Assessment of Informal Settlements Growth in Greater Karu Urban Area (GKUA) Nasarawa State, Nigeria

The proliferation of informal settlements in developing countries have become a major concern to governments and professionals in the built environment in recent years. This paper assessed informal human settlements in a rapidly urbanizing and growing urban area; the Greater Karu Urban Area (GKUA) in Nasarawa State of Nigeria. Information for the paper were obtained through the administration of a questionnaire on the residents and from published and official records. Data was collected from 4 out a 17 identified informal settlements; Mararaba, Masaka, New Nyanya and Kuchikau in GKUA. Questionnaires were administered to 10% (253) households’ randomly selected based on their availability and willingness to participate in the study. From 241 (95.4%) questionnaires that were returned, two types of informal settlements were identified: inner core (traditional slums) and the peri-urban informal/unplanned settlements/slums. The inner core slums showed very severe challenges pertaining to minimal and inadequate social amenities and infrastructure, poor sanitation, narrow winding road networks while the absence of social services and infrastructure, unplanned and uncontrolled development, and substandard housing of mixed quality characterised peri-urban slums. Residents perceived that internal and external drivers contributed to the rapid growth of informal settlements in GKUA. A Comprehensive and holistic spatial vision of the area that could promote and sustain physical, social, economic and environmental planning policies in a coordinated manner is urgently needed.


Introduction
Informal settlements are a major landscape and characteristic of Greater Karu Urban Area (GKUA) in Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. The proliferation of slums and informal settlements have constituted a serious concern to the government, urban managers, professionals in the built environment and the residents. Greater Karu Urban Area adjoins the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria to the east along the Abuja-Keffi axis. Currently, settlements in the area meet an important need and represent virtually the most viable accommodation option for over 60% of the inhabitants (especially the low and middle income earners) who work in the Federal Capital City (FCC) and elsewhere in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) (Rikko, 2016). Consequently, settlements in GKUA are experiencing rapid and unprecedented urbanisation and population growth fuelled largely by immigration of people seeking job opportunities and better life in the capital city Abuja. This raised the population of the settlements from a mere 216, 230 people in 2006 to more than 2 million in 2012 (NPC, 2006;Vilo, 2012) resulting to an explosion in the growth (both in size and number) of unplanned and uncontrolled settlements. Similarly, the inability of urban managers and government to cope with the high demand and competition for land, housing accommodation, infrastructure and service provision encouraged private land speculation and provided opportunity for informal and unregulated land acquisition which in turn led to rapid development of settlements that are self-regulated and devoid of any spatial planning principles or regulations. ; Rikko, Dung Gwom and Lohor (2013) have also observed that the emergence and development of informal settlements in GKUA is a consequent and ripple effect of their proximity to the federal capital and the inability of the federal capital administration to adequately meet the housing and infrastructural needs of particularly the low and medium income workers of the FCT. These experiences have increased greater challenges on city managers/planning institutions capacity to cope with the responsibility of effective control of the chaotic development in the area. This in turn, led to the emergence of many informal settlements and slums along the Abuja-Keffi axis.
Conflicting views exist on whether informal settlements are harmful or beneficial, whether they have any advantage or are a mere nuisance to the economic prosperity, political image and physical outlook of a nation experiencing rapid urbanization and socio-economic transformation. Some writers have dismissed the sector as an abnormality, a nuisance, and a source of chaos and obstacle to the healthy and sustainable development of a modern economy (Fadare, 2017). Others have advocated for the recognition and endorsement of informality in human settlements as a major contributor to the socio-cultural development of a state. More so, residents of the informal settlements constitute an indispensable part of the urban community and are key contributors to the informal sector of the economy (Wahab, 2017). For instance, over 60% of the residents of the informal settlements in GKUA are the major providers of cheap, unskilled and semi-skilled labour in construction companies, transportation industry, security guards, operators of small and medium scale commercial enterprises, street cleaners, waste pickers, gardeners, baby-seaters, drivers, domestic aids to residents of the new www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa Urban Studies and Public Administration Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019 63 Published by SCHOLINK INC. national capital Abuja (Rikko, 2016) and yet, are often neglected by government, organised private sector and relevant planning agencies. Their contributions to socio-economic, physical, cultural growth and development deserve the recognition and attention of policy makers, government agencies, planners and development partners to improve the conditions that would provide a healthier and wholesome environment for living, working and recreation; even more so that the settlements adjoin the nation's capital city which is the eyes of the world.
The thrust of this paper is to examine the nature and drivers of informal human settlements in a rapidly urbanizing and growing urban area in the Greater Karu Urban Area, GKUA. The objectives of this paper are therefore to: i. Review the concepts and challenges of informal settlements in a rapidly urbanising country like Nigeria; ii. Examine the nature of the informal settlements in GKUA; and iii. Explore the drivers of growth of informal settlements in GKUA and their physical planning implications.

