Social Housing in South Africa’s Urban Landscape: Addressing Land Access and Sustainability Challenges in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban

Abstract

Subsidized, decent, and durable housing is a persistent issue for South Africa’s urban areas. Social housing is one of the most important instruments for addressing the situation, yet structural barriers such as land prices, bureaucracy, and governance pose a challenge to forward momentum. This study provides a qualitative examination of social housing in Durban, Cape Town, and Johannesburg on the basis of three dimensions: effectiveness of governance, land accessibility, and practice of sustainability. It is evident that land acquisition is still a great hindrance due to private stakeholder opposition, complex rezoning processes, and speculative ownership of land. Institutional systems within the three cities are characterized by poor intergovernmental coordination, a lack of transparency in land disposition, and lengthy project approval. Johannesburg has seen extensive transit-oriented development, while Cape Town is more advanced in sustainability initiatives, albeit with a resource constraint, and Durban’s human-scale housing types suffer from finance and technical capacity challenges. This study underscores the need for interlinked policy changes to bridge the inefficiencies in governance, facilitate land accessibility, and enhance the incentives of sustainability. An across-the-board data-driven process involving government authorities, private builders, and civil society stakeholders is indispensable in advocating effective and sustainable urban housing strategies for South Africa.

1. Introduction

Access to affordable, adequate, and sustainable housing remains one of the most pressing urban challenges in South Africa. Social housing, aimed at providing subsidized rental housing for low- to moderate-income households, is a critical component of addressing this challenge. However, the provision of social housing within South Africa’s cities is riddled with issues and problems that emanate from the historical imbalances, policy implementation gaps, and systemic issues relating to land accessibility and governance. The South African social housing crisis is caused by the country’s existing socioeconomic framework and history of apartheid. Pre-existing racial segregation laws restricted the majority Black population to a limited area of land, causing spatial inequality [1]. As housing challenges mostly happen in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban, these structural inequities continue to hamper post-apartheid urban development. Despite legislation such as the Social Housing Act of 2008 and the Breaking New Ground policy, inefficient land allocation, costly urban land, and complicated governance hinder development [2].

1.1. The Apartheid Legacy and Spatial Inequality

Apartheid policies made racial segregation legal, dislocating Black South Africans from urban areas to the peripheries of outer townships [3]. The cities were consciously designed with substandard infrastructure, inadequate public services, and limited economic prospects. Decades later, the disparities remain ingrained, with most low-income dwellers residing in overcrowded, underdeveloped areas remote from economic hubs. This spatial disconnection is a factor in expensive transportation, restricted access to employment, and a worsening cycle of poverty, rendering it challenging for marginalized groups to move to improved housing opportunities [4].

Modern Socio-Economic Frameworks and Housing Accessibility

The post-apartheid state rolled out policies designed to address spatial inequality, but institutional socio-economic inequalities still exist in fair housing access. Soaring land costs in metropolitan areas in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban have made low-cost housing around work opportunities inaccessible to the poor [5]. It has also been contributed to by a fragmented governance system, where all stakeholders take part in the allocation of land and housing construction. Followed by the delayed processes of implementation, red tape with respect to administration and corruption and the contradiction of interests between municipal, provincial, and national government offices further complicate the issue [5].

1.2. Land Access Challenges and Market Forces

A significant hindrance to social housing development is the cost of urban land, which is extremely high. The market value appreciation of property and land privatization limits access to low-cost housing policies. Developers prioritize high-income housing based on profitability, and state-sponsored schemes are bogged down by the slow acquisition of prime land [6]. In addition, land restitution plans, aimed at correcting historical displacement, tend to let loose complex court cases that are an added reason for the protraction of housing schemes. The lack of an effective expropriation mechanism has created a huge problem where parcels of land lie unused or are in dispute.

