A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN GAUTENG, SOUTH AFRICA: A STUDY OF CITY OF EKURHULENI Doctor of Philosophy University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Science School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies Name: Mkateko Hlongo Marilele Student Number: 1591737 Supervisor: Dr Nzalalemba Serge Kubanza ii DECLARATION I, Mkateko Hlongo Marilele, declare that I herewith submit the entirety of this thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Witwatersrand as my own original work, conducted under the supervision of Dr Nzalalemba Serge Kubanza. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted in its entirety, or in part, to any other institution for the purpose of obtaining any qualification. ……………………………………… Mkateko Hlongo Marilele Date: 10 May 2025 iii DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved family: My parents (Hasani and Mbhazima) and siblings (Rhulani, Delisiwe, Zandile, and Zwelithini) for instilling a strong work ethic and always believing in me. My husband for the understanding, support and motivation. My children (Ndzalama and Malwandla), may you appreciate the value of putting your dreams into practice. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank the Almighty God for the wisdom and good health during this research study. His mercies enabled me to complete this journey. I will always be grateful for his generosity in my life. My sincere appreciation go to my supervisor, Dr. Nzalalemba Serge Kubanza, for his professional scholarly remarks, guidance, support and excellent supervision during this doctoral thesis. I learned tremendously from him and deeply appreciate his comments and words of encouragement during the difficult stages of this research. I would like to recognise the City of Ekurhuleni (CoE) for allowing me access to their human settlement development projects and granting me the opportunity to collect data. My appreciation goes to the CoE’s town planners and project managers who participated in the data collection. My gratitude also goes to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for granting me approval to interview the environmental specialists who participated in this research. I would like to thank all the environmental consulting firms who gave permission for their environmental assessment practitioners to participate in this study. I am also indebted to the library staff of University of Witwatersrand for their support. Above all, special thanks go to the residents from all the selected study areas who took their time to share their lived experiences. This study would have not succeeded without their contribution. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ xv ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... xvii CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................................... 1 FRAME OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background to the Study ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Thematic Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 Methodological Underpinnings ............................................................................................................. 7 1.5.1. Research Design ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.5.2. Population and Data Collection Tools .................................................................................................... 9 1.6 The Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Keywords and Definitions .................................................................................................................... 11 1.8. Structure of the thesis ........................................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................ 15 CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 15 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Development and Origins of Human Settlement Developments ...................................................... 15 2.3. Human Settlement Hierarchy .............................................................................................................. 17 2.4. Theories of Human Settlement ............................................................................................................. 20 vi 2.4.1. Classical theories on settlement forms ................................................................................................... 21 2.4.2. Neo-classical theories on Settlement Forms .......................................................................................... 26 2.4.3. Normative theories of settlement form ................................................................................................... 31 2.5. Importance and Types of Human Settlement ........................................................................................... 33 2.5.1. Rural Settlements ................................................................................................................................... 33 2.5.2. Urban Settlements .................................................................................................................................. 35 2.6. The Concept of Urban Settlement Developments ..................................................................................... 37 2.6.1. Urban Settlement Development Planning .............................................................................................. 38 2.6.2 Urban Private Residential Developments and Real Estates ................................................................... 39 2.7. Sustainability and Sustainable Development in the Context of Urban Residential Development Projects .............................................................................................................................................................................. 41 2.7.1. A Concise History of Sustainable Development ..................................................................................... 41 2.7.2. Sustainable Development Pillars in the Context of Human Settlement Development ............................ 42 2.7.3. Determinants of Quality of Life in Urban Settlement Development Context ......................................... 44 2.8. Understanding the Meaning of “Environment” and “Environmental Impacts” ................................... 47 2.8.1. Understanding the Meaning of “Environment”..................................................................................... 47 2.8.2. Environmental Impacts and Human-Environment Interaction .............................................................. 47 2.8.3. The Biophysical Environment and Human Settlement Interrelationship ............................................... 48 2.8.4. Impacts of Urban Human Settlement Development Projects on the Environment and Social Well-Being ......................................................................................................................................................................... 49 2.8. 5. Impacts Exposure and Responses Relationship (Consequences) .......................................................... 54 2.9. Application of EIA tool in Managing Impacts associated with Urban Residential Development Projects .............................................................................................................................................................................. 57 2.9.1 Definitions of EIA ................................................................................................................................... 58 2.9.2 Challenges and Benefits of EIA on Urban Residential Development Projects ....................................... 59 2.10. Application of SIA Tool on the Management of Urban Residential Development Projects ............... 61 2.10.1 Definitions of SIA .................................................................................................................................. 62 2.10.2 Fundamental Core Values of SIA in Development ................................................................................ 62 2.10.3. Challenges and Benefits of SIA in Urban Residential Development Projects ..................................... 63 vii 2.11. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 65 CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................................ 66 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 66 3.2. Human Settlement Development in Sub-Saharan Africa ......................................................................... 66 3.2.1. Urban Human Settlements Development Theories in Sub-Saharan Africa ............................................ 69 3.2.1.1. Sector Model Theory ...................................................................................................................... 69 3.2.1.2. Critiques of Sector Model Theory .................................................................................................. 71 3.3. Sustainable Cities and Management of Human Settlement Development .............................................. 71 3.4. Application of Sustainable Cities Concept to SSA .................................................................................... 74 3.5. Environmental and Social Impacts of Urban Residential Development ................................................. 75 3.5.1. Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 76 3.5.2. Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................................ 78 3.6. Challenges to the Use of EIA for Human Settlement Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa ......................... 80 3.7. Urban Human Settlement Developments in South Africa ....................................................................... 82 3.7.1. Urban Settlement Development Projects in the Apartheid Era ............................................................. 83 3.7. 2. Urban Settlement Development Projects in the Post-Apartheid Era .................................................... 85 3.7. 3. Enhancing Urban Concentration and Compaction .............................................................................. 87 3.7.4. Impacts of Urban Residential Development Projects on the Environment and Social Well-Being ....... 88 3.7. 5. Application of EIA and SIA to Urban Residential Development Projects ............................................ 89 3.7.6 Limitations of Current Approaches in Assessing Environmental and Social Impacts of Urban Human Settlement Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 92 3.7.6.1. Lack of Statutory Requirement for Conducting SIA in the EIA Context ....................................... 92 3.7.6.2. EIA Considered as a Single-Event Assessment ............................................................................. 92 3.7.6.3. EIA Relationship with Overall Project Delivery ............................................................................ 93 3.7.6.4. Failure to Use Local Knowledge and Experience .......................................................................... 94 3.7.6.5. Poor and Lack of Project-Monitoring ............................................................................................ 94 3.7.6.6. Lack of Recognised Professional Body for SIA Practitioners........................................................ 94 3.8. Reviewing of EIA and SIA Report for Human Settlement Development Projects ................................ 