Literature Review
Various terms have been used to define and describe informal settlements, for example: unplanned settlements, squatter settlements, marginal settlements, unconventional dwellings, non-permanent structures, inadequate housing and slums (Yari, 2017) shantytowns, barrios and favelas, in the marginal, leftover land of mostly in cities of the developing world. Informal settlements have been referred to as areas that are not formally planned but are occupied illegally by the dwellers. Similarly, UN Habitat (2015) views informal settlements as areas where housing is not in compliance with current planning and building regulations (unauthorised housing) or as residential buildings built on "planned" and "unplanned" areas which do not have formal planning approval. They could even be illegal development in form of real estate speculation for all income levels of urban and peri-urban residents including both the affluent and the poor (Potsiou & Boulaka, 2012). However not all informal settlements processes are illegal (Wahab & Agbola, 2017). Sometimes a well-planned area could turn in to a slum or an informal settlement, particularly where there is an absence of formal land use planning, provision of basic infrastructure and services or where government and planning controls are weak and ineffective (Yari, 2017).
Informality also arises when land is occupied or developed before the layout is planned (that is when development precedes preparation of approval of layout or development plans or the provision of infrastructure, as typified in pre-colonial and many post-colonial settlements in Nigeria. Even in recent years, studies have shown that more than 60% of developments in the urban centres still precede planning approval (Fadare, 2013) and therefore manifest as unauthorised, self-built and self-regulated development without planning or formal government interference or involvement (Fadare, 2017 settlements are also characterised by unauthorised use of vacant or public or private land, illegal subdivision and or rental of land, unauthorised construction of structures and buildings, reliance on low cost and locally available scrap construction materials, absence of restrictive standards and regulations, reliance on family labour and artisanal techniques for construction and non-availability of mortgage (Srinivas, 2003). Informal settlements are therefore perceived as residential areas where the inhabitants have no security of tenure vis-à-vis the land or dwellings they inhabit, with modalities ranging from squatting to informal rental housing, lack or inadequate basic services and infrastructure, poor public space and green areas as well as disease and violence (UN-Habitat III, 2016).
Informal settlements, slums and other poor residential neighbourhoods are a product of an urgent need for shelter by the urban poor (Adikwu, 2014) which are driven by a range of interrelated factors. For instance, Obinna, Owei and Mark (2010) identified that rapid urbanization in the Less Developed Countries (LDC) with concomitant socioeconomic problems have contributed to the growth of informal settlements. Similarly, rapid urbanization and inadequate capacity to cope with the housing needs of people in urban areas have contributed to the development of informal settlements. Amao (2012) blamed the proliferation of informal settlements in Nigeria on rapid urbanisation, increasing poverty and inequality, uncontrolled growth of informal sector, non-affordability of land and housing shortage.