Apart from that, land speculation has enlarged the affordability issue as investors purchase land for future profit rather than development in the immediate future [7]. This land remains dormant or unused when social housing could be built. The red tape in rezoning land for affordable housing is among the reasons the delays happen; demand is never matched with supply, and the process becomes one of vicious repetition [7]. Apart from that, inefficient infrastructure in the development regions also deters investment because the cost of upgrading roads, water, and electricity is shouldered mostly by developers, making low-cost housing developments uneconomical [8].

1.3. Sustainability Issues in Social Housing

Social housing sustainability is multi-faceted and includes three environmental, economic, and social aspects [9]. The majority of the social housing programs are not built sustainably because of insufficient infrastructure, inefficient urban planning, and restricted access to available resources [10]. Water, waste, and energy efficiency still represent huge issues. Added to this, millions of residents in informal settlements are left to continue thriving under unclean and unhygienic conditions in rising percentages as a result of formal housing backlogs [11]. Inadequate investment in green infrastructure and sustainable urban development would lead to new housing development, which is more likely to be a replication of past mistakes than to ensure resilience in the long term [12].

Short-term solutions rather than city-wide urban development programs are the greatest threat to ensuring sustainability. Most social housing developments lack properly integrated public transport, green parks, and shared services, minimizing their liveability in the longer term [13]. Moreover, most housing schemes depend on conventional construction techniques and materials that do not consider resilience against climate change or energy efficiency, which increases long-term maintenance costs [14]. Until the change in sustainable design and construction is achieved, social housing will be a short-term relief and not a solution.

1.4. Policy Recommendations and Challenges

Despite progressive policies like the Social Housing Act of 2008, there are loopholes in implementation [15]. The Breaking New Ground policy sought to incorporate low-cost housing in cities to prevent further marginalization, but political inertia and opposition from more affluent communities have limited its extent. Furthermore, public–private partnerships for accelerating housing delivery have often failed due to divergent incentives and budgetary pressures. These deficiencies can be addressed by more vigorous government intervention, well-governed partnership structures, and increased expenditure on social housing programs [16].

One of the most serious flaws in current policies is the slow and bureaucratic process of land acquisition and redistribution. Expropriation without compensation has been proposed as a potential tool, but legal and political obstacles have made it impossible to implement [17]. Furthermore, budget constraints at the municipal level make policy implementation difficult because most municipalities cannot construct infrastructure and housing to the desired level [18]. Mismanagement and corruption also undermine the delivery of housing in that the funds for social housing are diverted or misused.

Another of these hindrances is the gap between policy intent and implementation in practice. Policies favor inclusive urban growth, but actual projects do not include low-income housing economically, and spatial segregation becomes a norm [19]. The way out of these shortfalls is crucial through the fortification of accountability mechanisms, reinforcing intergovernmental collaboration and ensuring community participation to secure the success of social housing initiatives [20].

The long-term social housing crisis in the South African urban setting is a fallout of the apartheid government’s spatial planning and dominant socio-economic policies [21]. All these issues need to be addressed by an integrated approach, such as land reform intensification, effective governance, and sustainable urbanization [22]. The policies need to be implemented more strictly so that there can be equitable access to housing [23]. Land needs to be made available at subsidized rates for social housing, and sustainability needs to be the key for development [24]. Without the above structural measures, Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban will continue to experience shortages of housing, thereby perpetuating inequality and social exclusion.

With such challenges, the government must prioritize large-scale land expropriation for social housing and urban growth that is inclusive [25]. More aggressive attempts at mainstreaming low-cost housing in upscale locations must be made, together with incentives to persuade developers to invest in low-cost housing programs. Regulatory regimes also must be reformed to avoid bureaucratic delays and promote inter-governmental coordination [26]. The availability of housing would become a national imperative through streamlining the land redistribution process and optimally using the land within urban areas [27].

More public spending on housing infrastructure, along with proper coordination with the private sector stakeholders, must be facilitated to strengthen financial sustainability [28]. Innovative forms of financing in terms of new models like housing bonds, the capture of land values, and public–private partnerships may be utilized by the government for inducing investment towards schemes of low-cost housing [29]. Additionally, innovative funding mechanisms, including microfinance and community-based housing cooperatives, can be utilized to empower low-income residents to invest in housing development. Long-term budgeting, using sustainable sources of funding, must be used to ensure that social housing developments remain sustainable and do not degrade over time because of a lack of maintenance [30].

