Cities 110 (2021) 103050

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Slum infrastructure: Quantitative measures and scenarios for universal

access to basic services in 2030
Tatiana C.G. Trindade , Heather L. MacLean , I. Daniel Posen *
Dept. of Civil & Mineral Engineering, Univ. of Toronto, 35 St. George St., Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Addressing the “slum challenge” is essential for urban sustainability and the capacity of cities to provide a
Slums minimum quality of life to their residents. To present policy-makers with data to inform strategies to improve the
Global South lives of marginalized urban residents, this paper reviews quantitative indicators on slum infrastructure, and
Urban infrastructure
demonstrates analyses they can facilitate. First, we review 122 studies on slum infrastructure and report
Quantitative indicators
Universal access
frequently assessed quantitative indicators; access to municipal services is among the most prevalent appearing
Basic services in 25%–50% of the studies. We then assess how these indicators can increase our understanding of slum set­
tlements, analysing access to services in slums vs the remaining urban population for a subset of cities (Sao Paulo,
Rio, Lima, Johannesburg, Mumbai, and Hyderabad). Significant gaps exist between the communities, especially
when per capita indicators are compared. Finally, we analyse how these indicators can be used to scope the
challenges of achieving universal access to basic services (e.g. water, electricity, and water collection) by 2030.
The results show that large infrastructure investments or conservation efforts are needed, especially for solid
waste collection and water provision in Mumbai and Hyderabad. Additional work is needed to address data gaps
to enable informed policy-making.

1. Introduction
During the 20th Century, urban areas became global platforms of
change in production, trade, and social interaction. Urbanization
became a pathway out of poverty through increased productivity,
employment, and quality of life for urban dwellers. However, industri­
alization in the Global South also led to rapid urban growth, which
generated cascading effects that fueled urban poverty bubbles. Rapid
and unplanned urban growth outpaced the ability of city authorities to
plan and provide affordable housing for low-income sections of the
population, driving them to settle in slums (Ooi & Phua, 2007). Thus,
although cities can be a catalyst for socioeconomic change, they still face
persistent issues, such as the challenge of providing universal and
adequate shelter and access to basic services (UN-Habitat, 2016).
In 2018, 23.5% of the world population lived in slums, representing
an estimated total of more than billion slum dwellers (United Nations,
2019). They represent an assortment of vulnerable communities that fall
within the United National Human Settlements Programme (UN-
Habitat) classification that defines slums as a group of households, in
which the dwellers live with one or more of the following ‘household
deprivations’: (i) lack of access to improved water source; (ii) lack of
access to improved sanitation facilities; (iii) lack of sufficient living area;
(iv) lack of housing durability; and (v) lack of security of tenure (PSUP,
2016).
“Although the proportion of the urban population living in slums has
shown a decreasing trend, the absolute number of slum dwellers is
increasing (UN-Habitat, 2016). In the next decades, the highest popu­
lation growth is projected to occur in less developed regions (i.e., East
Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa), which also have the largest
slum populations. By 2030, a total of 3 billion people are estimated to
lack adequate and affordable housing (United Nations, 2019). Conse­
quently, the widespread growth of slums has become a core policy issue,
as reflected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In
particular SDG 11 seeks to ensure access for all urban residents to
adequate, safe, and affordable housing, and basic urban services by 2030
(United Nations, 2018).
Although there are common characteristics shared across all slums,
they also represent a set of communities that are as diverse as the ter­
minology used to describe them: favelas in Brazil, barrios urbanos
marginales in Peru, slums in India, and informal settlements in South

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tatiana.costa@utoronto.ca (T.C.G. Trindade), heatherl.maclean@utoronto.ca (H.L. MacLean), daniel.posen@utoronto.ca (I.D. Posen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103050
Received 27 March 2020; Received in revised form 28 August 2020; Accepted 26 November 2020
Available online 19 December 2020
0264-2751/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
Africa (see Supplemental Material - SM, Section A.1). Whereas effective
policy requires attention to the individual conditions/challenges of
different slums (Krishna et al., 2014), there are crucial gaps in our un­
derstanding, especially concerning the variation in poverty and living
conditions across these communities (Gulyani et al., 2014; Wang et al.,
2019). Slums are often described with a focus on data gaps and uncer­
tainty, so their governing is tightly related to the challenge of governing
uncertainty (Kovacic, 2018). The general term “slum” thus does not
capture the heterogeneity of these settlements, creating a need to define
and monitor clear quantitative indicators on their infrastructure and
living conditions. These indicators could promote more informed anal­
ysis, facilitate governing uncertainty, and guide policies and upgrading
projects.