Informal settlements have therefore become the dominant providers of urban land and housing particularly for the poor and rural migrants in urban areas of the country. They are also a manifestation of the failure of urban planning in Nigeria to provide basic housing and amenities to the teaming urban poor.
According to UN Habitat (2015) informal settlements and slums are caused by a range of interrelated factors, including population growth, rural-urban migration, lack of affordable housing for the urban poor, weak governance (particularly in the areas of policy, planning, land and urban management resulting in intense land speculation or land grabbing); economic vulnerability and underpaid salaries or wages, discrimination and marginalization, and displacement caused by conflict, natural disasters and climate change. Earlier, UN-Habitat (2003) had argued that informal settlements were products of failed policies, poor governance, corruption, inappropriate regulation, dysfunctional land markets, deficient financial systems, fundamental lack of political will as well as the inability of the planning system to address the needs (especially housing) of the whole urban communities. The heavy demand for housing and the inability of government and public agencies to provide low cost housing stock to the majority of the urban poor in locations they desire compel most medium and low income households to re-sort to the informal housing markets for housing supply (Gunter, 2014). Informal settlements are not marginal actors in the real estate markets, but play an important role in influencing housing supply and demand market. In most instances, low and medium income household earners rely on the private land market, vendors, land hoarders and traditional authorities, even corrupt public officials, who subdivide lands and re-sell at affordable prices to prospective house developers. Plot sizes depend on what the developer could afford and for the urban poor, Ayo (2014) has argued that plot sizes of 15m X 10m (50ft X30ft) are normally adequate for basic shelter. Wahab and Agboola (2017) have argued that the absence of development plans for rural and urban settlements, politics, corruption; imperfect land market; increasing land and housing prices, and service cost; over-commercialisation of housing development process, lack of access to credit; as well as neglected and inadequate government acquisitions are contributors to the development of informal settlements. UN-Habitat (2013) had earlier noted that lack of detailed regulatory urban plans and cumbersome procedures to obtain building plan permits affect settlements development. Rikko, Dung Gwom and Lohor (2013) and  have also observed that weak, ineffective and non-proactive planning policy; lack of institutional capacity and resources to effectively plan and manage physical development at local level as well as weak enforcement of planning and building regulations have influenced the development of informal settlements. Some others have argued that non-adoption of and total disregard for inclusive people-centred urban planning and development; inadequate planning personnel to control and police developments as well as government disregard for the mechanism of the informal land management as the better provider of land to land seekers has driven the growth and proliferation of informal settlements in Nigeria (Oduwaye, 2010;Kadiri, 1995).  (Wahab, 2013) while Port Harcourt had 10 among others with an estimated proportion of population of over 80% living in them (Olunloyo, 2017;Obinna, Owei, & Mark, 2010). Increase in population without corresponding increase in infrastructure results in overstretching of infrastructure, further decline of existing informal settlements and creation of new ones.