Environmentally, green building regulations should be the benchmark for new residential estates, such as solar power, water recycling, and energy-efficient building products. Natural resistance to climate change, e.g., flood-resistant structures and improved waste management systems, should also be available in residential estates [31]. Improved public transport links to connect social housing estates with economic hubs would also enhance liveability and integration, reducing transport costs for residents and urban sprawl.

The issue of policy making and policy governance is also an issue that requires drastic action [32]. The discontinuity of functions across the levels of government is a key deterrent to housing delivery in the optimum form. The municipal governments lack the technical expertise and funding capacity to implement schemes of mass social housing, and national policy is also not conducive to local developmental schemes [33]. Enhancing housing departments’ governance system and efficient policy execution will reduce delays and improve the effectiveness of housing delivery.

Corruption and inefficiency at housing agencies have almost exhausted gains in the social housing sector. Land allocation processes, procurement, and house allocation procedures need to be conducted openly to prevent the wastage of resources. Consolidating the oversight of agency powers, embracing robust anti-corruption policies, and enhancing public accountability will revive the trust of citizens in government-sponsored housing schemes and ensure that funds are being directed effectively to deserving recipients [34].

The most vital component of addressing the housing crisis is making urban planning more participatory in nature. Too many low-income social housing complexes are being constructed on the peripheries of cities, and the outcome is residential segregation that deprives residents of economic opportunities [35]. What policy to pursue then is mixed-income complexes that bring about social mixing and, to prevent stigma on low-income housing, policies against stigmatizing low-income housing. Blending social housing into the current urban fabric will necessitate adaptive zoning regulations, higher infrastructure investment, and gentrification prevention measures that do not uproot low-income residents [36].

Community participation is another essential element of successful social housing policy. Residents need to be involved in decision-making to ensure that housing projects address their needs. This includes transparency in land redistribution programs, fair allocation procedures, and public oversight to prevent corruption. By involving interested communities in planning and decision-making concerning the development of housing projects, policies become more responsive to the real needs of people and foster a sense of ownership and long-term sustainability [37].

In addition to the provision of housing, policies should also seek to improve informal settlements in which millions of South Africans currently reside. In place of evictions, informal settlements need to be upgraded by the introduction of basic services such as water, sanitation, and electricity [38]. Incremental housing improvement, which allows residents to improve their dwellings incrementally with government support, can be a more effective option than large-scale relocation schemes that dismember communities and livelihoods.

Tackling unemployment and economic inequality is key to addressing the housing crisis. Housing is not just shelter—it reflects the overall socio-economic condition. Skill training initiatives, employment generation schemes, and support for small industries in housing need to be integrated within policies to create economic activity among residents [39]. A holistic framework integrating housing with economic development will be better equipped to address the source of the crisis.

Public education campaigns and awareness should be employed to educate residents about their rights to shelter, government assistance programs that are accessible, and the importance of sustainable housing behaviour. The majority of low-income residents are ignorant of the available housing assistance and government programs and are therefore not utilizing them adequately. Improved communications strategies, simplified application procedures, and housing assistance in low-income areas can help bridge the gap.

By embracing these structural reforms, South Africa can move towards a more equitable urban situation in which social housing is accessible, sustainable, and integrated into economic hubs rather than being a persistent reminder of exclusion and marginalization. Expanded investment in education and vocational training for low-income citizens can also enhance social mobility and break the cycle of poverty so that housing solutions form a part of the overall economic empowerment. A comprehensive, inclusive, and sustainable solution is needed to construct long-lasting solutions to South Africa’s housing crisis.

Extended government, private sector, and civil society commitment must be carried out to render social housing a viable and honourable option for low-income individuals. Stricter regulatory frameworks, increased investment, and a shift towards community-driven solutions will be key to resolving the housing issues that still plague Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban. It is only through sustained and long-term effort that South Africa can address the deep-seated inequalities that still characterize its urban landscape, leading to a more just and equitable society.

