6.5 Land use planning and building regulation

The global population living in informal settlements is currently estimated at approximately 1 billion people, many of whom live in hazard-prone areas, and this population is growing at a rate of 40 million people per year (IFRC, 2010). How land is used in cities and how buildings, infrastructure and networks are designed and constructed all influence exposure to physical hazards and the rise or fall of a country’s stock of risk. As such, land use planning and building regulation should be included in any list of development instruments that can be adapted for DRM.

Decisions on land use and building can push up risk significantly, especially in cities where much of the population can find accommodation only in informal settlements and where there is little willingness or capacity of local governments to manage city expansion and land use change in the public interest. Once investments in infrastructure, housing and other facilities have been made in hazardous locations, the risk is locked in place for decades or more, and once in place, it is far more expensive to correct it than it would have been to avoid its creation in the first place.

Unfortunately, land use planning and management in low- and middle-income countries have excluded a large proportion of the urban population from legal land and housing markets (Dodman, 2010), thus driving an increase in urban risk. Given their low status and lack of secure tenure, households in informal settlements are generally excluded from public investments in vital risk-reducing infrastructure and services.

Most local governments in low- and middle-income countries have no functioning land use planning or management system or have lost control over managing land use changes. Land set aside for public use is not protected, cities expand without provision for infrastructure, and powerful vested interests are engaged in land speculation and profitable but unauthorized land use changes (Satterthwaite, 2011). Many countries have established national policies for land use planning and have passed legislation assigning specific responsibilities to local governments, but many others either lack the technical capacities to plan their territory or fail to take hazards into account. For example, in Costa Rica, a small middle-income country with relatively strong governance capacities, only 20 of 89 municipalities had their own land use plans as of 2009 (Berti and Ferrufino, 2009). Although legislation exists to include risk considerations in land use planning, it is not mandatory. As a consequence, much development in hazard-prone sites has been legally authorized.

Land use laws and regulations that prohibit or limit development in hazard-prone areas are often misused to exclude low-income households from well-located land (Box 6.8). At the same time, low-income households may be more likely to secure tenure in hazard-prone areas that should never have been occupied for housing. In other cases, regulations exist but have been bypassed to facilitate land speculation in well-located but hazardous areas.


Even when it is implemented, land use planning may be ineffective for DRM when a given risk crosses municipal or regional boundaries. National-level planning tends to be based on standards that are not designed to address specific local problems. Local planning, on the other hand, has no influence over risks that may be constructed outside of its jurisdiction. However, intermediate-level planning frameworks that could fill the gap are often missing. In the Oshana region of Namibia, for example, the lack of regional-level planning is an obstacle to flood risk reduction. The towns of Ondangwa and Oshakati each have their own flood risk management plans, but each is designed solely to reduce risks in its own locality. A proposed channel to manage floodwaters in Ondangwa drains directly into a village south of the town and worsens flooding there (Johnson, 2011).

Critically, planning is often disconnected from realities on the ground. Long, slow planning cycles are inconsistent with the rapid growth of many cities in low- and middle-income countries. Planning cycles of three years or more mean that plans, when adopted, may have already been overtaken by development. And without enforcement, even the best land use planning cannot change land use practices. Balancing the needs of low-income groups for well-located land with disaster-reduction objectives remains a difficult task (Box 6.9).


The design and enforcement of building legislation, regulation, codes and standards⁵  presents similar issues, because requirements are often inappropriate for national and local conditions (Johnson, 2011). In post-disaster contexts in particular, overly complicated codes and standards that cannot be maintained over time are often introduced. The codes can be prohibitively costly for low-income households, ultimately increasing the incidence of unregulated construction. Inhabitants of informal settlements in particular find it impossible to implement codes. In other contexts, authorities may use the enforcement of strict codes as a pretext for evicting low-income households.

For example, more than half of Kenya’s urban population lives in informal settlements in houses made mostly of timber and earthbased materials. Most settlements in the rapidly growing cities breach building codes, as local bylaws stipulate the use of cement, mortar and steel, in addition to electrical and sanitary installations, beyond the reach of most households (Yahya et al., 2001). In the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, the many families living in one-room dwellings suspended over water and with no outside space cannot hope to meet the Bangladesh National Building Code. The code defines a minimum housing size of about three times the average dwelling size in informal settlements such as Mohammadpur (Figure 6.2) and does not allow for incremental upgrading.

Even where appropriate, building codes are often inadequately supported by legislation and enforcement. Before the 2001 earthquake in Bhuj, in the Indian state of Gujarat, compliance with existing codes was not required by law except for government buildings. In Turkey, only after the devastating 1999 earthquake did the supervision of building standards become a legal requirement. However, even when building control becomes mandatory, local governments often do not have the required expertise or manpower to monitor and enforce the regulations (Johnson, 2011).

Overly lengthy processes to obtain building permits can be another serious impediment to adherence to building codes in lowincome areas. Obtaining building permits in the historical centre of Lima, for example, requires an average of 222 working days under optimal conditions (Johnson, 2011). Delays and difficulties in the processing of land and housing permits in the Philippines mean that inhabitants of informal settlements and communities living in vulnerable locations may have no choice but to remain outside formal processes. Recent studies recommend that an important step towards helping communities to adopt building codes is to develop fast-track and one-step processes that are simple to follow and quickly realized (Rayos Co, 2010). For example, familiarizing the local masons who actually build housing in informal settlements with simple but effective techniques for improving building safety (Aysan and Davis, 1992), or adopting simple but achievable standards (Box 6.10), can be far more effective than adopting complex but ultimately unenforceable codes and regulations.


Innovations in local governance from around the world are showing that a new approach to planning and urban development is possible when participation from citizens, community organizations and other civil society groups is supported by a new generation of mayors and civil servants. There are now many examples of low-income communities negotiating reasonably safe and well-located land, adapting rigid zoning and building standards to local needs and possibilities, upgrading vulnerable settlements in ways that reduce risks, and participating in planning and budgeting processes (Bicknell et al., 2009; UNISDR, 2009; Satterthwaite, 2011). The governance arrangements needed to underpin such approaches are discussed further in Chapter 7.

These practices certainly contribute to reducing risks, but they also have much wider benefits, from planned urban development, enhanced citizenship and social cohesion, and greater investment. In this way, building and planning regulations can drive DRM instead of impeding it (Table 6.3).

Building and planning regulations facilitating DRM

Building and planning regulations impeding DRM

Recognition on the part of the (local) government of the needs of the poor, and motivation to be accountable to them. Mandates coming from national government, giving responsibility to local government for safe building and planning while also enabling them with the technical expertise and resources to make and implement plans and enforce building codes. Plans, codes and standards that are developed with and include the perspectives of businesses, residents and diverse communities. Flexible regulatory frameworks that accommodate the changing realities of economies, environments and building densities over time. Recognition of informal building processes and encouragement of safe building practices through education and advocacy.

Safe construction or secure land tenure is unaffordable or unobtainable by the poor. Inequalities in access to land or housing are reinforced. Inhabitants of informal settlements are subject to forced evictions or reduced tenure security. Regulations fail to account for realities on the ground, e.g., existing densities in urban areas are ignored, or construction of small dwellings or workspaces, or use of more affordable alternative building materials, are prohibited.

NOTE