The Study Area
Greater Karu Urban Area is a "Planning Area" in Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa state with an annual growth rate of over 40 percent (Vilo, 2012). This exponential population increase has influenced the rapid physical growth of settlements both in size and number; leading to unplanned (informal) and spontaneous developments with complex challenges of inadequate infrastructure, environmental degradation, unemployment, poverty and short fall in service delivery resulting in the development of slums and urban sprawls (Rikko, 2016;). These settlements have been described as a conurbation of slums (informal settlements) (Rikko, Dung Gwom, & Lohor, 2013) an abnormally, a nuisance, a source of chaos and obstacle to healthy and sustainable development of

Method
Data for this paper were obtained from primary and secondary sources. Data obtained from existing sources are secondary data. These included online materials, journals articles, text books, unpublished postgraduate thesis and dissertations. Data obtained from the application of the questionnaire and observation are primary data. Digital photographs depicted the environmental infrastructural condition.
Satellite images from Google earth 2012 covering the settlements in GKUA provided information on the density of the area. From the image, the settlements were gridded into a 0.5 kilometre by 0.5 kilometre grids/cells and each cell given a number identity. A systematic sampling technique was employed to select sample study cells from each cluster of density areas. A total of 571 grid cells covered all the settlements in GKUA with 234 (41%) grids being built-up while 59% accounted for open and vegetated areas. Of the 41% built up area, about 48 grids covered the high density areas of the settlements out of which 17 informal settlements and slums were identified for study (see Figure 3 and Table 1).
From a sample frame of 17 informal settlements within GKUA (UN-Habitat, 2012) a sample size of 4 or 32% of the settlements were selected through purposive sampling based on the housing population of the settlements to include: Mararaba, Masaka, New Nyanya and Kuchikau (see Table 1). A 10% or 253 households were also randomly selected based on availability of the respondents to provide information through the questionnaire in the four settlements. A structured questionnaire was developed for data collection on the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents of both inner core slums and the peri-urban areas. Respondents indicated the nature and drivers of the growth of the informal settlement of their residence as well as their perceptions on the challenges/characteristics of the settlements (See Appendix A). Accordingly, 241 (95.3%) of the questionnaires were returned completed and used for the study (see Table 1).    Note. Respondents indicated more than one challenges in the core areas. Table 2 revealed the degree of severity of each characteristics/challenge in the area. From the responses, more than two-third of the respondents considered all the characteristics/challenges of the settlements as very severe while less than one-third opined that they were moderately severe and not severe. For instance, 10.5% of the respondents indicated minimal and inadequate social amenities and infrastructure as the most severe challenge and characteristics of the inner core areas while only 1.9% opined that it was not severe. This was closely followed by poor sanitation and environment (10.4%), poor accessibility and narrow winding road networks (9.8%) and rapid population growth. Other challenges perceived as very severe included poor and substandard housing (9.3%), housing congestion (9.2%) while the least very severe challenge and characteristic was crime, and yet, it accounted for more than 6.2%. These were common characteristics and challenges that had contributed to the deplorable state of the inner core areas of the settlements as also observed elsewhere by Fadare (2017) and Habitat III (2016).
Peri-urban informal settlements on the other hand were the emerging informal settlements commonly found at the peripheries of existing settlements which UN-HABITAT referred to as "Peri-urban slums".
These were new neighbourhoods that had developed sporadically and unplanned at the fringes of different settlements manifesting various characteristics and challenges in GKUA (see Figure 5 and   From Table 2, majority of the respondents accounting for 12.8% and 12.2% indicated the absence of social services and infrastructure respectively as very severe challenges/characteristics of the peri-urban areas. Similarly, 12.1% respondents indicated that unplanned and uncontrolled development of illegal housing were very severe challenges and characteristics. This was attributed to rapid population growth resulting from immigration which also accounted for 11.4%. For 10.2% and 9.4% of the respondents, rapid development of poor and substandard housing as well as the use of poor building materials respectively were very severe challenges and characteristics of the settlements as depicted by Figure 5. These were areas where development already preceded planning and infrastructural provisions. As a result, residents relied on self-helped efforts for the provision of social amenities and infrastructure such as boreholes, schools, health care facilities and access roads as also observed elsewhere by Karlson (2012) and UN Habitat (2015). Furthermore, the settlements were affected by very poor sanitary and environmental condition according to 11.9% and urban poverty (11.3%) which made it easy for them to be hide out for criminals and hoodlums largely due to an absence or ineffective and inefficient security measures, particularly where housing development and population were still scanty.
From the findings, the study observed variations in the characteristics and challenges between the peri-urban and the inner core informal settlements. For instance, where there were complete absence of social amenities and infrastructure in the peri-urban areas, they were available but in minimal and inadequate quantities in the core areas due to high population that mounted pressure on the available ones. In addition, the degree of severity of the challenges were higher in the peri-urban than the core areas. This collaborate the absence of social and infrastructural facilities in the area.

Drivers of Informal Settlements in GKUA
Findings from this section revealed that two categories of drivers (internal and external) interplayed either directly or indirectly to orchestrate the growth of informal settlements in GKUA.