2. Materials and Methods

This chapter outlines the research methodology adopted for this study, focusing on the South African social housing landscape in urban centers, particularly Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban. The methodology aims to ensure the validity, reliability, and replicability of the research findings. Key components include the research design, data collection methods, sampling strategy, and data analysis techniques.

2.1. Research Design

This study employs a qualitative research design to explore governance, sustainability, and land access challenges in social housing. A comparative case study approach is used to analyze social housing projects in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban. The study integrates semi-structured interviews, policy document reviews, and thematic analyses to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.

2.2. Data Collection Methods

Data collection involved a combination of semi-structured interviews and document analyses. Interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders involved in social housing, including municipal officials, private developers, and community representatives. The interview questions were open-ended questions covering the following:

• The effectiveness of governance structures in social housing project implementation.
• Barriers to land accessibility and the impact of speculative landholding.
• The extent to which sustainability practices have been integrated into social housing developments.

Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 min and was recorded and transcribed for accuracy. In addition to interviews, policy documents and municipal reports on social housing were analyzed to corroborate findings and ensure a triangulated approach to data verification.

2.3. Sampling Strategy

Participants were chosen based on their expertise; involvement in social housing initiatives; and their ability to provide insights into governance, land accessibility, and sustainability issues. A total of 30 interviews were conducted, ensuring diverse perspectives across different stakeholder groups (

Table 1. Stakeholder group and number of participants.

Stakeholder Group	Number of Participants
Municipal Officials	10 (Johannesburg: 3; Cape Town: 4; Durban: 3)
Housing Developers	12 (Private: 5; Public Sector: 7)
Community Representatives	8 (Johannesburg: 3; Cape Town: 3; Durban: 2)

).

2.4. Data Analysis Techniques

The analysis involved four principal stages aimed at producing a detailed and rigorous interpretation of the data (

Table 2. Analysis steps and descriptions.

Analysis Step	Description
Transcription and Initial Coding	Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim, and initial codes were generated.
Thematic Categorization	Codes were grouped into broader themes based on recurring issues highlighted by respondents.
Cross-Case Comparison	Differences and similarities in governance, land access, and sustainability strategies across the three cities were examined.
Policy Document Analysis	Findings from interviews were cross-validated with municipal policy documents and reports.

). First, entire interview recordings were transcribed verbatim in order to maintain the richness and authenticity of participants’ responses. This was an essential step to maintain the nuances of meaning and language in the analysis. Following transcription, the initial round of coding was carried out manually using a mixture of descriptive and in vivo coding approaches. These codes captured key phrases, repeated ideas, and key trends within the data.

In the second phase, the original codes were filtered into overarching thematic categories systematically. This thematic coding entailed the grouping of associated codes into broad themes that captured the key issues raised by participants. The construction of these themes was inductive—emerging from the data—and grounded in the study’s theoretical framework.

The third step involved the cross-case comparative analysis of the three study cities. This step was designed to examine both similarities and differences in governance approaches, land access regimes, and sustainability strategies in the urban environments. Special focus was given to how local socio-political histories and institutional arrangements shaped these variables in each case to enable a more advanced understanding of place-based practices.

Finally, in order to check and authenticate the qualitative findings, a policy document analysis was conducted. This involved the scrutiny of relevant municipal policy documents, strategic plans, and official reports for the purposes of triangulating information gathered through interviews. The aim was to identify consistencies or inconsistencies between accounts from stakeholders and official policy designs, hence validating the general interpretation of findings.

Given the qualitative nature of the study, statistical regression analysis was not employed. Instead, the research focused on identifying common patterns and key insights that contribute to the understanding of social housing challenges in South Africa.