95 viii 3.9. Management of Environmental and Social Impacts in the Project Life Cycle....................................... 96 3.9.1. Project Life Cycle of Urban Residential Developments ........................................................................ 97 3.9.1.1. Concept and Initiation Phase .......................................................................................................... 98 3.9.1.2. The Design and Development Phase .............................................................................................. 99 3.9.1.3. The Implementation/Construction Phase ....................................................................................... 99 3.9.1.4. The Commissioning and Handover Phase .................................................................................... 101 3.9.1.5. The closing and Rehabilitation Phase .......................................................................................... 102 3.9.2. Should SIA be Conducted with EIA as a Secondary Study? ................................................................. 103 3.10. Additional Tools for the Assessment of Environmental and Social Impacts Management of Urban Residential Development Projects ................................................................................................................... 104 3.10.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 104 3.10.2. Spatial Development-Planning .......................................................................................................... 104 3.10.3. Integrated Development-Planning ..................................................................................................... 105 3.10.4. Cumulative Impact Assessment .......................................................................................................... 106 3.10.5. Life Cycle Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 107 3.10.6. Bioregional Plans .............................................................................................................................. 108 3.10.7. Duty of Care ....................................................................................................................................... 109 3.10.8. Combination of Tools ......................................................................................................................... 109 3.11. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 110 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................................ 111 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 111 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 111 4.2. Research Philosophy .................................................................................................................................. 111 4.2.1. Research Positionality ......................................................................................................................... 112 4.2.2. Justification of Interpretive Approach ................................................................................................. 113 4.3 Research Design .......................................................................................................................................... 113 4.3.1. Quantitative Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 114 4.3.2. Qualitative Research Approach ........................................................................................................... 115 ix 4.3.4. Justification of the Research Designs and Methods ............................................................................. 116 4.4.1. Study Area ............................................................................................................................................ 122 4.4.2. Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 127 4.5. Sampling Techniques................................................................................................................................. 129 4.5.1. Probability Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 129 4.5.2. Non-probability sampling .................................................................................................................... 130 4.5.3. Target Population and Sample Size ..................................................................................................... 132 4.6. Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................................................... 133 4.6.1. Primary Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 133 4.6.1.1. Questionnaires .............................................................................................................................. 133 4.6.1.2. Key Informants’ Interviews ......................................................................................................... 134 4.6.1.3. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ................................................................................................... 135 4.6.2. Secondary Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 135 4.6.2.1. Document Review of Selected Case Studies (Projects’ EIA Reports) ......................................... 136 4.7. Data Analysis Techniques ......................................................................................................................... 136 4.7.1. Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 139 4.7.2. Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 140 4.8. Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 140 4.9. Methodological Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 141 4.10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 142 CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 143 PRESENTATION OF STUDY FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 143 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 143 5.2. Demographic information of Participants ............................................................................................... 143 5.2.1. Participants’ Gender ........................................................................................................................... 143 5.2.2. Participants’ Age ................................................................................................................................. 144 5.2.3. Participants’ Employment Status ......................................................................................................... 145 x 5.2.4 Participants’ Work Positions in their Organisations ............................................................................ 146 5.2.5. Participants’ number of years in their organisations .......................................................................... 146 5.2.6. Participants’ Highest Level of Qualifications ...................................................................................... 148 5.2.7. Participants’ Professional Body Registration...................................................................................... 149 5.3. Drivers of Environmental and Social Impacts Associated with Urban Human Settlement Developments ............................................................................................................................................................................ 150 5.3.1 Frequency of Complaints about Environmental and Social Problems by Residents to the Competent Authorities ...................................................................................................................................................... 153 5.4 Negative Social Impacts of Human Settlement Development Projects .................................................. 154 5.5 Negative Environmental Impacts of Urban Human Settlement Development Projects ....................... 156 5.5.1. Lack of Consideration of Public Concerns in Decision-Making.......................................................... 159 5.5.2. Housing Challenges and Economic Struggles ..................................................................................... 161 5.5.3. Environmental and Social Human Rights ............................................................................................ 162 5.5.4. Ecological Degradation and Loss of Biodiversity ............................................................................... 164 5.5.5. Traffic Congestion and Poor Road Infrastructure ............................................................................... 165 5.5.6. Health, Safety and Security .................................................................................................................. 167 5.5.7. Environmental Developmental-Planning Tools ................................................................................... 168 5.5.8. Professional Conduct of Key Role Players/ Independent EAPs ........................................................... 169 5.5.9. Poor Infrastructure Development for Service Delivery ....................................................................... 170 5.5.10. Loss of Cultural Importance and Heritage Disruption ...................................................................... 171 5.5.11. Cumulative Impacts Consideration .................................................................................................... 172 5.5.12. Socio-Environmental Impacts consideration Throughout all Phases of the Project Life Cycle ........ 173 5.5.13. Municipal Performance Challenges in Addressing Environmental and Social Impacts associated with Human Settlement Developments................................................................................................................... 174 5.5.14. Institutional Politics and Legal Policy Framework Challenges ........................................................ 176 5.5.15. Hope for the Future ........................................................................................................................... 177 5.6. Effectiveness of EIA Tool in Addressing Environmental and Social Impacts of Urban Human Settlement Development Projects .................................................................................................................................... 178 5.6.1. Inclusion of Social Impact Mitigation Measures during the EIA Process ........................................... 179 5.6.2. SIA Process as a Secondary Specialist Study to the EIA Process ........................................................ 180 xi 5.6.3. Providing Clear Information on EIA Reports to Decision Makers ...................................................... 181 5.6.4. Integration of the EIA Process with Other Developmental-Planning and enforcement Tools ............ 182 5.7. Results of EIA Reports Review ................................................................................................................. 183 5.7.1. Overall Quality of the Reviewed EIA Reports ...................................................................................... 183 5.7.2. Quality of Review Areas ....................................................................................................................... 184 5.8. Discussion on Environmental Specialists’ Perceptions of the Management of Environmental and Social Impacts of Human Settlement Development Projects ................................................................................... 