Slums in urban areas are usually characterized based on adminis­
trative definitions or income-based indicators, and the most traditional
official data collection methods are census-based, failing to provide
detailed spatial information (Kohli et al., 2012). Existing studies on
slums tend to focus either on slum characterization (Kohli et al., 2012;
Marques & Saraiva, 2017), or slum upgrading/intervention assessment
(Bardhan et al., 2018; Degert et al., 2016; El Menshawy et al., 2011;
Meredith & MacDonald, 2017). However, more quantitative and
comparative research is needed to better understand what determines
settlement conditions and to promote more efficient strategies to
improve the lives of all urban residents (Gulyani et al., 2014).
The focus of this paper is to analyse which quantitative indicators are
usually used to assess slum infrastructure. Here we interpret slum
infrastructure as the physical and organizational structures and facilities
needed for the basic living conditions of slum communities. Given the
diversity of communities classified as slums, and ambiguity of the term
(as discussed in SM Section A.1), it is challenging to use slum population
as an urban metric for comparative studies (Amit Patel et al., 2020).
Thus, well defined quantitative indicators on slum infrastructure, with
less subjective metrics that are easier to compare, can facilitate the
monitoring of living conditions in informal settlements. Quantitative
indicators can also be used in multi-dimensional analyses, which pro­
vide a holistic view of the challenges that slum communities face,
identifying hotspots for policy action (Amit Patel et al., 2014; Baud
et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2020; Weeks et al., 2007).
Characterization of living conditions in slums goes beyond physical
infrastructure and some dimensions cannot be easily quantified. Intan­
gible assets, such as social capital and household relations (Moser,
1998), well-being (Biswas-Diener & Diener, 2001), and community
engagement (Kumaran et al., 2015; Saigal, 2008) are among these.
These aspects are usually analyzed using qualitative indicators derived
from field surveys and interviews. Qualitative indicators can be more
subjective and case-specific, but also provide valuable insights to the
slum characterization discussion. They are also an alternative for studies
in data deprived environments (Matous & Ozawa, 2010).
This paper builds on prior work that reviewed aspects of existing
urban slum infrastructure indicators. Butera et al. (2016) reviewed
urban development and energy access in informal settlements for
countries in Latin America and Africa, and Martínez et al. (2008)
reviewed trends in urban and slum indicators across developing world
cities. The studies revealed that data on slum infrastructure, in partic­
ular on energy consumption and energy efficiency, are usually missing
or out-dated, but that there has been a general improvement in various
slum indicators in the past decades, such as in durable structures and
access to basic services. However, to our knowledge, no recent research
has systematically reviewed what has been quantitatively studied in the
literature regarding slum infrastructure across the globe. Moreover, the
challenges of providing marginalized communities with universal access
to basic services are often discussed qualitatively, but seldom scoped
quantitatively.
This paper aims to answer the following research questions:
2
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
(i) Overall, which quantitative indicators have been the focus of
existing studies in the broad literature on slum infrastructure?
(ii) How can these indicators be used to increase understanding of
infrastructure gaps in slum settlements? What are their
limitations?
(iii) How can these indicators assist in evaluating the challenges of
achieving universal access to basic services (as per SDG 11)?
Thus, to present policy-makers with data to facilitate more efficient
strategies to improve the lives of marginalized urban residents, this
paper aims to provide quantitative information and insights on slum
infrastructure based on a review of quantitative indicators, along with
estimating the scope of the challenges of providing underserved com­
munities with universal access to basic services by 2030.
First, we develop a systematic literature review of comparative
quantitative indicators on global slums. Then, based on the review
findings, we determine the baseline for access to urban services in six
large Global South cities (e.g. Sao Paulo, Rio, Lima, Johannesburg,
Mumbai, and Hyderabad). Comparing the baseline per capita and per­
centage indicators, we analyse the relationship between access to urban
services and inequality among distribution of basic resources for resi­
dents. The results for each city are plotted using inequality webs that
demonstrate differentials between slum and non-slum populations. We
then use the baselines to project four future scenarios of access/use of
urban services (i.e. waste collection, treated water, and electricity) for
2030, focusing on future deficits and potential pathways to universal
provision.
