In Situ Upgrading Versus Relocation: A Comparative Analysis of Climate Preparedness Strategies for Flood Risk in Informal Settlements In Nairobi and Paris

Abstract

Informal settlements are among the most flood-vulnerable places on the earth, and yet the interventions built to protect them keep falling short. This study tried to look at why this happens through a comparison of two very different settlements: Kibera in Nairobi, Kenya, and Clichy-sous-Bois in Paris, France. The first one, Kibera in Nairobi, Kenya, is one that has been self-built by its residents within Sub-Saharan Africa with no state intervention. The second is one is Clichy-sous-Bois in Paris, France that is completely state built as social housing for the city’s underprivileged. The two offered the opportunity to compare upgrading strategies, in situ vs relocation in response to climate change related flooding risks. The study followed desktop reviews of secondary data, interviews with professionals as well as structured questionnaires with the residents, community leaders and NGO staff from the two settlements. A comparative study was done using the following three objectives: (1) whether the existing infrastructure was adequate enough for managing flooding ris,ks, (2) how the spatial organization of each settlement affected its vulner,ability to flooding, and (3) what were the real impacts of in situ upgrading vs relocation. What emerged is not a clear winner between the two strategies. In both cases, the most vulnerable of, these communities still suffered, whether through de facto displacement i,n Kibera or the severing of social networks in Clichy-sous-Bois. Infrastructure alone, as was seen, was not enough. What determines whether an intervention actually works is less about what gets built and more about how it is done. Whether communities are genuinely involved, whether they feel secure in their homes and whether the planners actually listened to the knowledge that they already held about their own neighborhoods. The study argues that closing the gap between well-intentioned climate preparedness strategies and their lived outcomes will require treating communities not as the recipients of the solutions but as the starting points for them.