188 5.9. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 192 CHAPTER SIX ................................................................................................................................................. 193 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF STUDY FINDINGS ............................................................................ 193 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 193 6.2. Participants’ Demographic Information ................................................................................................. 193 6.2.1. Participants’ Gender ........................................................................................................................... 193 6.2.2. Participants’ Age ................................................................................................................................. 194 6.2.3. Participants’ Employment Status ......................................................................................................... 194 6.2.4. Participants’ Work Positions in their Organisations ........................................................................... 195 6.2.5. Participants’ Number of Years in their Organisations ........................................................................ 195 6.2.6. Participants’ Highest Level of Qualifications ...................................................................................... 196 6.2.7. Participants’ Professional Body Registration...................................................................................... 197 6.3. Drivers of Environmental and Social Impacts Associated with Urban Human Settlement Developments ............................................................................................................................................................................ 198 6.4. Negative Social Impacts of the Human Settlement Development Project ............................................ 203 6.5. Negative Environmental Impacts of Urban Human Settlement Development Projects ...................... 208 6.5.1. Lack of Consideration of Public Concerns in Decision-Making.......................................................... 211 6.5.2. Housing Challenges and Economic Struggles ..................................................................................... 212 6.5.3. Environmental and Social Human Rights ............................................................................................ 213 6.5.4. Socio-Environmental Impacts Consideration throughout all Phases of the Project Life Cycle .......... 213 6.5.5. Institutional Politics and Legal Policy Framework Challenges .......................................................... 214 xii 6.5.6. Hope for the Future ............................................................................................................................. 215 6.6. Effectiveness of EIA Tool in Addressing Environmental and Social Impacts of Urban Human Settlement Development Projects .................................................................................................................... 216 6.6.1. Inclusion of Social Impact Mitigation Measures during the EIA Process ........................................... 216 6.6.2. SIA Process as a Secondary Specialist Study to the EIA Process ........................................................ 216 6.6.3. Providing Clear Information on EIA Reports to Decision Makers ...................................................... 217 6.6.4. Integration of the EIA Process with Other Developmental Planning and Enforcement Tools ............ 218 6.7. Results of EIA Reports Review ................................................................................................................. 218 6.8. Discussion on Environmental Specialists’ Perceptions on the Management of Environmental and Social Impacts of Human Settlement Development Projects ................................................................................... 219 6.9. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 223 CHAPTER SEVEN .......................................................................................................................................... 224 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 224 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 224 7.2 Summary of Key Findings and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 224 7.3. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 229 7.4 Future Research Avenues ........................................................................................................................ 2310 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 2321 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................ 253 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Human settlement hierarchy………………………………………………………………18 Figure 2.2: The concentric zone model…………………………………………………………….….21 Figure 2.3: Development principles of Ekistic theory…………………………………………………25 Figure 2.4: The three human settlement development sustainability objectives………………………43 Figure 2.5: Interrelationship between human settlement and the biophysical environment…………..48 Figure 3.1: Sector model theory……………………………………………………………………….70 Figure 3.2: Sustainable human settlement framework for Sub-Saharan Africa……………………….73 Figure 3.3: The spatial formation of the South African City…………………………………………..85 Figure 4.1: Research map showing the research design and methods………………………………...116 Figure 4.2: The research framework………………………………………………………………….119 Figure 4.3: Location of the study area……………………………………………………………….126 Figure 4.4: Lee and Colley review package………………………………………………………….138 Figure 5.1: Participants ‘gender…………………………………………………………...................144 Figure 5.2: Participants’ age as at last birthday………………………………………………………145 Figure 5.3: Employment status of the participants……………………………………………….….145 Figure 5.4a and b: participants’ positions in their organisations………………………….................146 Figure 5.5: Number of years employed………………………………………………………………148 Figure 5.6: participants’ highest qualifications………………………………………………………149 Figure 5.7: Participants’ professional body registration……………………………………………..150 Figure 5.8: Drivers of environmental and social impacts of human settlement development……….153 Figure 5.9: Frequency of complaints by residents……………………………………………………154 Figure 5.10: Social impacts with the most effects on residents……………………………………….156 Figure 5.11: Environmental impacts with the most effects on residents……………………………..158 Figure 5.12: Environmental impacts of human settlement developments...…………………………158 Figure 5:13: Community involvement during project planning………………………………………159 Figure 5.14: Crime incident at Boksburg ERPM robots……………………………………………..166 Figure 5.15: Effectiveness of EIA tool……………………………………………………………….178 Figure 5.16: Level of success for EIA reports……………………………………………………….182 Figure 5.17: Description of the development, local environment and baseline conditions………….185 Figure 5.18: identification and evaluation of environmental and social impacts…………………….186 Figure 5.19: Alternatives and mitigations……………………………………………………………187 Figure 5.20: Communication of results………………………………………………………………188 Figure 5.21: Focus group set-up…………………………………………………………………...…189 xiv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: key terms and definitions……………………………………………………………………………...11 Table 2.1: Human settlement characteristics……………………………………………………………………...19 Table 2.2: human settlement development principles of Ekistics theory…………………………………………24 Table 2.3: Basic principles of new urbanism……………………………………………………………………..26 Table 2.4: principles of Smart growth………………………………………………………………………….…28 Table 2.5: Ethical future urban planning judgements questions…………………………………………………..39 Table 2.6: Determinants and indicators of sustainable settlements……………………………………………....45 Table 2.7: Environmental and social impacts of urban settlement developments……………………………….55 Table 2.8: Fundamental core values of SIA in developments……………………………………………..……..63 Table 3.1: Stages and formation of human settlements in Sub-Saharan Africa…………………………..………67 Table 3.2: Environmental impacts of urban human settlement developments………………………………..…76 Table 3.3: Social impacts of urban human settlement developments………………………………..…………..78 Table 4.1: data sources………………………………………………………………………………………..…121 Table 4.2: Description of case studies……………………………………………………………………..……127 Table 4.3: Population and size of participants…………………………………………………………….…….132 Table 4.4: Quality grading symbols for EIA reports: assessed impacts……………………………….………..139 Table 5.1: Overall performance of the reviewed sample of EIA reports on review areas…………………….…184 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Ethical clearance certificate……………………………………………………………………….254 Appendix 2: key informants’ information sheets for interviews………………………………………………...255 Appendix 3: key informants’ information sheets for FGD………………………………………………….….257 Appendix 4: Participants’ information sheet for community members…………………………………………259 Appendix 5: Permission letter from COE……………………………………………………………………….261 Appendix 6: Permission letter from GDARD………………………………………………………………..…262 Appendix 7: Permission letter from I-square information system…………………………………………….…263 Appendix 8: Permission letter from Lokisa environmental consulting…………………………………..……..264 Appendix 9: Permission letter from Manyabe environmental consulting……………………………….………265 Appendix 10: Permission letter from Nali sustainable solutions………………………………………………..266 Appendix 11: Permission letter from Nsovo environmental consulting …………………………….………..…267 Appendix 12: Questionnaires for community members…………………………………………………………268 Appendix 13: Questionnaires for COE officials…………………………………………………………………280 Appendix 14: Questionnaires for GDARD officials……………………………………………..……………..285 Appendix 15: Questionnaires for EAPs…………………………………………………………...…………….291 Appendix16: Questionnaires for FGD……………………………………………………………….………….297 Appendix 17: Consent forms for interviews with key informants………………………………………..…….301 Appendix 18: Consent forms for FGD…………………………………………………………………………..302 Appendix19: Consent forms for Community members…………………………………………………………303 Appendix 20: Review form for EIA reports with Lee & Colley (1999) package…………………….