3. Results

3.1. Governance Challenges

Stakeholders invariably pointed to governance inefficiencies as a primary obstacle to the implementation of social housing. Municipal officials’ interviews indicated that gaps in intergovernmental coordination resulted in substantial delays in the approval of housing projects. A senior housing official in Johannesburg remarked, “There is a clear gap between national policy aspirations and local implementation approaches, and this creates undue delays in project approval and fund release”. Similarly, a Cape Town respondent noted that “our biggest challenge is resistance from upper-income areas, and this slows down our attempts to incorporate affordable housing in well-located areas”.

Durban developers were dissatisfied with the slow bureaucratic process, which they blamed on a lack of accountability. As one developer put it, “Even when land is identified for social housing, it can take years to get the approvals needed because of inefficiencies in municipal departments”. These views are in line with observations that stakeholder engagement varies across cities and influences the transparency of governance.

Additionally, Johannesburg developers commented on inconsistencies in land allocation priorities, with private sector interests being prioritized over public housing projects. As stated by one respondent, “When it comes to land allocation, big commercial developments get through the approval pipeline much quicker than social housing projects”. In Cape Town, a number of interviewees commented on the insufficient political will to execute social housing policy effectively (

Table 3. Governance challenges across cities.

City	Transparency Rating (1–5)	Stakeholder Engagement (1–5)	Key Governance Challenges Identified
Johannesburg	3.8	3.5	Poor intergovernmental coordination, fund allocation delays, private sector prioritization
Cape Town	4.2	4.0	Community resistance, lengthy rezoning processes, political reluctance
Durban	3.4	3.2	Slow municipal approvals, weak accountability mechanisms, lack of clarity in policy execution

).

3.2. Land Accessibility Issues

Land availability emerged as a dominant theme in stakeholder interviews. Johannesburg local officials reported exorbitant land costs as a major impediment. “Land costs in high-profile sites have inflated to the point where it’s virtually impossible for social housing schemes to be economically viable”, a respondent contended. Cape Town developers concurred, lamenting speculative land-holding practices that preclude the utilization of land in low-cost housing. A Cape Town urban planner stated, “We are continuously involved in court battles with private stakeholders who oppose the re-purposing of prime land for social housing”.

In Durban, land availability problems were further exacerbated by bureaucratic inefficiencies. One housing developer commented, “There are blocks of public land available, but we find it difficult to get through government red tape to get at them”. Community representatives further noted that informal settlements were frequently ignored in land redistribution programs, further marginalizing the poor. A number of interviewees in Johannesburg and Cape Town noted that land expropriation policies, though politically contested, had not been translated into concrete housing projects (

Table 4. Land costs and key challenges in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban; source: Department of Public Works, South Africa.

City	Average Land Cost (ZAR/m2)	Key Land Challenges Identified
Johannesburg	5500	High land costs, complex rezoning requirements, land expropriation debates
Cape Town	8200	Speculative landholding, legal disputes over land use, resistance from private landowners
Durban	4700	Slow government response, lack of transparency in land allocation, informal settlements neglected

).

3.3. Sustainability in Social Housing

Sustainability initiatives in social housing projects were highly variable across cities. Interviews with Johannesburg city planners recorded a growing focus on transit-oriented development. One planner described, “Our strategy has been to combine housing and transport infrastructure to combat urban sprawl and enhance accessibility”. Developers reported, however, that sustainability initiatives were often limited by budgets.

Cape Town was at the forefront of the uptake of green housing technology, with several respondents citing the success of projects that employed solar energy and rainwater harvesting. A consultant for sustainability said, “We have achieved good results in terms of energy efficiency when combining green designs, but scaling these is not easy because funding is limited”. Some respondents indicated that pushback against the implementation of sustainability policies frequently came from developers worried about the initial expense of using green technology.

Durban was behind in the adoption of sustainability, mainly because of economic reasons. Developers complained about the economic implications of implementing climate-resilient designs. One of the local NGOs had a representative who said, “We need greater government incentives to encourage sustainable measures in social housing projects”. The representatives of all three cities agreed that sustainability measures need to be more resident-friendly, with one of the respondents saying, “Most people living in social housing have difficulty paying utility bills, so energy-efficient houses should be a priority”. (See

Table 5. Sustainability practices and challenges in social housing.