Internal Drivers of Informal Settlements
Eight internal drivers were identified as influencing the growth of informal settlements in GKUA (see Figure 6). They are as follows:

a. Availability and affordability of land for development
One of the major drivers of informal settlements in GKUA is the availability and affordability of land for housing and urban development. This was affirmed by 36% of the respondents. The movement of the federal capital from Lagos to Abuja in 1991, accelerated the need and competition for land by various land users thereby exerting pressure and compelled many customary land owners to dispose of their farmlands. Many low and medium income workers from the FCT acquired and developed land without planning approvals or building permits. Particularly between the late 1980s and 2000 when land use planning was at its initial stage and before the area was designated as a "Planning Area" in 2001, development was unguided, haphazard and uncontrolled (Rikko, 2016). The situation is not different today, eighteen years after the area was earmarked and gazetted as a planning area.
Development has become more compact and complex in the core areas with attendant challenges.
Settlements have sprawled into each other forming an agglomeration of slums along the Keffi-Abuja axis. These settlements are considered as informal due to the absence of approved plans, formal land use planning and inadequate provision of basic infrastructure and services. On the other hand, this is what makes them affordable and attractive to their inhabitants.

b. Peaceful environment
The perception of GKUA as a peaceful urban area influenced one fifth of the residents to settle in the area. Over 20% of the respondents viewed the general security of the area as a major propellant of informal settlement growth. As a result, GKUA has of recent accommodated large migrants from the Nasarawa State that have experienced Boko haram and Herdsmen violent attacks (Rikko, 2016). This has increased the population of the area along with daunting challenges of rapid illegal housing development without any form of planning approval or control.

Figure 6. Internal Drivers of Informal Settlements Growth c. Proximity to Federal Capital Territory, Urbanization and Rapid population Growth
Over 14% of the residents agreed that the proximity of GKUA to FCT Abuja was a major force driving rapid growth of informal settlements in GKUA. The inability of the FCT to provide housing accommodation to its workers, and the demolition of informal settlements in the FCT since 2003 had dislodged more than 1.2 million low and medium income groups (COHRE, 2012) who had relocated to settlements adjoining the FCT including GKUA. As a result, there had been massive influx of immigrants into GKUA leading to demographic shifts, urban expansion and creation of unplanned settlements within the settlements and their peripheries with population rising from a mere 216,000 people in 2006 to more than 2 million in 2012. This growth in urban population was faster than the pace at which urban services such as housing could be provided. Population statistics show that while Abuja grew at 9.3% between 1991 and 2006, Greater Karu grew at an astonishing rate of 22.7% per annum more than twice the rate of the FCC (UNFPA, 2007). Other studies have argued that GKUA was one of the fastest growing urban areas in Nigeria with 40% urbanization rate since 2008 (Vilo, 2012). This will make it one of the fastest growing urban complexes in the whole world.

d. Ineffective development control
Development control in GKUA is highly ineffective and inefficient due largely to inadequate qualified professionals to plan, monitor and manage the development of settlements in GKUA. For instance, findings show that the total number of registered town planners in the Nasarawa State Planning agencies was less than 30. This was highly inadequate to manage and control the development of a rapidly urbanizing area such as GKUA with an urbanization rate of about 40% and a population of more than 2 million (a ratio 1 planner to 66, 667 population). Consequently, some of the offices were manned and headed by sub-professionals and technical staff that had no training in land use matters.
Closely related to it was the weak and ineffective institutional framework which gave room for sporadic and uncontrolled housing development.  reported that only between 5%-20% of the properties built in GKUA had approved building plans while 80% had no permit. This was also attributed to the absence of a physical plan (spatial plan), lack of machineries for development, conflicting institutional control over land acquisition processes, poor governance and poor funding for planning activities.

e. Land tenure and ownership
Findings revealed that the predominant land tenure type in GKUA is customary land ownership where land is still in the custody of the traditional owners who willingly subdivide it and sell plots directly or through speculators to potential developers without the permission or approval of the Nasarawa state

External drivers of informal settlements
The external drivers that have influenced the growth of informal settlements in GKUA are presented on

b. High demand for land and desire for home ownership
According to the results, 19.1% of the residents indicated that high demand and competition for land by various land uses have fuelled the growth of informal settlements. This resulted from the growing pace of urbanization, population growth and increase in economic activities seeking to locate close to the FCT. Secondly, the desire to own personal accommodation was a major influence on the growth of informal settlements. Dung Gwom (2008) also observed that the desire to own personal homes fuelled the demand for land and encouraged the "peripherization" of development in Jos. Similarly, the rising cost of housing rent in FCC and GKUA had compelled residents to seek alternatives means of accommodation by building their own houses even in areas that were disaster prone. Despite transportation challenges including traffic congestion that results in hours of traffic hold-ups along the Keffi-Abuja high way, residents preferred to build personal houses in GKUA and trade-off accommodation cost with transport cost. More so, with enhanced personal mobility, workers in the FCT settle in GKUA where land prices are relatively low and commute to the city for work.