…………304 xv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AU African Union CBA Critical Biodiversity Areas CBD Central Business District CoE City of Ekurhuleni CoT City of Tshwane DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism DHS Department of Human Settlement DMRE Department of Mineral Resources and Energy EA Environmental Authorisation EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EAPASA Environmental Assessment Practitioners’ Association of South Africa ECO Environmental Control Officer ECSA Engineering Council of South Africa EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMF Environmental Management Framework FGD Focus Group Discussion GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development HIV Human Immune Virus I&AP Interested and Affected Parties IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IDP Integrated Development Planning NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations NNR National Nuclear Regulation RDP Reconciliation and Development Programme RSA Republic of South Africa SA South Africa SDF Spatial Developmental Framework SDGs Sustainable Development Goals xvi SEMA Specific Environmental Management Act SIA Social Impact Assessment SoER State of the Environment Report SPLUMA Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science SSA Sub-Saharan Africa ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations USA United States of America WCED World Commission on Environment and Development xvii ABSTRACT With the proliferation of emerging urban human settlement development projects, there is an increasing urban socio-environmental impact that is considered a global challenge facing cities in developing countries. The most affected are the vulnerable urban dwellers whose livelihood is negatively affected by environmental and social challenges. Using the City of Ekurhuleni (CoE), Gauteng, South Africa, as a point of departure, this study critically analysed the environmental and social impacts of human settlement development projects emanating from communities established by the government. The study used a mixed- method research strategy to collect and analyse the data. Phase One focused on interviewing community members residing around the five (5) selected human settlement development projects that were constructed between 2020 to 2023. Phase Two focused on interviewing government officials (CoE and Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) as well as non-government officials (environmental consulting firms). Phase Three consisted of a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) held with a group of environmental specialists from government and non-governmental organisations. The last phase of data collection focused on a review of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports of the five selected human settlement development projects that were purposively sampled to provide information about the effectiveness of EIA and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in mitigating environmental and social impacts. The review package designed by Lee and Colley (1999) was utilised in grading performance symbols on the quality of projects’ EIA reports in terms of impact identification and mitigation measures. The collected data was analysed to produce the study results. Qualitative data was subjected to a thematic analysis to arrange data into themes. In contrast, quantitative data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 and Microsoft Excel simple descriptive analysis to generate percentages and frequencies. The study revealed that the population increase in Gauteng, South Africa, has contributed to a high demand for housing development projects, which further contributed to the continued expansion of residential areas in the CoE. The study revealed that SA government through the ministry of Environmental Affairs, has developed good policies and regulations for EIA processes where SIA is also included as one of the specialist studies to be conducted in the EIA process. A major challenge is the lack of standardised and detailed legislated procedures on EIA regulations that guide how social issues must be assessed in the context of the EIA process. xviii The results further revealed that the current existing environmental policies are insufficient to tackle environmental and social impacts encountered during the operational phase of the housing developments. Of particular concern is the absence of project monitoring once the construction of houses is completed and residents have taken occupation. A major challenge is the lack of standardised and detailed legislated procedures on EIA regulations that guide how social issues must be assessed in the context of the EIA process. The results also emphasised that without the proper implementation of housing developmental programmes, poor vulnerable people will utilise open spaces to establish slums closer to working areas even though they are situated in a sensitive environment. The findings highlighted the urgent need to understand the complex interplay between the sustainability of human settlements and spatial equality. Finally, the study results recommended the need to raise awareness among stakeholders to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of human settlement development projects in the CoE. Keywords: Environmental Impact Assessment, Human settlement development projects, Project life cycle, social impact assessment, Sustainable development, Urbanisation. 1 CHAPTER ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE 1.1 Background to the Study Worldwide, the development of human settlements is undertaken on the environment with the main aim of providing shelter for the inhabitants (UN-Habitat I, 1976). In urban areas, human settlement development projects are associated with the construction and upgrading of infrastructure for housing, roads, stormwater management, the provision of water and sanitation, sewage treatment plants, waste landfill sites, and other commercial facilities (Ogra and Onatu, 2013; Massey and Stevens, 2022). Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008) indicate other social infrastructures that characterise sustainable urban settlements is the presences of schools, clinics, police stations, sport facilities amongst others. Environmental and social impacts are bound to arise from the interventions associated with the establishment of settlements (Li et al., 2014). Human settlement developments that are poorly planned and managed pose a detrimental impact on the environment and affect human well-being (Tibaijuka, 2008; Gidey and Mhangara, 2023). Negative environmental and social impacts associated with settlement developments manifest in the form of, among others, ecological degradation, air and water pollution, poor waste management, and poor service delivery that affect the well-being of the communities (Shikwambana and Tsoeleng, 2022). Li et al. (2014) argue that the expansion of urban human settlements is of extreme social and economic importance owing to its association with poverty-alleviation, the provision of shelter, and the proximity to economic hubs. In South Africa (SA), Pillay (1995) argues that apartheid urban spatial planning policies contributed to the configuration of human settlements where most black African citizens have traditionally been considered rural settlers with limited access to highly controlled urban areas (Pillay, 1995; Le Roux and Augustinj, 2017). The dawn of democracy, which is known as the post-apartheid regime, changed the status quo where a large number of black Africans were permanently observed in urban areas owing to the mass migration of former rural settlers to urban areas (Geyer and Quin, 2018). Urbanisation increased rapidly after 1994 because of the abolishment of restrictions on the movement of the people when SA became a democratic country (Le Roux and Augustinj, 2017). Waste and high pollution levels, poor health and safety, together with poor service delivery are directly linked to unprecedented rapid population 2 growth (DEA, 2011a). Massey and Stevens (2022) argue that prior to democracy in SA, for example, urban areas were not overpopulated, the environment was cleaner, and basic social services were delivered effectively. In areas where population growth outstrips the infrastructure for waste management, sewage and wastewater treatment plants, roads and stormwater management, education, health, and other facilities tend to violate the social well-being of the communities owing to poor service delivery (McCold and Saulsbury, 1996; Moraba, 2013). The success of the government in promoting sustainable human settlement is influenced by the availability and maintenance of infrastructures such as water reservoirs and existing pipelines (Weimann et al., 2020). In Gauteng, poor maintenance and a lack of upgrades to existing stormwater management infrastructures to accommodate urban expansion cause flooding and fertile soil erosion (Moraba, 2013). This has been reported in recently developed areas around Centurion in the City of Tshwane (CoT annual report, 2020). The impact of flooding directly affects the social well-being of citizens owing to loss of life and property (DEA,2011; Moraba, 2013). Thus, citizens’ personal, property and economic rights are negatively affected and experience personal disadvantage that violates their human rights. The consequences of topsoil erosion affect the ability of agricultural land to produce food for the citizens that depend on substantial farming for food security (Culwick and Patel, 2020). The increase in urban settlements contributes to air pollution in the area because as the population increases, the use of transportation also increases and causes pollution owing to the emission of carbon monoxide from vehicles (Hasan and Rahman, 2017). This pollution affects the health of the surrounding residents in return (Shikwambana and Tsoeleng, 2022). Shikwambana and Tsoeleng (2022) further indicate that continuous exposure to carbon monoxide affects respiratory capacity and contributes to anaemia, uncontrollable weight loss as well as kidney and brain damage. Noise is another environmental and social challenge experienced in urban settlements where there is a high number of people and background noise is experienced owing to the movements of vehicles, loud music, and voices (Turok and Borel- Saladin, 2014). The expansion of human settlement developments in a particular area increases the number of criminal and vandalism cases and reduces the safety and security levels of the residents (Weimann et al., 2020). Geyer and Quin (2018), in the study conducted on social diversity and strategic mixed land-use development in SA, note that urban residents have fears and 3 aspirations about their safety as well as the future of the communities. Their fears are in relation to property monetary value as residential units are perceived to be investments for the future but fear that challenges surrounding their neighbourhood might reduce the property’s market value. Regardless of the negative impacts associated with human settlement developments, there are also benefits associated with these developments, for instance, their proximity to workplaces, health facilities, and educational facilities (Culwick and Patel, 2020). In addition, community members benefit from settlement developments through the provision of informal jobs such as gardening and domestic work. During the construction phase, the provision of skilled and unskilled labour is evident in jobs such as project construction managers, general workers, and informal food traders (Smith and Brown 2019; Culwick and Patel, 2020). The political system surrounding African countries is that government recognises urban human settlements as centres for business production that contribute to economic prosperity for rural emigrants (Ahmed and Dinye, 2011). Fuseini and Kemp (2015) indicate that this notion has contributed to poor willingness by States to strengthen their country’s planning policies that incorporate spatial, economic environmental, and social aspects of human settlement developments because urbanisation is perceived as poverty alleviation mechanism. In SA, there are laws and policies - such as the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) and National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) that aim to promote public participation and stakeholders’ involvement in decision-making related to developments. However, the effectiveness of the implementation of such policies remains merely a tick-box exercise because of political influence and poor professional ethics (Maphanga et al., 2023). Therefore, this affects social cohesion as communities feel unempowered to make decisions on matters that affect their well-being. The challenge in creating sustainable human settlements is that it should go beyond the provision of housing and consider the needs of both current and future generations (Peberdy and Crush, 2017). Sustainable settlements consider factors such as protection of ecological features where people work and play, the availability of basic municipal services and access to amenities required to improve their quality of life and (Du Plessis, 2015; DHS, 2019). While the SA government has employed several programmes and strategies to redress the human settlement and spatial challenges of the past through the intensive development of residential areas, it was deemed necessary to investigate the link between the rapid expansion of urban areas and its impacts on the environment and social well-being of the people. 