2. Methods
2.1. Indicators occurrence
To assess the quantitative literature on slum urban infrastructure, we
review 122 peer-reviewed and grey literature studies published from
1998 to 2018, and written in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish,
which analyzed quantitative indicators on informal settlements. First,
we search the Web of Science using the keywords: “slum”/”favela”/
”informal settlement”/”barrios” + “urban” + “infrastructure”. Slum
infrastructure here is seen as organizational structures and facilities
needed for the basic living conditions of slum communities, based on the
definition of “infrastructure” from (Oxford English Dictionary, 2017).
The term infrastructure was selected as it represents a set of engineering-
focused literature. A total of 168 results appeared in the search, but only
those that analyzed quantitative aspects of slum infrastructure were
selected for analysis. We then complement the initial search with a
search of the same key words using Google Scholar, selecting key grey
literature (government and international agency reports). The key
words searched were deliberately broad (i.e., “infrastructure”) to avoid
narrowing the results to any specific type of infrastructure (e.g. basic
services, health or educational facilities, or recreational services). As
discussed in SM section A.2 there are a number of potentially related
search terms (e.g., “basic services”, “health”, “living conditions” “water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH)”) that could provide complimentary
results, but are beyond the scope of our analysis.
In total, we locate 88 peer-reviewed journal articles, and 34 grey
literature sources (listed in SM, Table A.1) that provide quantitative
information on slum infrastructure and/or living conditions. From these
studies, we map 65 quantitative indicators related to urban dwellers in
Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. We calculate the
percent occurrence of each indicator by dividing the number of studies
in which an indicator appeared by the total number of studies reviewed.
We classify the indicators that have an occurrence close to 5% (i.e.,
appeared in five or more studies) into seven general areas: de­
mographics, dwelling characteristics, access to basic services, health,
education, economy, and land.
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
2.2. City selection criteria
To provide an example of how the available data can be used for
diagnosing the current status of infrastructure in slums and scoping
future challenges for its enhancement, we select six case study cities
across the Global South: three in Latin America, two in South Asia, and
one in Africa. The examples also help to point out the limitations of
quantitative indicators, especially when one looks at access to basic
services. We use the available data to assess the state of access to services
and basic resource consumption in slum populations compared to the
non-slum population. These cities are selected based on data availabil­
ity, meeting the following criteria: (i) the country has conducted a
specific slum census in the past decade, disclosing specific city level
data; (ii) medium to large cities where more than 10% of the population
live in slums; (iii) city has available information on percentage of access
to basic services (water, sanitation, electricity, and waste collection) for
slums and for the total urban area; and, (iv) city has available data on
residential per capita water and electricity consumption, solid waste
generation rates, and population growth, for slums and for the total
urban area. Among the cities that met all four criteria, six are especially
prominent in the literature and are selected for additional study: Sao
Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Lima (Peru), Johannesburg (South
Africa), and Mumbai and Hyderabad (India).
2.3. Defining access and minimum service benchmarks
Each slum census analyzed has its own description of access to basic
services (See SM, Section A.1). To provide a consistent basis for com­
parison, we adapt the census data to the following definitions of access
to services: (i) access to water (dwelling is individually connected to
public supply of treated water); (ii) access to sanitation (dwelling has a
toilet connected to public sewerage collection, or septic tank); access to
waste collection (residential solid waste is properly collected and
disposed); and (iv) access to electricity (dwelling is connected to electric
grid or public supply) (IBGE, 2011).
Some basic services like waste collection and sanitation are most
often treated as binary (access vs no access), and thus characterized as
the percent of community residents with adequate access (Murungi,
2016). In contrast, indicators like water and electricity consumption
require minimum service levels, with the level for ‘basic needs’ being
defined differently by several national and international organizations
(Nagpure et al., 2018). Based on information provided in reviews by
Shyu (2014) and Nagpure et al. (2018), Table 1 summarizes minimum
services benchmarks for water and electricity and the original sources.
The minimum electricity consumption benchmarks have increased over
the years, which might indicate a growing need for modern energy
services. Therefore, in our analysis we adopt the most recent bench­
marks established in the reviewed literature. Optimal thresholds were
Table 1
Minimum service benchmarks for water and electricity consumption reported by
organizations, and benchmark adopted in this study.
Service Benchmark Adopted
benchmark
Water 70 L/capita.day (WHO, 2005) 36,500 L/capita.
consumption Basic: 20 L/capita.day (WHO, 2008) year
Intermediate: 50 L/capita.day (WHO, (100 L/capita.day)
2008)
Optimal: 100 L/capita.day (WHO, 2008)
Electricity 50 kWh/capita.year (IEA, 2009) 300 kWh/capita.
100 kWh/capita.year (AGECC, 2010) year
100 kWh/month for family of four (The (25 kWh/capita.