Practice	Johannesburg (%)	Cape Town (%)	Durban (%)	Key Sustainability Challenges Identified
Green Technologies	68	75	55	High upfront costs, lack of funding incentives, developer resistance
Climate-Resilient Designs	59	64	48	Limited municipal funding, need for technical expertise, lack of incentives
Renewable Energy Integration	72	68	50	Financial constraints, inconsistent policy implementation, lack of policy enforcement

)

3.4. Community Perspectives

Community engagement was a driving determinant of social housing outcomes. Resident representatives in interviews highlighted affordability and access to critical services. One of the Cape Town community leaders observed that “Social housing developments should not only provide shelter but also enhance accessibility to schools, healthcare, and employment opportunities”. The respondents also emphasized integrating social housing into the current urban landscape to avoid developing alien settlements.

In Johannesburg, community-based housing schemes were praised for promoting local ownership. “Housing cooperatives empower residents by giving them a voice in decision-making processes”, said one community organizer. Durban versions of such models, however, failed due to a lack of finance and technical facilities. “We have the willingness to participate, but without financial backing, it’s difficult to maintain these projects”, said one participant from a housing cooperative in Durban.

Certain Cape Town residents grumbled about the so-called “superficial consultations” by municipal authorities. A resident noted, “We are invited to planning meetings, but our inputs are rarely implemented in actual housing projects”. (See

Table 6. Key community concerns were identified in each city.

City	Key Community Concerns Identified
Johannesburg	Need for better integration with transportation infrastructure, affordability challenges, need for more cooperative housing models
Cape Town	Opposition from affluent neighborhoods, lack of social amenities in housing developments, lack of genuine community participation
Durban	Funding gaps for community-driven projects, need for greater resident participation, lack of technical training for residents

)

4. Discussion

The study results present a multifaceted crisis in social housing driven by inefficiencies in governance, land-access barriers, and inconsistent attempts at sustainability. The results from a stakeholder interview of the municipal government, developers, and community leaders suggest an inconsistency between policy idealism and on-the-ground realities. Policies nationally encourage the increased development of social housing, yet municipal action is inhibited by bureaucracy, conflicting interests, and limited budgets. Johannesburg government officials indicated typical delays in the approval of housing projects, with several levels of government taking part in the decision-making process. This inefficiency leads to long project cycles that frustrate both developers and communities. Cape Town officials also indicated the same issues but added the extra hurdle of resistance from upscale neighborhoods, which delays rezoning applications and erodes municipal resolve in accommodating low-cost housing in desirable locations. In Durban, the dominant issue was the institutional and economic obstacles to raising the models of community-based housing.

The research methods employed, most significantly the qualitative method, provided a rich description of the issues with land access. Rising land values are an ongoing problem for all developers in all three cities, with Cape Town being particularly hit hard. A few developers said that without government subsidies or intervention, it would be impossible to obtain land for social housing. Developers in Johannesburg listed rezoning procedures as the main hindrance, with approval procedures taking several years to finalize. Durban stakeholders complained of a lack of transparency, citing that decisions on the allocation of land were not always transparent, leaving informal settlements in a precarious position. Across all three cities, there was widespread consensus that more active land management interventions, such as land banking and streamlined zoning regulations, would be able to alleviate these constraints. Furthermore, speculative landholding was identified as a major constraint on access to good-quality land, as private investors hold vacant sites for speculation rather than developing them.

Sustainability is a patchily practiced principle in social housing developments. Johannesburg’s transit-oriented development plan was considered a feasible solution, particularly in reducing urban sprawl and linking housing to economic centers. Developers indicated, however, that budget constraints limited mass uptake. Cape Town had the strongest record of implementing sustainability projects, with a number of projects incorporating solar energy and water-conserving designs [40]. However, developers still mentioned high initial costs as a limiting factor. Durban performed worst in terms of sustainability, with financial constraints and shortcomings in technical capabilities being barriers to adoption. The interviewees said that additional government incentives, combined with foreign partnerships, would drive the adoption of green technologies in housing projects. Moreover, community representatives pointed out that sustainability must not only be energy-efficient but also include affordability features, as the majority of low-income residents are plagued by sky-high utility bills.