4 1.2 Thematic Considerations Human settlement developments contribute to significant environmental impacts and the social well-being of the communities while, on the other hand, these are perceived as part of economic growth where they are situated (Shikwambana and Tsoeleng, 2022). Human settlement development projects are associated with the construction and upgrading of infrastructure for housing, roads, stormwater management, water provision and sanitation, sewage treatment plants, waste landfill sites, and other commercial facilities (Ogra and Onatu, 2013; Massey and Stevens, 2022). Prior to the approval of human settlement development projects by Competent authorities, the provision and availability of infrastructures for services was one of the decision- making criteria in terms of the NEMA EIA regulation of 2017. Massey and Stevens (2022) agree with Nhamo et al. (2021) that service delivery levels drop mainly in areas experiencing continuous urban human settlement expansion as the government and private sectors (businesses and housing developers) usually struggle to match services with the population growth. Poor services affect residents owing to a lack of proper sanitation due to continuous sewage spillages resulting from pipeline ruptures (Culwick and Patel, 2020). Delayed waste collection by municipalities and overflowing landfills are typical examples of poor service delivery associated with human settlement developments (Ogra and Onatu, 2013). In SA, particularly Gauteng, these issues present challenges to governments, private sectors, and residents with a much-required effort to create better living conditions for citizens (Tippett et al., 2007). Environmental and social issues manifest through ecological degradation where during the construction phase of human settlement development, the clearing of indigenous vegetation destroys the habitat for indigenous flora and fauna and takes up space for agricultural practice (Nhamo et al., 2021). Poor waste management is seen through littering illegal dumping on the streets and delayed waste collection by municipal service providers. This results in some of the waste ending up in water resources (Ogra and Onatu, 2013). In addition, water pollution results from the impending diverting of watercourses by using building rubble to fill in wetlands and flood lines as a method of extending and stabilising developable areas (Tippette et al., 2007). Seepage of hydrocarbons such as heavy oils, petrol, diesel, and heavy, lubricants from residential areas end up in water resources that in turn affect aquatic life (Nhamo et al., 2021). 5 This study is geographically confined to Gauteng, the economic hub of South Africa. Gauteng is the smallest province land-wise, occupying only 1.5% of the country's land area, but it is home to 26% of the country’s population (Kleynhans et al., 2012). Over the last two decades, Gauteng has experienced a rapid population increase and a notable number of human settlement development projects that contributed to the increased environmental and social impacts (Ogra and Onatu, 2013; Gauteng SOER, 2021). Some of these impacts are directly linked to the disruption of farming activities because of the loss of land for agricultural purposes (Culwick and Patel, 2020). Known old agricultural arid lands are now re-zoned to urban human settlements, taking away space previously used for substantial farming by old residents adjacent to newly developed areas (Culwick and Patel, 2020). Old residents who previously depended on agricultural lost land to human settlement development. Environmental and social impacts of human settlement in Gauteng can also be found on the water cycle as an example in urban settlement. Nhamo et al. (2021) indicate that human settlements reduced evaporation from 40 to 30%, reduced infiltration of water to underground aquifers from 50 to 15%, and increased run-off from 10 to 55%. This in turn increased the stormwater run-off and downstream flooding. Furthermore, urban human settlement places high demands on non-renewable resources, water, and energy needs (Massey and Stevens, 2022). As a case in point, the Gauteng State of the Environment Report (2018) reported that many of the water resources within the province are under stress from increased demand for human and commercial water consumption, coupled with poor management of water quality and degradation of river and wetland ecosystems. Building sustainable cities has been a major focus of government in post-apartheid urban SA. While successes can be noted, there is growing concern regarding how the social and environmental factors are incorporated during the planning and implementation of human settlement developments (Culwick and Patel, 2020). Based on the above, a critical analysis of the environmental and social impacts associated with human settlement projects was deemed necessary to shed light on the challenges associated with the implementation of environmental and social impact assessment tools to promote sustainable human settlements in SA urban areas. 1.2.1 Research Questions In view of the above considerations, the following questions guided the entire research process: 6 (a) In what ways do human settlement development projects impact the environment and social well-being of residents in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng? (b) What challenges and factors exist in managing the environmental and social impacts of human settlement developments in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng? (c) How effective are the environmental and social impact assessment tools in addressing human settlement development impacts in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng? (d) How can the environmental and social impacts of human settlement development in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng, be best mitigated? 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study The aim of this research is to investigate the consequences of human settlement development projects on the environment and social well-being and factors accounting for failures in the management of environmental and social impacts of human settlement projects. It is also to undertake a comprehensive research study on environmental and social injustice associated with the continuous expansion of urban human settlement developments in the Boksburg area, under the CoE, Gauteng, SA. In doing so, the study contributed to the scientific body of knowledge on urban environmental and social problems. In view of this, the objectives of the study are to: (a) Assess the impacts and consequences of human settlement development projects on the environment and social well-being in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng. (b) Analyse challenges and factors contributing to failures in managing the environmental and social impacts of human settlements development in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng. (c) Examine the effectiveness of the environmental and social impact assessment tools in addressing human settlement development impacts. (d) Propose alternative solutions to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of human settlements development. 1.4 Significance of the Study Scholarly research on the environmental and social impacts of human settlement development in urban areas of SA is limited. Academic studies on the subject have concentrated on energy 7 generation and mining projects, such as a recent study in Xolobeni, Eastern Cape, (Maphanga et al., 2023). The extent to which continuous expansion of urban human settlements affects the environment and social well-being, as well as challenges associated with the implementation of EIA and SIA on human settlement development, remains poorly understood. This study explored the human settlement forms and theories in a global context, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and SA. In this exploration, the focus was on the conceptual and theoretical issues that helped to understand urban spatial planning as well as its contribution to environmental and social management systems. In this regard, the emphasis was on settlement theories forms that included normative and neo-classical theories which are applied globally, regionally, and locally. These theories assisted in revealing some of the root causes of environmental and social challenges of human settlement developmental designs. Of major importance was the concept of urban sustainable human settlements, together with its relevancy to SSA cities following the historic urban spatial dilemmas nexus as well as the advantages, and disadvantages of residing in urban suburbs. The discussion of the different theories on settlement forms was meant to facilitate and conceptualise environmental and social dilemmas that exist in SA urban areas. This method resonated well with the study as it provided a trans-disciplinary approach that focused on available decision-making tools such as environmental and social impact assessment processes that are conducted prior to authorising applications for proposed human settlement development projects. The Sustainable Cities and Management of Urban Human Settlement Development Framework for SSA is also included within the theoretical scope of the study and assisted in exploring the factors and dilemmas experienced by the Boksburg-CoE (Gauteng) citizens in accessing basic services. Academically, the study will provide contemporary insights into the management of environmental and social impacts associated with urbanisation, land-use management, and environmental policy challenges. The study highlights the political power challenges that exist in the implementation of government housing projects. Thus, the study will generate essential knowledge that will help to ascertain the seriousness of impacts associated with historic spatial injustice in SA. 1.5 Methodological Underpinnings The philosophical positionality underlying this study came from interpretivism/constructionism which is also known as post-positivist (Blaikie, 1997). The positivist approach adheres to the view that only accurate knowledge gained through 8 observations and measurements is trustworthy (Blaikie, 1997). Meanwhile, in the adopted interpretive research approach no predefined dependent and independent variables are determined. The focus is on how humans make sense of emerging situations (Kaplan and Maxwell, 1994). Thus, the interpretive approach involves the researcher interpreting elements of the study by integrating human interests and feelings around the matter (Blaikie, 1997; Venkatesh et al., 2013). Consequently, the epistemological stance on interpretive position is that access to reality (given or socially constructed) is through social constructions of shared meaning, consciousness, and experience of life (Dudovskiy, 2016). Post-positivism is considered a meta-theoretical philosophical position seeking to advance some assumptions made on positivism (Blaikie, 1993; Dudovskiy, 2016). In post-positivism, human knowledge is not only based on solid unchallengeable doctrines but is a result of the amalgamation of different conjectures (Dudovskiy, 2016). Ideally and practically, the adoption of this philosophical position is the perception that in the social world, sense and meanings are constructed over time through experience in different situations. Using the interpretive perspective provided knowledge about the environmental and social impacts of human settlement developments in Gauteng. 