c. Strict planning and development control in the FCC
Similarly, about 13% of the respondents indicated that strict planning and development control in the FCC influenced the development of informal settlements in GKUA. Development control is a machinery and/or tool for sustainable management of development which had been effectively implemented in the FCC. Planning regulations and control were strict and enforced by the Urban and Regional Planning Department of FCDA to ensure sustained physical planning and monitoring of land use development in the capital city. This had created an attractive, liveable and functional environment for the sustainable development in Abuja FCC. However, the stringent processes (time, money and agents requirements) involved in acquiring title documents for land and building plans approval make development processes in FCT cumbersome and stressful (while these were less tasking in GKUA).
Consequently, GKUA served as an alternative and attraction location to all developments that had been denied permission in the FCC.

d. Demolition in FCT
In addition, 12.0% of the respondents in the area opined that the demolition of illegal settlements in the FCT in 2003 contributed greatly to the unplanned and illegal development in GKUA, due principally to the exodus of low and medium workers who relocated from the FCT thereby changing the economic and demographic characteristics of the area. Some writers had asserted that more than 1.2 million people had been dislodged from the FCT as a result of the demolition exercise (COHRE, 2012) while some others claimed that more than 2 million people had been rendered homeless since 2003 . GKUA has remained a major recipient of low and medium workers from the FCC Abuja. This had not only increased the population of the area but majorly influenced the physical growth and expansion of the settlements in GKUA.

e. Poverty
Informal settlements and or slums are usually perceived as a physical and spatial manifestation of urban poverty and intra-city inequality. In the GKUA, over 14% of the respondents indicated that poverty was a major influence on the growth of informal settlements. Reports by the World Poverty Clock (2018) had revealed that poverty levels had risen so high in Nigeria with 86.9 million (50%) of Nigerians now living in extreme poverty while some reports had even indicated that Nigeria is currently the poverty capital of the world. This were manifested in the type and condition of housing accommodation as well as the environment that most of the urban poor live in (see plates 6 & 7).
Informal settlements such as in the GKUA accommodate the low, medium and even high income groups. Yari (2017) had also affirmed that in Katsina town, informal settlements were not only for the urban poor, but also many wealthy members of the society resided in them. This he attributed to the difficulty in obtaining land and housing through established legal means or processes. Majority of the residents in these areas live in extremely deprivation and in environments that were dehumanising and characterised by poor sanitary conditions, pressure on limited infrastructure, poor access to clean water, unreliable electricity, inadequate housing and homelessness.

f. Strict access and high cost of land in FCC
Over 10.4% indicated that higher prices of land in the FCC made land unaffordable by the low and medium income groups and therefore induced spill over pressure on GKUA. Land has assumed the control. Rapid urbanization and population growth, high demand for land, strict planning control, demolition of slums and high cost of land in the FCT were the external drivers that facilitated the rapid growth of informal settlements in GKUA. These findings were coupled with the constraints and absence of an effective planning framework, weak, ineffective and inefficient development control machinery, which gave rise to the proliferation of illegal developments resulting to informal settlements. In addition, inadequate qualified planners and lack of political will provided an avenue for self-regulated, uncoordinated and uncontrolled housing development devoid of spatial planning.

Recommendations
This paper recommends that there should be a search for ultimate sustainable urban form that could   Year Cost per plot 30mx30m 30m x45m 30m x60m 1hectare Location of the plot Type of use Before 1976Before 1977Before -1990Before 1991Before -1995Before 1996Before -2000Before 2001Before -2005Before 2006Before -2010Before 2011Before -2013