World Bank, 2011) month)
Tier 4: 100 kWh/month for family of four,
or
25 kWh/capita.month (The World Bank
Group, 2015)
3
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
adopted for water consumption (based on WHO specifications, 100 L/
capita/day (WHO, 2008)). For electricity, we could not find similar
categories of basic/intermediate/optimal consumption. The existing
benchmarks established by the (IEA, 2009; AGECC, 2010; The World
Bank, 2011; The World Bank Group, 2015) only refer to minimum re­
quirements. We adopted The World Bank benchmark, for it was the most
recent (published in 2015) and up to date with current energy re­
quirements (300 kWh/capita/year for residential electricity
consumption).
Although benchmarks estimate a baseline goal to provide a mini­
mally acceptable quality of life, the values in Table 1 are imperfect ap­
proximations of the services they provide. As examples, water supply
must not only be sufficient, but also reliable, safe, affordable, and
accessible (The World Bank Group, 2015; WHO, 2008) and physical
availability alone is not enough to guarantee the use of electricity in
sufficient quantity and reliability (Pachauri, 2011). Even households
that are connected to the grid may not have electricity as their only
energy source. In the urban African context, for instance, having access
to electricity has minimal influence on the type of fuel used for cooking
and heating, considering that most households still rely on paraffin and/
or gas for these activities (Smit et al., 2017). Thus, guaranteeing suffi­
cient electricity might not be enough for all household energy needs and
future studies should address benchmarks of other fuels in the way
Nagpure et al. (2018) addressed LPG use per household.
2.4. Indicators scope and data sources
We focus on the analysis of urban infrastructure indicators that had
the highest occurrence in the reviewed literature: access to basic services
and average income. To analyse current access inequality and to scope
future service demands, we also include the water/electricity con­
sumption and solid waste generation per capita rates in the analysis. In
addition, we compare the average income of slum and non-slum pop­
ulations, considering that this indicator is closely related to the rates of
resource consumption, waste generation, and quality of life. Both per­
centage and per capita indicators correspond to the averages of whole
slum community within the analyzed cities, according to the census
data. Thus, the spatial dimension considered in this study does not allow
for a detailed analysis of individual slum communities within a city, nor
encompass how heterogeneous an individual slum community can be, as
studied by (Marques & Saraiva, 2017).
Other indicators that we do not have sufficient slum-specific data to
analyse include air quality, access to public transportation, availability/
distance to health centers and schools, among others (see Appendix 1,
Section A.4, for a more complete list). These also provide relevant in­
sights on living conditions and quality of life in slums and should be
addressed in more detail by future studies. Table 2 presents a summary
of the data used for our baseline and 2030 projection analyses.
The slum censuses are the major sources of information for de­
mographics and percentage of access (Government of India, 2011; IBGE,
2011; Ministerio de Vivienda, 2014; HAD, 2012), although they usually
characterize slums using different parameters. All censuses we review
gathered slum-specific data from 2010, 2011, or 2012. We augment
these surveys with other governmental and non-governmental reports
and journal articles to determine average income, waste generation, and
water/electricity consumption rates. Considering the lack of research on
slum service use patterns, the data in Table 2 result from different
studies from different years (usually from 2006 to 2018). Due to these
limitations, the analysis provides a high-level quantitative assessment of
current inequality of access to services and future scoping scenarios.
2.5. Inequality webs
To establish the baseline for each city and compare the living con­
ditions of slum and non-slum urban populations within the same city, we
normalize and plot the selected indicators in spider web graphs
T.C.G. Trindade et al. Cities 110 (2021) 103050

Table 2
Baseline: city and slum demographics, access to basic services, water/electricity consumption rates, solid waste generation rates, and average income in different
developing world cities.
City Sao Rio de Lima (Metro) Johannes-burg Mumbai Hyderabad Source
Paulo Janeiro

Total Population 11.25a 6.29a 8.47a 4.02a 12.50a 6.8a 1, 2, 3, 4

(Millions)
Slum Population 1.31a 1.39a 4.10a 0.60a 6.50a 2.30a 1, 2, 3, 4
% of Total Population 12a 22a 48a 15a 52a 30a 1, 2, 3, 4
Official Terminology Aglomerado Subnormal Barrio Urbano Informal Settlement Slum Slum 1, 2, 3, 4
(IBGE) Margianal (INEI) (HDA) (MHUPA) (MHUPA)
Popular Terminology Favela Favela Barrios Jovenes Informal Settlement – – 1, 2, 3, 4
Total Number of Dwellings 3.61a 2.15a 1.93a 1.43a 2.52a 1.52a 1, 2, 3, 4
(Millions)
Number of Slum-dwellings 0.36a 0.43a 0.97a 0.25a 1.33a 500,000a 1, 2, 3, 4
(Millions)
a a a a a a
Slum % of Total dwellings 10 20 50 17 53 33 1, 2, 3, 4
Slum household size (people/ household) 3.6a 3.3a 4.2a 2.4a 4.9a 4.6a 1, 2, 3, 4
Access to treated water of slum 98a 96.4a 61a 38a 23b 39a 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
households (%)
Slum average water consumption (l/ 129a 129a 60a 29c 100c 82c 7, 8, 9, 10
capita.