1.5.1. Research Design This study adopted a mixed-method strategy for data collection and analysis for primary and secondary data as well as case studies. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews, case studies, field observations, and document analysis (Driscoll et al., 2007). For this study, a combination of primary, and secondary data and case studies was deemed fit to gather information relevant to meeting the research aims, and objectives and answering the research questions. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews in the Boksburg area on community members who reside around the selected project areas as indicated in Table 4.2. Their daily observations about the environmental and social impacts associated with the continuous expansion of urban areas assisted the researcher in describing and understanding the extent to which residents are affected socially. Interviews were conducted with GDARD officials as a competent authority responsible for assessing and issuing environmental authorisations for human settlement development proposal applications. Interviews were also conducted with CoE officials (project managers) responsible for human settlements’ project planning, construction, and the implementation of housing projects. These participants provided in-depth 9 information about project designs, consideration of sustainable settlement objectives, and the management of impacts during the construction and operation of the settlement projects. In addition, interviews were conducted with CoE officials (town planners) who are responsible for assessing and proclaiming the establishment of townships within the CoE’s jurisdiction. These participants provided information on the consideration of land-uses, spatial development designs, and future development planning. Furthermore, the interviews were conducted with environmental consulting companies that have environmental assessment practitioners responsible for evaluating and proposing mitigation measures to address the environmental and social impacts of human settlement development projects. Participants provided in-depth on ranking the consequences of identified impacts and the effectiveness of the EIA process in mitigating environmental and social impacts emanating from the continuous expansion of urban settlements. FGD was conducted with a group of environmental assessment practitioners who are considered subject experts in the field of environmental and social issues. These participants assisted in sharing information on the policies and regulations challenges associated with the management of environmental and social impacts of developments. To gather information on the lived experience, community members residing around the study areas were interviewed. Lastly, environmental impact assessment reports of the selected five projects were reviewed to determine the cumulative impacts of projects, the consideration of stakeholders’ comments in decision-making as well as the inclusion of social issues in the EIA reports. 1.5.2. Population and Data Collection Tools The target population included residents around the sampled urban human settlement development projects and those adjacent to the developments as indicated in Table 4.2. A total of 50 questionnaires were administered to the community members (see questionnaires in Appendix 12). Residents were targeted to provide information on challenges and implications of residential developments on their environment and social well-being, thus responding to objective a). A total number of five interviews were conducted with GDARD environmental specialists (see questionnaires in Appendix 14). This population group was targeted as officials responsible for the approval of environmental impact assessment applications for human settlement development projects, thus responding to objectives b) to d). 10 Five interviews were conducted with town planners from the Department of City Planning (CoE) who are responsible for approving applications for the township and residential establishment in terms of municipal spatial planning and land-use management by-laws. This population group was targeted to provide information on institutional and policy challenges involved in spatial development framework and approvals of township establishments thus responding to objectives b) and d). Five interviews were also conducted with project managers and engineers from the Department of Human Settlement (CoE) who are responsible for the incorporation of environmental and social issues into human settlement development projects’ planning and implementation development. This population group was targeted to provide information on strategies and management plans that are implemented by the municipality in the management of the environmental and social impacts of residential development projects, thus responding to objectives a) and b). Five interviews were conducted with environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) from five different private environmental consulting firms that are responsible for conducting EIA processes for proposed human settlement development projects (see questionnaires in Appendix 15). This population group was targeted to provide information on contributing factors to the failure of integration of existing impact assessment tools and how the public concerns are incorporated into decision-making, thus responding to objectives a) to d). Lastly, FGD was conducted with EAPs who are responsible for conducting EIA processes (see discussion questionnaires in Appendix 16). The FGD assisted in gathering information about the challenges associated with the implementation of EIA policies and regulations together with its effectiveness in mitigating environmental and social impacts of the project, thus responding to objectives b) to d). Ethical clearance was obtained from University of Witwatersrand ethics clearance committee before investigating the issues raised in the research objectives (Appendix 1), the permission letters from the Provincial Government of GDARD responsible for the environment (Appendix 6), the permission letter from local government, COE responsible for town planning and the implementation of human settlement development projects (Appendix 5), permission letter from EIA consulting firms (Appendices 7 - 11). Lastly, informed consent from the participants was also obtained before data collection. All the participants were provided with consent forms to complete before the data collection process (Appendices 17 - 19). 11 1.6 The Scope of the Study The scope of the study defines what a study will or will not do. In this case, the geographical scope of this study was limited to the CoE, in particular, the Boksburg area, and not the entire city or Gauteng. The reasons accounting for this were time and financial constraints because the study was self-funded. Within this geographical setting, the thematic focus was on the environmental and social impacts of human settlements, the effectiveness of environmental and social impacts assessment tools, challenges of urban land-use change, challenges associated with minimising socio-environmental impacts, and concepts of urban human settlement. sustainability, and indicators of healthy urban livelihoods. 1.7 Keywords and Definitions To understand the common terminology used in this study better, Table 1.1 explains such terms in the context of this thesis: Table 1.1: Key terms and definitions Terms Definitions Cumulative Impact Assessment An assessment of environmental and social impacts that occur because of adding more impacts from one or more activities into the past and present challenges and responding by proposing reasonable future actions to mitigate such impacts (Neri et al., 2016). Environment The (i) physical, chemical, and biotic factors (such as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival; (ii) the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community (Ford and King, 2015). Environmental impact assessment A planning process whereby biophysical, social, and other relevant factors associated with a proposed development or project activities are identified, impacts are established, evaluated, and mitigated prior to project commencement (Sadler et al., 2004). 12 Human settlement A holistic functionality of the human community - whether a village, town, or city - with all its cultural and spiritual elements, social materials, and organisational structures that sustain it (UN-Habitat I, 1976). Integrated development-planning A planning approach that aims to involve the community and the municipality to find the best solutions for the socio-economic demands of a specific area (Visser, 2002). Life cycle assessment An analysis of the environmental impacts of products and services throughout its life cycle (Finnveden et al., 2009). Project A set of tasks, activities, proposals, and plans that must be completed to achieve a particular goal or outcome. These tasks, activities, or proposals significantly bring changes through undertaking the construction of infrastructure, change in land use, and the alteration of the environment. These changes may not be implemented without a permit, licence, consent, or approval from an authorising agency and other key relevant stakeholders (Davidson, 2000). Project life cycle Is the order of activities and phases that a project undergoes from the beginning to the end, it assists managers and planners in organising work packages as well as achieving the objectives and goals of the project within the stipulated timeframe and cost (Davidson, 2000). Social The interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society (Aucamp, 2003). Social Impact Assessment A predictive study that assesses the social issues that are likely to be posed by a projected development or project. Such issues include cultural consequences that affect the way people conduct themselves, work and relate with one another, organise 13 themselves to meet their daily needs, and how they cope with development in general (Burdge and Vanclay, 1996). Spatial Development Planning The coordination and application of methods and approaches by the public and private sectors to influence the distribution of developmental activities in spaces of various scales (Karam et al., 2016). Sustainable development “A process of change in which utilisation of natural resources associated with technological improvement, the direction of investments, and changes in institutions are integrated to enhance human needs and aspirations for the current and future generation (Waas et al.,2011). Sustainable urban settlement A settlement that can meet the needs arising from current and mounting challenges of urbanisation without compromising the future generation to meet their own needs (UN-Habitat II, 1996; Tibaijuka, 2008). Urbanisation A process by which rural dwellers migrate to urban areas for economic development and industrialisation opportunities (Brelsford et al., 2016). Source: The Researcher’s own synthesis (2023) 1.8. Structure of the thesis The thesis is developed and organised into seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, the succeeding chapters are outlined as follows: Chapter Two: Conceptual Analysis Consideration of human settlement developments theories in a global context. The focus of this chapter is on human settlement theories and their contribution to urban spatial planning. The chapter also discusses the impacts of human settlement development projects on the environment and social well-being. Analyses are conducted about the effectiveness of the application of EIA and SIA tools in urban human settlement development projects from global contexts. 