Integrating Urban Land Tenure Security in Health Determinants: The Design of Indicators for Measuring Land Tenure Security and Health Relationships in Developing Country Contexts
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Land Tenure Security as Preventive Medicine: A Conceptual Approach to Health
3. Synopsis and Gaps in Land Tenure Security and Health Indicators
4. Materials and Methods
5. Framing a Set of Indicators for Measuring Land Tenure Security and Health Nexus
- i.
- For all indicators of land tenure security (Indicator1…Indicator15), if response on an indicator contributes positively to land tenure security, then assign a score of 1 to the indicator (otherwise assign a score of 0).
- ii.
- Land tenure security score for each household unit is (Th) = ∑ (Indicator1…indicator15).
- iii.
- Land tenure security composite index for each neighborhood (TNB) is:
- iv.
- For all tenure-enabled indicators of environmental justice (Indicator16…Indicator23), if response on an indicator contributes positively to environmental justice, then assign a score of 1 to the indicator (otherwise assign a score of 0).
- v.
- Environmental justice score for each household unit is (Eh) = ∑ (Indicator16…indicator23).
- vi.
- Composite index of environmental justice for each neighborhood (ENB) is:
- vii.
- For all tenure-enabled indicators of social cohesion (Indicator24…Indicator32), if response on an indicator contributes positively to land tenure security, then assign a score of 1 to the indicator (otherwise assign a score of 0).
- viii.
- Social cohesion score for each household unit is (Sh) = ∑ (Indicator24…indicator32).
- ix.
- Composite index of social cohesion for each neighborhood (SNB) is:
- x.
- For all tenure-enabled indicators of infrastructure access (Indicator33…Indicator40), if response on an indicator contributes positively to land tenure security, then assign a score of 1 to the indicator (otherwise assign a score of 0).
- xi.
- Infrastructure access score for each household unit is (Ih) = ∑ (Indicator33…indicator40).
- xii.
- Composite index of infrastructure access for each neighborhood is:
- xiii.
- For all tenure-enabled indicators of psychological security (Indicator41…Indicator46), if response on an indicator contributes positively to land tenure security, then assign a score of 1 to the indicator (otherwise assign a score of 0).
- xiv.
- Tenure security score for each household unit is (Ph) = ∑ (Indicator41…indicator46).
- xv.
- Composite index for psychological security for each neighborhood is:
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pearce, J.R.; Richardson, E.A.; Mitchell, R.J.; Shortt, N.K. Environmental justice and health: A study of multiple environmental deprivation and geographical inequalities in health in New Zealand. Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 73, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baker, E.; Beer, A.; Lester, L.; Pevalin, D.; Whitehead, C.; Bentley, R. Is Housing a Health Insult? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Connolly, C.; Keil, R.; Ali, S.H. Extended urbanisation and the spatialities of infectious disease: Demographic change, infrastructure and governance. Urban Stud. 2021, 58, 245–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hessel, F. Burden of Disease. In Encyclopedia of Public Health; Kirch, W., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2008; pp. 94–96. [Google Scholar]
- Slum Health: From the Cell to the Street; Corburn, J.; Riley, L.W. (Eds.) University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Chigbu, U.E. Tenure Responsive Land-Use Planning as a Tool for Improving Quality of Life: The Perspective of Sub-Saharan Africa. In Handbook of Quality of Life and Sustainability, 1st ed.; Martinez, J., Mikkelsen, C.A., Phillips, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 17–33. [Google Scholar]
- Chigbu, U.E.; Ntihinyurwa, P.D.; de Vries, W.T.; Ngenzi, E.I. Why Tenure Responsive Land-Use Planning Matters: Insights for Land Use Consolidation for Food Security in Rwanda. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Durand-Lasserve, A. Informal settlements and the millennium development goals: Global policy debates on property ownership and security of tenure. Global Urban Develop. 2006, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Durand-Lasserve, A.; Royston, L. Holding their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries; Earthscan Publications: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Payne, G.; Piaskowy, T.; Kuritz, L. Land Tenure in Urban Environments. Available online: https://www.land-links.org/issue-brief/land-tenure-in-urban-environments/ (accessed on 8 February 2021).
