbox’ (two- to four-roomed) houses” on “small plots” directly relates to the issue of adequate housing. The fact that residents have to expand their houses, sometimes illegally, to accommodate “bigger, extended families” indicates that the provided housing is not adequate for their needs.

• Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning

  The article critiques the “perpetuation of western-centric planning norms” and calls for planners to “first understand residents’ cultural practices to avoid future conflicts.” This highlights a lack of participatory and integrated planning. The conflict between the positioning of state-provided structures (like toilets) and residents’ cultural needs (the kraal) is a clear example of non-inclusive planning.

• Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural heritage

  This target is relevant because the article shows how urban planning can threaten cultural practices. The need for space for the “kraal, or ubuhlanti,” which is a sacred space for amaXhosa rituals, is not accommodated by the small plot sizes and standardized house placements. Residents are forced to “adapt their cultural practices or contravene planning systems” to maintain their cultural heritage, indicating a need to better safeguard these intangible and spatial cultural assets.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article implies several qualitative and quantitative indicators that could be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 6.2: Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services

  The article implies this indicator by describing the evolution of sanitation from “inadequate sanitation facilities” and the “bucket toilet system” to the provision of “flush toilets.” Progress could be measured by the percentage of households in townships that have access to safe, private, and culturally appropriate sanitation facilities, moving beyond just the provision of a toilet to its proper and respectful placement.

• Indicator for Target 10.2: Existence of planning policies that promote inclusion

  The article suggests that current planning is not inclusive. An indicator of progress would be the development and implementation of urban planning bylaws and frameworks that explicitly recognize and incorporate the cultural and social needs of marginalized communities. The article’s conclusion that “planners need first to understand residents’ cultural practices” points to the need for such policies.

• Indicator for Target 11.1: Proportion of urban population living in inadequate housing

  The description of “small plots,” “matchbox” houses, and the need for residents to build extensions implies that the housing is inadequate. Progress could be measured by assessing the adequacy of social housing based on factors like plot size, house size relative to household size (especially for extended families), and the ability to accommodate essential household and cultural activities.

• Indicator for Target 11.3: Degree of participatory planning in urban development

  The article highlights a disconnect between planners and residents. An indicator for progress would be the extent to which community members, like the residents of Makanaskop, are consulted and involved in the planning and design of their housing and public services. The current situation, where residents resort to “insurgent planning and quiet encroachment,” indicates a low level of participation.

• Indicator for Target 11.4: Policies and funding to safeguard cultural heritage

  The conflict over space for the kraal implies a lack of protection for cultural heritage in urban planning. A relevant indicator would be the existence of zoning regulations or land use policies that formally recognize and allocate space for cultural practices within residential areas. The number of households able to properly establish sacred spaces like the kraal without contravening bylaws would be a measure of success.

4. SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

Source: theconversation.com