14 Chapter Three: Theoretical perspectives on human settlement developments in Sub- Saharan Africa and South Africa context outlines human settlement theories that contributed to environmental and social injustice in SSA countries. The chapter further explores and examines the sustainable cities concepts and management frameworks as well as their applicability in African cities. The chapter drills down to analyse the SA Apartheid urban spatial patterns and their contribution to current environmental challenges. In addition, the project life cycle and management of environmental and social impacts on each phase are discussed. Lastly, the application and limitations of current approaches in assessing the environmental and social impacts of urban settlements are addressed. Additional impact assessment tools that could be integrated into mitigating environmental and social impacts are also deliberated. Chapter Four: Research methodology and design focuses on the research methods and designs considered in answering the research questions and addressing specific aims and objectives. In general, the chapter justifies the methodological consideration and procedures followed by the researcher in data collection and analysis. Chapter 5: Empirical Evidence. presents the findings of the environmental and social impacts of human settlement development projects that mostly affect the study area. Secondly, the chapter presents the interview findings from the research participants. Lastly, the chapter presents the findings from the reviewed EIA reports of the sampled five human settlement development projects. Chapter 6: Results Analysis and Discussions. This chapter analyses the key findings of the research. It outlines how the previously published literature relates to the study findings. Research findings from the research participants are discussed first and this is followed by findings from the review of five sampled human settlement development EIA reports. Chapter 7: Conclusion and Recommendations presents the conclusion of the study by summarising the key findings and proffering recommendations in relation to the management of environmental and social impacts of urban human settlement development projects while making recommendations for future research. 15 CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter contextualises the study within the analysis of environmental and social impacts associated with human settlement development in urban areas, with particular emphasis on challenges associated with urbanisation, urban sustainable development approaches, the effectiveness of EIA and SIA in addressing socio-economic and environmental impacts, institutional challenges that exist in the management of the impacts and contribution of community members in decision-making. Thematic categories of relevant literature are outlined as follows in this chapter: human settlement origins and theories, advantages of urban and rural settlements, the interrelationship of the biophysical environment with settlements, common environmental and social impacts of urban human settlements in a global context, management of environmental and social challenges through the implementation of impacts assessment tools. The above thematic topics were deemed fit and interesting for addressing the research aim and objectives and answering the research questions for this study. 2.2 Development and Origins of Human Settlement Developments The human settlement concept advanced over the years as a global shelter strategy that incorporates both social and economic developments (Nkambule, 2012). There is a global consensus that human settlement developments are not only about housing infrastructure and spatial aspects but also about the physical manifestation of social and economic activities (Moobela et al., 2007). Human settlements are an essential basis to promote social and economic development as “places, where people can live, learn and work in conditions of safety, comfort, and efficiency, are a fundamental and elementary need” (UN-Habitat I 1976: 8). Considering the above observations, the human settlement was defined as the holistic functionality of the human community - whether a village, town, or city - with its cultural and spiritual elements, social materials, and organisational structures that sustain it (UN-Habitat I, 1976). The UN-Habitat I (1976) further indicates that the human settlement fabric consists of three fundamental elements (physical, social services, and infrastructure). Matamamba (2019) 16 alludes to the fact that physical elements refer to manmade shelters that vary in size, type, and composition, built with the intention of providing dwellers with protection, privacy, safety, and security. While social services elements are facilities for education, health, employment, nutrition, and recreation required to sustain the community’s well-being (Moreno et al., 2016; Matanamba, 2019). Lastly, ‘infrastructure elements’ refer to designed complex networks aimed at delivering goods and services to the shelters (Moreno et al., 2016; Matanamba, 2019). The first recognised human settlement development was launched in 1944 by the United Nations after the Second World War (Weissmann, 1978: 228 - 229). The introduction of this development was to offer community shelter, services, and facilities (Weissmann, 1978). Since then, human settlement and housing have been linked to socio-economic development while most less-developed global southern countries face challenges with the integration of these elements, especially in urban areas (Weissmann, 1978; Aribigbola, 2004; UN-Habitat, 2014). Owing to challenges associated with the integration of human settlement development elements, the United Nations (UN) recommended that states form agencies and set objectives for the proper management of urban human settlement developments (Sarkar, 2010). Rapid urbanisation, especially in underdeveloped countries, posed more challenges that needed a holistic approach to address housing and settlement dynamics in conjunction with social, environmental, economic, and spatial development planning dynamics for settlement development (Todes et al., 2010; Adegun, 2018). In 1955, the United States programme on environmental planning extended its scope to include strategies to manage urbanisation and general planning for national social and economic development (UN-Habitat I, 1976). In this regime, priority was given to social aspects of housing, community-planning and the mobilisation of self-help innovation (Weissmann, 1978). In 1964, the UN officially approved the formation of its Centre for Housing, building, and Planning (Weissmann, 1978). This was the beginning of restructuring institutions for the management of human settlement developments, which led to the first UN Habitat 1 Conference that held in 1976 in Vancouver (Weissmann, 1978). At this conference, the concept of human settlement was invented in a way that incorporated various development elements that were not linked previously (Sarkar, 2010). In 1996, 20 years after the UN-Habitat I conference delegates from countries and organisations all over the world met in Turkey at a conference (Habitat II), which is also known as a city summit (Sarkar, 2010). One of the aims of the conference was to draft global action plans on 17 achieving sustainable human settlements and highlight the ongoing deterioration of shelter conditions globally. The same conference also insisted on the establishment of principles of partnership through real estate developers and encouraged decentralisation through democratic local governments while noting the ongoing need to mobilise resources for housing (UN- Habitat II, 1996). The UN-Habitat II (1996) encouraged the countries to increase housing provision by allowing private real estate developers markets to operate in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner while assisting those who cannot be beneficiaries of traditional government housing schemes (Sarkar, 2010; Todes, 2012). In 2016, the UN Habitat III conference was held in Quito City, Ecuador. Approximately 30,000 delegates from 167 different countries attended. The conference was entitled “Housing and Sustainable Urban Developments”. One of the outcomes of the conference was the adoption of the New Urban Agenda as a vision for sustainable urban development for the future (Habitat III, 2016; Adegun, 2018). The New Urban Agenda represents a vision and strategies for building better urban human settlement developments through considering urban culture and heritage, safer neighbourhood, urban ecology and resilience, urban spatial strategies (spatial planning and designs) as well as an increase in urban population owing to migration and refugees who requires residential units (Habitat III, 2016; Todes, 2012). 2.3. Human Settlement Hierarchy ‘Settlement hierarchy’ refers to the order according to which a settlement is arranged because of its population, number of services, functions, and physical footprint (Poom et al., 2014). Human settlement hierarchy is usually considered according to the isolated dwelling (considered the lowest order) up to the conurbation (considered the highest). However, there is no common global agreement on the minimum population size, number of services, and functions that could clearly define a specific settlement (Owusu-Adade and Adom-Asamoah, 2014; Seto et al.,2014). Most scholars indicate that ordering settlement hierarchy becomes a contextual task that is dependent on several local factors, for instance, the population is not always the best-determining factor of the settlement hierarchy (Song et al., 2021). This fact has been proved by Owusu-Adade and Adom-Asamoah (2014) in Ghana via two case studies (Obausi and Mampong settlements) where Obausi has a population of approximately 180 000 people with services that do not match the population while Mampong has a high number of services with a small population of approximately 50 000 people (Inkoom et al., 2022). 