Informal land market dynamics in kalingalinga settlement of Lusaka.

Thumbnail Image
Chirwa, Mululu
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
The University of Zambia
Informal land markets characterize most improvement areas in the global south and are also evident in Kalingalinga settlement of Lusaka. After a physical upgrade, Kalingalinga area has increased in value over time. Old residents are selling their properties and relocating to places where there is cheaper land. This work explores the reasons for the sale of properties, places of relocation, and quality of the sellers’ lives after the sale of properties in Kalingalinga. Twenty key informants and five Kalingalinga residents were sampled purposively. Thirty sellers who had relocated were sampled through snow ball. Thematic/content analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyse objectives one and two, while a paired sample T-Test at alpha level 0.05 (2-tailed) and content were used to analyse objective three. Findings of the study showed that 41.8 percent of the sellers sold due to family disputes. This is because most of the sampled land was acquired through inheritance from parents. A total of 30.1 percent sold due to poverty, and the rest sold due to one or more of the following reasons; attractive prices, crisis, rising property values, the desire to improve life, neighbourhood influence, land use change, ignorance on leasing, rise in cost of living, and conflict in land use. Mtendere East and Kalingalinga are a favourite choice of relocation amongst the sellers, with 52.7 percent going for the former and 40 percent the latter. These places of relocation were most significant because they had security of tenure and cheaper land. Other places in order of descent include; Mtendere, NRDC, Kabangwe farms, Chongwe outskirts, Ngómbe, Chalala, Kabanana, Mumbwa, and Kafue. Most places of relocation have a background of informality and were further away from the CBD. The three standards used to assess the seller’s quality of life before and after sale were, which are: value of their houses; access to social services and utilities; and individual impression. Most houses acquired after selling were cheaper, had fewer rooms, lacked water and electricity, but had better building materials and toiletry. They were located far from workplaces, town centre, main market, and health centres. Although some LCC officials said that the sellers benefited from the sale, some PPHPZ officials and the sellers themselves claimed otherwise. The study concluded that much of the implications of informal land markets on the sellers were negative. The findings present a need for further assessment of how institutions can realign informal land markets to establish a solution where both buyers and sellers benefit. KEY WORDS: Informal Land markets, Gentrification, Kalingalinga
House selling.