- Nyametso, J.K. The link between land tenure security, access to housing, and improved living and environmental conditions: A study of three low-income settlements in Accra, Ghana. J. Geogr. 2012, 66, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyametso, J.K. Resettlement of Slum Dwellers, Land Tenure Security and Improved Housing, Living and Environmental Conditions at Madina Estate, Accra, Ghana. Urban Forum. 2011, 23, 343–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reale, A.; Handmer, J. Land tenure, disasters and vulnerability. Disasters 2011, 35, 160–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corburn, J.; Cohen, A.K. Why we need urban health equity indicators: Integrating science, policy, and community. PLoS Med. 2012, 9, e1001285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dachaga, W.; de Vries, W.T. Land Tenure Security and Health Nexus: A Conceptual Framework for Navigating the Connections between Land Tenure Security and Health. Land 2021, 10, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, T.-W.J.; Robinson, B.E.; Bellemare, M.F.; BenYishay, A.; Blackman, A.; Boucher, T.; Childress, M.; Holland, M.B.; Kroeger, T.; Linkow, B.; et al. Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 4, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muchomba, F.M. Women’s Land Tenure Security and Household Human Capital: Evidence from Ethiopia’s Land Certification. World Develop. 2017, 98, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choudhury, P.; Ghosh, R.K.; Sindhi, S. COVID-19 Crisis, Pandemic Resilience and Linkages to Land: An Exposition; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Subbaraman, R.; O’Brien, J.; Shitole, T.; Shitole, S.; Sawant, K.; Bloom, D.E.; Patil-Deshmukh, A. Off the map: The health and social implications of being a non-notified slum in India. Environ. Urban. 2012, 24, 643–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jain, N.; Chileshe, R.; Muwowo, F.; Lupiya, M. Perceptions of Customary Land Tenure Security in Western Province of Zambia. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 2015, 4, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lahoti, R. A method to measure perceived tenure security in low-income settlements in India. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Develop. 2021, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.; Quan, J. Global Land Indicator Initiative: Sourcebook for Operationalisation of Global Land Indicators; United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN HABITAT); Global Land Tools Network: Gigiri, Nairobi, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Paller, J.W. Informal Networks and Access to Power to Obtain Housing in Urban Slums in Ghana. Africa Today 2015, 62, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simbizi, D.M.C. Measuring land Tenure Security: A pro-Poor Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twenty, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Muyombano, E.; Espling, M.; Pilesjo, P. Effects of land titling and registration on tenure security and agricultural investments: Case of Gataraga sector, Northern Rwanda. Afr. J. Land Policy Geospat. Sci. 2018, 1, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
- de Soto, H. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, 1st ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Ali, D.A.; Alemu, T. Impacts of Land Certification on Tenure Security, Investment, and Land Market Participation: Evidence from Ethiopia. Land Econ. 2011, 87, 312–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Gelder, J.-L. What tenure security? The case for a tripartite view. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Gelder, J.-L. Feeling and thinking: Quantifying the relationship between perceived tenure security and housing improvement in an informal neighbourhood in Buenos Aires. Habitat Int. 2007, 31, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Gelder, J.-L. Then I’ll Huff, and I’ll Puff, and I’ll: A Natural Experiment on Property Titling, Housing Improvement and the Psychology of Tenure Security. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 734–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, G.; Durand-Lasserve, A.; Rakodi, C. The limits of land titling and home ownership. Environ. Urban. 2009, 21, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flower, B.C.R. Built on Solid Foundations? Assessing the Links between City-Scale Land Titling, Tenure Security and Housing Investment. Plan. Theory Pract. 2019, 20, 358–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reerink, G.; van Gelder, J.-L. Land titling, perceived tenure security, and housing consolidation in the kampongs of Bandung, Indonesia. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simbizi, M.C.D.; Bennett, R.M.; Zevenbergen, J. Land tenure security: Revisiting and refining the concept for Sub-Saharan Africa’s rural poor. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alban Singirankabo, U.; Willem Ertsen, M. Relations between Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity: Exploring the Effect of Land Registration. Land 2020, 9, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michler, J.D.; Shively, G.E. Land Tenure, Tenure Security and Farm Efficiency: Panel Evidence from the Philippines. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghebru, H.; Lambrecht, I. Drivers of perceived land tenure (in) security: Empirical evidence from Ghana. Land Use Policy 2017, 66, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, G. Urban land tenure policy options: Titles or rights? Habitat Int. 2001, 25, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simiyu, S.; Cairncross, S.; Swilling, M. Understanding Living Conditions and Deprivation in Informal Settlements of Kisumu, Kenya. Urban Forum. 2019, 30, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chigbu, U.; Paradza, G.; Dachaga, W. Differentiations in Women’s Land Tenure Experiences: Implications for Women’s Land Access and Tenure Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Land 2019, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fabinyi, M. The role of land tenure in livelihood transitions from fishing to tourism. Marit. Stud. 2020, 19, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holden, S.T.; Ghebru, H. Land tenure reforms, tenure security and food security in poor agrarian economies: Causal linkages and research gaps. Global Food Secur. 2016, 10, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kenfack Essougong, U.P.; Teguia, S.J.M. How secure are land rights in Cameroon? A review of the evolution of land tenure system and its implications on tenure security and rural livelihoods. GeoJournal 2019, 84, 1645–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durand-Lasserve, A.; Selod, H. The Formalization of Urban Land Tenure in Developing Countries. In Urban Land Markets: Improving Land Management for Successful Urbanization; Lall, S.V., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK, 2009; pp. 101–132. [Google Scholar]
- Payne, G. Getting ahead of the game: A twin-track approach to improving existing slums and reducing the need for future slums. Environ. Urban. 2005, 17, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keovilignavong, O.; Suhardiman, D. Linking land tenure security with food security: Unpacking farm households’ perceptions and strategies in the rural uplands of Laos. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katusiime, J.; Schütt, B. Linking Land Tenure and Integrated Watershed Management—A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rehman, A.; Ping, Q.; Razzaq, A. Pathways and Associations between Women’s Land Ownership and Child Food and Nutrition Security in Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allendorf, K. Do Women’s Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal? World Develop. 2007, 35, 1975–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vogl, T.S. Urban land rights and child nutritional status in Peru 2004. Econ. Human Biol. 2007, 5, 302–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellaway, A.; Macdonald, L.; Kearns, A. Are housing tenure and car access still associated with health? A repeat cross-sectional study of UK adults over a 13-year period. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e012268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pierse, N.; Carter, K.; Bierre, S.; Law, D.; Howden-Chapman, P. Examining the role of tenure, household crowding and housing affordability on psychological distress, using longitudinal data. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2016, 70, 961–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barlow, J.; Duncan, S. The use and abuse of housing tenure. Hous. Stud. 1988, 3, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiscock, R.E. The Relationship between Housing Tenure and Health: Does Ontological Security Play a Role? Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Tschirhart, N.; Kabanga, L.; Nichols, S. The convergence of HIV/AIDS and customary tenure on women’s access to land in rural Malawi. SAHARA 2015, 12, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Scott, P. Unbundling Tenure Issues for Urban Sanitation Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Corburn, J.; Sverdlik, A. Informal Settlements and Human Health. In Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning: A Framework; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Khreis, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 155–171. [Google Scholar]
- Shonkoff, J.P.; Garner, A.S. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics 2012, 129, e232–e246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hiscock, R.; Macintyre, S.; Kearns, A.; Ellaway, A. Residents and Residence: Factors Predicting the Health Disadvantage of Social Renters Compared to Owner-Occupiers. J. Soc. Issues 2003, 59, 527–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, D.; Fawcett, B.; Mannan, F. Health, hygiene and appropriate sanitation: Experiences and perceptions of the urban poor. Environ. Urban. 2011, 23, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Atkins, P.J.; McFarlane, C. Factors affecting slum sanitation projects in Dhaka City: Learning from the dynamics of social-technological-governance systems. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Develop. 2014, 4, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awunyo-Akaba, Y.; Awunyo-Akaba, J.; Gyapong, M.; Senah, K.; Konradsen, F.; Rheinländer, T. Sanitation investments in Ghana: An ethnographic investigation of the role of tenure security, land ownership and livelihoods. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, P.; Cotton, A.; Sohail, M. Using tenure to build a “sanitation cityscape”: Narrowing decisions for targeted sanitation interventions. Environ. Urban. 2015, 27, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, P.; Cotton, A.; Sohail Khan, M. Tenure security and household investment decisions for urban sanitation: The case of Dakar, Senegal. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barrington, D.J.; Shields, K.F.; Saunders, S.G.; Meo, S.; Sridharan, S.; Souter, R.T.; Bartram, J. WEDC Knowledge Base. In Proceedings of the 40th WEDC International Conference, Loughborough, UK, 24–28 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hales, D. An Introduction to Indicators; UNAIDS: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Laksa, K.; El-Mikawy, N. Reflections of Land Tenure Security Indicators; OGC: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Doss, C.; Meinzen-Dick, R. Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 105080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, B.E.; Masuda, Y.J.; Kelly, A.; Holland, M.B.; Bedford, C.; Childress, M.; Fletschner, D.; Game, E.T.; Ginsburg, C.; Hilhorst, T.; et al. Incorporating Land Tenure Security into Conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arko-Adjei, A. Adapting Land Administration to the Institutional Framework of Customary Tenure: The Case of peri-Urban Ghana; Delft University Press: Delft, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- van Gelder, J.-L. Legal Tenure Security, Perceived Tenure Security and Housing Improvement in Buenos Aires: An Attempt towards Integration. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2009, 33, 126–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LandLinks. New Assessment Tools & Intervention Matrices for Land Rights|LandLinks. Available online: https://www.land-links.org/2013/10/new-assessment-tools-intervention-matrices-for-land-rights/ (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- Prindex. Prindex’s Approach to Conducting Its Surveys. Available online: https://www.prindex.net/about/methodology/ (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- Deininger, K.W.; Selod, H.; Burns, A. The Land Governance Assessment Framework: Identifying and Monitoring Good Practice in the Land Sector; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Global Land Governance Index. Indicators and Scoring—LANDex—Global Land Governance Index. Available online: https://www.landexglobal.org/en/methodology/ (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- Uwayezu, E.; de Vries, W. Indicators for Measuring Spatial Justice and Land Tenure Security for Poor and Low Income Urban Dwellers. Land 2018, 7, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khalatbari-Soltani, S.; Cumming, R.G.; Chomik, R.; Blyth, F.M.; Naganathan, V.; Handelsman, D.J.; Le Couteur, D.G.; Waite, L.M.; Stanaway, F. The association between home ownership and the health of older men: Cross-sectional analysis of the Australian Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project. Australas. J. Ageing 2021, 40, e199–e206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prindex. Questionnaires—Questionnaires|Prindex. Available online: https://www.prindex.net/methodology/questionnaires/ (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- de Vaus, D.A. Surveys in Social Research, 5th ed.; Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Dachaga, W.; Chigbu, E.U. Understanding tenure security dynamics in resettlement towns: Evidence from the Bui Resettlement Project in Ghana. J. Plan. Land Manag. 2020, 1, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Land Tool Network (GLTN). Measuring Land Tenure Security with SDG Indicator 1.4.2—Global Land Tool Network. Available online: https://gltn.net/2017/05/25/measuring-land-tenure-security-with-sdg-indicator-1-4-2/ (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- Whittal, J. A New Conceptual Model for the Continuum of Land Rights. S. Afr. J. Geomat. 2014, 3, 13–32. [Google Scholar]
- Barry, M.; Augustinus, C. Framework for Evaluating Continuum of Land Rights Scenarios; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Linkow, B. Causes and Consequences of Perceived Land Tenure Insecurity: Survey Evidence from Burkina Faso. Land Econ. 2016, 92, 308–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Augustinus, C. Handbook on Best Practices, Security of Tenure, and Access to Land Implementation of the Habitat Agenda; United Nations Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Pineo, H.; Glonti, K.; Rutter, H.; Zimmermann, N.; Wilkinson, P.; Davies, M. Urban Health Indicator Tools of the Physical Environment: A Systematic Review. J. Urban Health 2018, 95, 613–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soga, M.; Cox, D.T.C.; Yamaura, Y.; Gaston, K.J.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Health Benefits of Urban Allotment Gardening: Improved Physical and Psychological Well-Being and Social Integration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jennings, V.; Bamkole, O. The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jennings, V.; Johnson Gaither, C.; Gragg, R.S. Promoting Environmental Justice Through Urban Green Space Access: A Synopsis. Environ. Justice 2012, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jennings, V.; Browning, M.H.; Rigolon, A. (Eds.) Urban Green Space at the Nexus of Environmental Justice and Health Equity. In Urban Green Spaces: Public Health and Sustainability in the United States; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 47–69. [Google Scholar]