18 Based on the above, human settlement hierarchy is contextualised based on one of the following criteria: (a) area and population (size of the settlement); (b) a number of the facilities and services within the settlement; (c) relative spheres of influence of the settlement (areas serviced by such settlement such as schools and labour recruits) (Poom et al., 2014). Figure 2.1 presents the human settlement hierarchy in a pyramid shape depending on the size, functions, and services they provide. The first bottom three settlements (isolated dwellings, hamlets, and villages) are referred to as rural settlements and are usually managed and led by traditional leaders – ‘chiefs - in African countries. The last four settlements (small town, large town, city, and conurbation) are often referred to as urban settlements usually managed by City Councils, private property developers, or real estate (Roberts et al.,2016). Roberts et al. (2016) further indicate that rural settlements are usually dependent on and supported by primary activities such as agriculture, fishing, and mining. Figure 2.1: Human settlement hierarchy Source: Modified from Neil and Navata (2019) 19 The below table explains each settlement and its characteristics as indicated in Figure 2.1. Table 2.1. Human settlement characteristics Settlement type Settlement characteristics Isolated dwelling This is the most basic settlement consisting of a stand-alone dwelling, which might be a farmhouse on a ranch. Usually, there are no services in the form of shops and schools that support isolated dwellings. The population ranges from 1 to 10 people (Wessels, 2012; Roberts et al.,2016). Hamlet This settlement usually consists of a small cluster of houses with no defined services and functions. However, a post box is likely to be found in this settlement. Population size ranges between 11 to 100 people (Wessels, 2012; Roberts et al.,2016). Village The ‘village’ is defined as any settlement with a population of 101 to 2 000 people. The village will usually have services such as a shop (groceries), post office, church, village hall, school, sports ground, and basic health care clinic (Wessels, 2012; Roberts et al.,2016). Small town The small town is on the lowest rank of urban settlements with a population range between 2 001 to 10 000 people. A small town is characterised by all the services found in the village. However, the population threshold for town determination varies from one country to the other (Roberts et al., 2016). In Australia, a small town will have a population size between 1 000 to 19 999 people. In African countries like Ghana small towns are urban areas with a population size between 5 000 to 1 999 (Inkoom et al., 2022). In South Africa, a small town in any urban area with a population that is less than 50,000 people (Matamanda and Chirisa 2018). Large town A large town has a population between 1001 to 1 00 000 people and may have a railway station, hospitals and clinics, sports centres, and many secondary schools (Roberts et al., 2016). 20 City Following the large town is the city which is a complex urban area with a population ranging between 100 001 to 1 000 000 (Wessels, 2012; Matamanda and Chirisa, 2018). The land use in the city tends to be diverse and with mixed land uses (Roberts et al.,2016). A typical example of an African city with mixed and diverse land use is Cairo, the capital city of Egypt which is anchored on transportation services, construction, wholesale and retail, tourism attraction, health facilities, higher education, and public administration sectors (El Nakeeb and Barakat, 2018). Conurbation Lastly, the conurbation is a continuous urban region owing to the outward growth and expansion of cities that engulf towns and villages to form a bigger urban region (Roberts et al.,2016; Matamanda and Chirisa, 2018). A perfect example is the Gauteng provincial region which includes Johannesburg, Pretoria, Midrand, Boksburg, Krugersdorp, and various towns under the region with a population size of approximately 15 000 000 people (Gauteng City-Region Observatory, 2018). Source: The Researcher’s own synthesis (2023) Human settlements consist of the built-up areas where people live their everyday lives hence its size and population are determined by the distribution of socio-economic facilities and services. The settlement type and size have a direct relationship with the state of the receiving environment. This study contests that human settlement developments should be planned according to the local socio-economic factors and land use management frameworks that are linked with environmental planning policies. 2.4. Theories of Human Settlement Salats et al. (2011) acknowledge that various scholars formulate different theories for human settlement. However, there is no single theory that sufficiently defines settlement that addresses all the changes associated with human settlement development and urbanisation. This is the case as human settlements are complex and always evolving making it difficult to understand their dynamics (Short, 2006; Jamal,2017). The section below deliberates on theories that have 21 direct positive and negative impacts on how environmental and social impacts are managed on human settlement developments. 2.4.1. Classical theories on settlement forms The first theory to understand were founded on sociological influences. In this regard, people’s behaviour influences the city’s patterns. Under the classical group, two theories relate to this study: (i) the Concentric zone model and (iii) the ekistics theory. (i) Concentric zone model In early 20s, EW Burgess developed the concentric zone model that became known as the Burgess Model (Hall 1996; Meyer 2000). The Burgess Model is among the early urban descriptions that Chicago City followed during its establishment (Meyer, 2000). This model divides the city into five zones that characterise the spatial and development arrangement. These zones are presented in a ring format as indicated in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: The concentric zone model Source: Modified from Jamal (2017) The first zone at the core represents the Central Business District (CBD) which is the hub of the city’s commercial activities (Burgess, 1925; Wu and Yang 2010). The second zone, known 22 as the transition zone, represents the factories and industries. Tian et al. (2010) indicate that this zone also represents the poor social groups of new immigrants situated in mixed residential areas. In many global southern countries, this zone has recently been classified as dilapidated abandoned buildings that have lost property value (Jamal, 2017). The third zone is known as the low-income housing zone within the inner-city suburbs with limited access to amenities, the working-class residential homes are found especially for independent males (Jamal, 2017). The fourth zone is known as the middle-income city suburbs housing zone found in the outer city suburbs where middle-salary-earners reside in better housing with better quality of life (Tian et al., 2010; Jamal,2017). The last zone is known as a commuting zone that is found beyond the city’s built-up areas where high-income earners reside in large and open residential units enjoying a good quality of life (Tian et al., 2010; Jamal, 2017). This model suggests that land uses, and urban human residential units occur in rings around the centre of the city and the residential status increases from the city to its periphery (Shane, 2005; Jamal, 2017). However, this theory has been criticised by contemporary urban geographers who indicate that the model does not work well for cities outside the US, especially those developed under historical circumstances such as South Africa where most urban areas were developed during the apartheid regime and segregated poor black people from residing in formal urban areas (Shane, 2005; Todes, 2011). Moreover, this model has been further criticised that even in the US, owing to changes recent changes in transportation advancement, global economic transformation, and information technology cities are no longer organised in this fashion as some industrial areas are found in the outskirt of the cities with available rail- subway transportation (Jamal, 2017). This theory has both negative and positive socio-environmental impacts based on the arrangement of urban zones. For instance, the transitional zone has the potential to cause ambient air pollution emanating from factories and industries affecting low-class groups consisting of people with health problems that reside nearby. However, transitional zone dwellers have the benefit of residing close to the workplace. Some studies such as those conducted by Huchezermeyer (2019) suggest that informal settlements are introduced in the transitional zone owing to the vicinity of factories and industries that present economic opportunities for economically disadvantaged people. Most informal settlements are illegally established out of approved spatial development framework plans. Hence there are no infrastructure services for waste collection and sanitation which further contributes to environmental negative impacts. Conversely, residents from the middle-income zone spend 23 more time travelling to work, while most prefer to commute individually in their own car which tends to contribute to air pollution as carbon gases are emitted from vehicles (Turok and Borel- Saladin, 2014). This theory is not always accurate, especially in Global North Countries such as Paris where wealthy Citizens live in areas surrounding the CBD with older houses that continue to have high property values. Those citizens have easy access to the market areas as compared to global South Countries (Lersch, 2013). In a South African context, owing to the apartheid era that segregated poor black people from socio-economic amenities associated with the CBD, many white people resided in the middle-class zone while the transitional zone was used for township developments for black urban dwellers (Huchezermeyer, 2019; Todes 2019). This study does not support this theory because it has the potential to contribute to environmental and social imbalance as township dwellers travel long distances to work, hence they resort to establishing informal settlements near factories and CBD that later affect the environment owing to a lack of basic services such as waste collection and sanitation for illegal “squatter camps”. Lastly, this theory expands the urban footprint that affects ecological support, critical biodiversity areas and agricultural land as the commuting zone promotes the clearing of arable land to make way for human settlement development for the wealthy citizens that affords big stands which results in the occupation of big geographical areas with a small population (Gidey et al., 2023). (ii) Ekistics theory In 1942, a Greek architect and urban planner called Constantinos A Doxiadis conceptualised the science of human settlements which is known as Ekistics theory (Zarmakoupi, 2015). Doxiadis (1970) argues that there was a need for a systematic approach that would specifically outline human settlement principles for development. The need arose from the notion that urban human settlements were no longer satisfactory for residents owing to multiple problems experienced in the cities (Doxiadis, 1970; Zarmakoupi, 2015). The identified problems, among others, included land-use zoning, imbalance i