Community involvement turned out to be a determining criterion in the success or failure of social housing schemes. Respondents across all three cities expressed the need for increased consultation and participation. Community-based housing cooperatives were considered Johannesburg’s best practice in local involvement, but not if it implied being financially non-viable. Durban respondents indicated poor training and facilitation for residents in cooperative housing programs, arguing that without capacity-building initiatives, they would not be able to stand on their own in the long run. The most vocally dissatisfied were Cape Town residents regarding municipal consultations, which they characterized as shallow exercises that rarely led to action. A number of the respondents proposed that the advisory boards of residents and local leaders could serve as a more effective vehicle for incorporating community voices into housing policy choices.

The results are consistent with earlier studies identifying governance failure, speculative landholding, and the poor integration of sustainability as enduring issues in South Africa’s housing market. Interviewees suggested various solutions, such as greater intergovernmental coordination, legislative reforms to avoid speculative landholding, and economic incentives for sustainable housing development. Greater community involvement was also emphasized, particularly by including residents in the development of the policies that affect them most. Improved access to affordable land through expropriation or land banking was most preferred by all the stakeholders, with others suggesting a more direct land management system. In addition, promoting the collaboration between public and private institutions would accelerate the development of viable social housing initiatives.

More funding from government and private investors needs to be achieved in order for social housing ventures to be made sustainable [41]. Lacking specific funding arrangements, sustainability will be an afterthought, rather than a central part of housing policy. Higher subsidies, tax incentives, and regulatory reforms could encourage developers to incorporate green technology. Long-term maintenance cost planning is also essential because poorly maintained houses cost more for residents and governments. Participants emphasized that energy-efficient housing not only benefits the environment but is also imperative in helping reduce the economic burden on poor households.

The research in principle emphasizes the need for a systemic and comprehensive social housing policy. In spite of the national policy for developing social housing, its implementation at the municipal level is uneven due to governance inefficiencies, land market constraints, and budgetary factors. A more formally structured policy that integrates land access reforms, improved governance mechanisms, and targeted sustainability investments must be brought to the table in order to address the problems described in this study. Moreover, greater communal participation in making decisions can lead to more equitable and efficient housing outcomes [42]. Addressing these interdependent issues through a well-funded and coordinated initiative will be essential to providing South Africa with sustainable and inclusive urban housing development.

5. Conclusions

Social housing remains an urgent yet complex issue in South Africa’s cities, as it is fueled by land access constraints, government inefficiencies, and the uneven application of sustainability policies. The comparative study of Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban in this research highlighted the systemic barriers that hinder social housing development, including prohibitively high land prices, red tape, and resistance from affluent communities. Governance structures, although varying between cities, are characterized by poor intergovernmental coordination, secrecy, and spasmodic policy implementation.

Despite these challenges, there are effective strategies that can inform future policies and strategies. Johannesburg’s transit-oriented development paradigm, Cape Town’s green technologies, and Durban’s grassroots people-led housing schemes all contain important lessons in how social housing can be more inclusive and sustainable. However, financial and technical limitations continue to exist, limiting the scalability of these endeavors.

To close the gap between policy and reality, there should be a more integrated and evidence-based strategy. Governance mechanisms have to be robust, land allotment procedures need to be simplified, and incentives should be provided for sustainable housing as part of steps towards creating an equitable urban housing landscape. Greater participation in decision-making processes can also provide assurance that the schemes of social housing are responsive to the needs of residents.

Ultimately, arriving at inclusive and sustainable social housing in South Africa requires synergic action by the government bodies, private interests, and citizenry. By adopting initiatives correcting governance inefficiencies, ensuring equal access to land, and pursuing long-term sustainability, South African cities can proceed towards an equitable and more robust system of housing that accommodates the entire range of residents.