- Servadio, J.L.; Lawal, A.S.; Davis, T.; Bates, J.; Russell, A.G.; Ramaswami, A.; Convertino, M.; Botchwey, N. Demographic Inequities in Health Outcomes and Air Pollution Exposure in the Atlanta Area and its Relationship to Urban Infrastructure. J. Urban Health Bullet. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2019, 96, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lakes, T.; Brückner, M.; Krämer, A. Development of an environmental justice index to determine socio-economic disparities of noise pollution and green space in residential areas in Berlin. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57, 538–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullenbach, L.E.; Baker, B.L. Environmental Justice, Gentrification, and Leisure: A Systematic Review and Opportunities for the Future. Leis. Sci. 2020, 42, 430–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, J.R.; Richardson, E.A.; Mitchell, R.J.; Shortt, N.K. Environmental justice and health: The implications of the socio-spatial distribution of multiple environmental deprivation for health inequalities in the United Kingdom. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2010, 35, 522–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Velez-Guerra, A. Land Tenure and the Urban Poor’s Environmental Burdens: A Case Study of Four Settlements in Colombo, Sri Lanka; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Verbeek, T. Unequal residential exposure to air pollution and noise: A geospatial environmental justice analysis for Ghent, Belgium. SSM Popul. Health 2019, 7, 100340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Lands. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farajzadegan, Z.; Jafari, N.; Nazer, S.; Keyvanara, M.; Zamani, A. Social capital—A neglected issue in diabetes control: A cross-sectional survey in Iran. Health Soc. Care Commun. 2013, 21, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, E.S.; Hawes, A.M.; Smith, J. Perceived neighbourhood social cohesion and myocardial infarction. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2014, 68, 1020–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tandel, V.; Gandhi, S.; Patranabis, S.; Bettencourt, L.M.A.; Malani, A. Infrastructure, enforcement, and COVID-19 in Mumbai slums: A first look. J. Reg. Sci. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henwood, B.F.; Redline, B.; Semborski, S.; Rhoades, H.; Rice, E.; Wenzel, S.L. What’s next? A grounded theory of the relationship between ontological security, mental health, social relationships, and identity formation for young adults in supportive housing. Cityscape 2018, 20, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Stonehouse, D.; Threlkeld, G.; Theobald, J. Homeless pathways and the struggle for ontological security. Hous. Stud. 2020, 36, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subbaraman, R.; Nolan, L.; Shitole, T.; Sawant, K.; Shitole, S.; Sood, K.; Nanarkar, M.; Ghannam, J.; Betancourt, T.S.; Bloom, D.E.; et al. The psychological toll of slum living in Mumbai, India: A mixed methods study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 119, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baker, E.; Bentley, R.; Mason, K. The Mental Health Effects of Housing Tenure: Causal or Compositional? Urban Stud. 2013, 50, 426–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuorela, M.; Lavonius, S.; Salminen, M.; Vahlberg, T.; Viitanen, M.; Viikari, L. Self-rated health and objective health status as predictors of all-cause mortality among older people: A prospective study with a 5-, 10-, and 27-year follow-up. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ditlevsen, S.; Christensen, U.; Lynch, J.; Damsgaard, M.T.; Keiding, N. The Mediation Proportion: A Structural Equation Approach for Estimating the Proportion of Exposure Effect on Outcome Explained by an Intermediate Variable. Epidemiology 2005, 16, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chigbu, U.E.; Onyebueke, V.U. The COVID-19 pandemic in informal settlements: (re)considering urban planning interventions. Town Plan. Rev. 2021, 92, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No | Indicator | Tenure Basis of Indicator | Measuring Data | Measured Construct | Connection to Health | Supplementing Existing Indicators of Land Tenure Security | Supporting Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Presence of legally recognized proof of tenure and rights to land | Provability | Proportion of households with title, deed, or other legal proof of land ownership | Land tenure security | Enables four known predictors of health: social cohesion, psychological security, environmental justice, and infrastructure access. | No | [15,20,21,22,24,28,31,33,56,68,74,76,78,80,81,82,83,84,85,86] |
2. | Presence of other documentation other than legally recognized proof of tenure and rights to land | Provability | Proportion of households with other documents to land other than legal proof of ownership | No | |||
3. | Occupation of land for a minimum of 12 years in accordance with Limitation Act | Periodicity | Proportion of households who feel qualified to invoke Limitation Act to claim possession of land | Yes | |||
4. | Presence of municipal infrastructure and utility services | Recognition | Proportion of households with formal connection to water, electricity, and sewage systems | Yes | |||
5. | Access to political power and people of influence | Assurance | Proportion of households who think they cannot lose their land due to their strong political affiliation and access to influential people | Yes | |||
6. | Presence of evidence recognition of land rights by government, local community, and institutions | Legitimacy | Proportion of households who view their land rights as legitimized by government and local institutions such as district assemblies, and property and utility rate collectors | No | |||
7. | Presence of experience of actual (threat of) eviction or dispossession | Periodicity | Proportion of households who have received threats or notice of eviction in the past | No | |||
8. | Presence of experience of actual loss of tenure and land rights in the past | Periodicity | Proportion households who have either been evicted from their homes or lost their land in the past | No | |||
9. | Presence of perceived risk of future loss of tenure and land rights | Periodicity | Proportion of households who fear they are likely to lose their land or homes in the future | No | |||
10. | Presence of state protection against dispossession or eviction | Assurance | Proportion of households with confidence in the state to protect their land rights against arbitrary loss | No | |||
11. | Likelihood of losing tenure and land rights to natural disasters like floods and fire outbreaks | Periodicity | Proportion of households who report experiencing episodes of flood or fire and fear losing their land or homes to these natural disasters | Yes | |||
12. | Presence of autonomy over bundle of land rights held | Alienability and exclusivity | Proportion of households either agree or strongly agree they can sell, lease, sub-divide, collateralize, develop, or use their land or house without restrictions | Yes | |||
13. | Presence of experience of land use or boundary disputes | Legitimacy and periodicity | Proportion of households who have experienced land use or boundary conflict in the past | ||||
14. | Nearness to land use or boundary dispute in the past | Legitimacy and periodicity | Proportion of households in the neighborhood who live within 1 km of a known or reported land use or boundary dispute | No | |||
15. | Presence of approved land use plan | Space and legitimacy | Proportion of households whose land or houses are situated on or demarcated by an approved land use plan | Yes | |||
16. | Exercise of right to legal redress for environmental ills due to secure tenure | Rights | Proportion of households who report using legal means to seek justice for environmental pollution they suffered from others | Environmental justice | Land tenure security activate environmental rights, responsibilities, and restrictions which allow individuals and communities to take transformative actions for environmental goods and against environmental ills to promote environmental health | Yes | [15,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97] |
17. | Exercise of responsibility towards waste disposal and keeping environments clean due to secure tenure | Restrictions and responsibility | Proportion households who think environmental littering is a problem and use designated waste collection points and methods to dispose waste | Yes | |||
18. | Exercise of right to restrict others from polluting land and environment due to secure tenure | Exclusivity | Proportion of households who report coercing others to dispose waste correctly and prevent others from littering their land and environment | Yes | |||
19. | Exercise of right to defend land and environment without threats or fear of harassment due to secure tenure | Rights | Proportion of households who either agree or strongly agree they can freely defend their land and environments against environmental injustice | Yes | |||
20. | Nearness to solid waste disposal site due to insecure tenure | Livability | Proportion of households who live within 500 m of a waste disposal site | Yes | |||
21. | Access to good environmental quality and amenities such as urban green and blue spaces | Benefits and privileges | Proportion of households within 800 m walking distance of a park | Yes | |||
22. | Access to and participation in environmental policy and decision making due to secure tenure | Benefits and privileges | Proportion of households who participated in citizen engagement activities relating to environmental policy and decision making in the last year | Yes | |||
23. | Exercise of right to protest and activism for safe environments due to secure tenure | Rights and livability | Proportion of households who participated in environmental protest and activism in the last year | Yes | |||
24. | Feeling of sense of belonging due to duration of tenure | Periodicity and recognition | Proportion of households who either agree or strongly agree with feeling they belong to their neighborhood | Social cohesion | Constancy afforded by secure tenure promotes social health by leveraging on sustainable social ties and networks | Yes | [15,86,88,98,99,100] |
25. | Presence of sustained friendships and social relationships due to residential stability | Periodicity and recognition | Proportion of households who either agree or strongly agree they have built lasting social ties and friendship with their neighbors due to length of stay | Yes | |||
26. | Feeling of sense of community | Periodicity | Proportion of households who either strongly agree or agree they feel they are part of the community | Yes | |||
27. | Participation in communal activities and advocacy | Periodicity | Proportion of households who report they participate in organized community activities such as clean-up campaigns, protests, and communal labor | Yes | |||
28. | Sense of security, connectedness, and trust | Livability | Proportion of households who either agree or strongly agree with the belief that their neighbors would help them in an emergency | Yes | |||
29. | Presence of experience of social conflict within community | Recognition | Proportion of households who report ever experiencing discrimination, been prevented from using land or doing something, or been hassled or made to feel inferior because of their race, ethnicity, or color | Yes | |||
30. | Feeling of attachment to place due to duration of tenure | Periodicity | Proportion of households either agree or strongly agree they do not want to relocate because they have become attached to their neighborhood | Yes | |||
31. | Sense of inclusion and reduced segregation and exclusion from right to the city and benefits of city life | Recognition | Proportion of households in the neighborhood who agree they have equal opportunities to inhabit, use, participate, and influence decisions pertaining to urban space | Yes | |||
32. | Presence of social support, social capital, and empowerment | Livability | Proportion of households in the neighborhood who feel they can count on neighbors | Yes | |||
33. | Access to municipal water supply | Livability | Proportion of households served by municipal water supply system, borehole, or tanker service | Infrastructure access | Tenure security provides legitimacy and entitlement to state-provided infrastructure, or incentive for private investment in life sustaining infrastructure that promote physical health | Yes | [15,19,56,63,64,86,101] |
34. | Access to municipal waste collection services | Livability | Proportion of households served by municipal or private waste collection service providers | Yes | |||
35. | Access to municipal sewer infrastructure | Livability | Proportion of households who are served by municipal solid waste management system | Yes | |||
36. | Access to waste or garbage collection facility | Livability | Proportion of households within 75 m walking distance of a designated wastebin, who are connected to a wastewater collection or treatment facility | Yes | |||
37. | Access to privately installed toilet facility | Livability | Proportion of households served by a privately installed toilet | Yes | |||
38. | Access to adequate shelter | Space and Livability | Proportion of households living in durable structures (as per the SDG-era definition of housing) | No | |||
39. | Presence of private capital investment in housing improvement | Livability | Proportion of households who have made capital improvements on the properties they own in the past 12 years | ||||
40. | Willingness of state to provide utility services and social infrastructure | Recognition and legitimacy | Proportion of households who report ease of getting local authorities to provide social infrastructure or utility services | ||||
41. | Feeling of control and ability to exercise autonomy of decisions over land or property | Exclusivity | Proportion of households who either agree or strongly agree they can exercise autonomy in decisions pertaining use of their land | Psychological security | Reduced psychosocial stresses and anxieties associated with insecure tenure and eviction threats promote mental health. | Yes | [15,54,102,103,104,105] |
42. | Absence of anxiety and fear of losing tenure and land rights | Periodicity | Proportion of households who either disagree or strongly disagree that they have anxiety and fears of losing their land or homes | No | |||
43. | Feeling of prestige and high self-esteem due to secure tenure status | Recognition | Proportion of household who rate their sense of pride and self-esteem in their homes and living conditions as high or very high | Yes | |||
44. | Feeling of safety and privacy due access to delineated space | Space | Proportion of households who report feeling safe and having privacy in their homes | Yes | |||
45. | Sense of routine due to constancy of tenure | Periodicity | Proportion of households who feel they have a home around which their daily life activities are constructed | Yes | |||
46. | Existence of antagonistic relationship with government and state institutions | Recognition | Proportion of households who report being under constant threat by state institutions over legitimacy of where they live | Yes | |||
47. | Self-rated heath | N/A | Proportion of households who either rate their health as good or very good | Health | No | [54,106] | |
48. | Number of visits to the hospital for self-treatment in the past year | N/A | Number of times a household (member) visited the hospital in the past year | No | |||
49. | Clinically diagnosed diseases in the past year | N/A | Proportion of households who report being diagnosed with specific diseases in the past year | No |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dachaga, W.; de Vries, W.T. Integrating Urban Land Tenure Security in Health Determinants: The Design of Indicators for Measuring Land Tenure Security and Health Relationships in Developing Country Contexts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053080
Dachaga W, de Vries WT. Integrating Urban Land Tenure Security in Health Determinants: The Design of Indicators for Measuring Land Tenure Security and Health Relationships in Developing Country Contexts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):3080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053080
Chicago/Turabian StyleDachaga, Walter, and Walter Timo de Vries. 2022. "Integrating Urban Land Tenure Security in Health Determinants: The Design of Indicators for Measuring Land Tenure Security and Health Relationships in Developing Country Contexts" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 3080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053080