year)
Access to sanitation of slum households 68a 85a 61a 24a 17c 55c 1, 2, 3, 11, 12
(%)
a a a a a a
Access to waste collection of slum 78 95 73 81 41 44 1, 2, 3, 4, 13
households (%)
Slum average solid waste generation 0.365b 0.365b 0.11a 0.15c 0.182a 0.1a 8, 14, 15, 16,
(tonnes/ 17
capita.year)
Access to electricity of slum households 91.5a 95a 89.0a 33a 80a 70c 1, 2, 3, 12, 18
(%)
b c b c a c
Slum average electricity consumption 710 800 280 670 540 430 19, 20, 21, 22,
(kWh/capita. year) 23
Average slum dwellers annual income 3490a 3375c 2720b 3018a 1450b 1450b 3, 24, 25, 26,
(USD/ (USD/ (USD/ (USD/ (USD/ (USD/ 27, 28
capita) capita) capita) household) household) household)
a
Studies with data ranges from 2008 to 2013.
b
Studies with data ranges from 2014 to 2018.
c
Studies with data ranges older than 2008.
Sources: [1] (IBGE, 2011); [2] (Ministerio de Vivienda, 2014); [3] (HDA, 2013); [4] (Government of India, 2011); [5] (USAID, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c); [6] (Marx et al.,
2013); [7] (Dias et al., 2010); [8] (Instituto Nacional de Estatdistica e Informatica - INEI, 2014); [9] (Goldblatt, 1999); [10] (Shaban & Sharma, 2007); [11] (Shyamal
et al., 2006); [12] (Centre for Good Governance, 2008); [13] (AP Alliance for Child Rights, 2013); [14] (Schueler, Kzure, and Racca, 2018); [15] (Republic of South
Africa, 2006); [16] (Government of Maharashtra, 2009); [17] (Kumar & Pandit, 2013); [18] (Mimmi, 2012); [19] (Instituto Trata Brazil, 2015); [20] (T. L. V. da Silva,
2003); [21] (Fondo de Inclusion Social Energetico - FISE, 2015); [22] (Borchers et al., 2000); [23] (Rojas & Lallement, 2007); [24] (Mation et al., 2014); [25] (Moura,
2004); [26] (Cordano et al., 2012); [27] (USAID, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c); [28] (USAID, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c).

(Inequality Webs), and represent in bar charts the water and electricity
consumption rates, with the defined service benchmarks. For the spider
web charts, we divide the indicators into percentage indicators (access
to services) and per capita indicators (average household income and
per capita consumption/generation rates).
The percentage indicators do not have to be normalized, as they are
already in absolute terms, and are plotted for slum and non-slum urban
populations. The other indicators are in per capita per year units, and are
normalized by dividing the value for the slum population by the average
value of that indicator for the corresponding non-slum urban
population.
2.6. Scenario definitions
Considering that providing sufficient and universal basic services is
pivotal for urban sustainability, we estimate future waste collection,
treated water, and electricity services demand in 2030 under four
scoping scenarios. The baseline for each city is determined with the
information collected in the most recent urban censuses (for slum and
non-slum populations), and complemented by data in Table 2, using,
2010/2011 data where possible. The non-slum population indicators are
calculated based on the slum and average urban population data.
In all future scenarios, we adopt official urban population projections
for 2030 (Fundação Seade, 2015; United Nations, 2016). However, these
projections do not discern slum from non-slum populations, which
usually have different growth rates. Therefore, we project slum pop­
ulations independently, based on historic slum growth rates (details in
SM, Section A.5). We then calculate non-slum population as the differ­
ence between the official (total) urban population projection and our
own slum population projection. Due to data limitations, we develop the
projections based only on historical data, not accounting for other
forward-looking factors (government policies, migration trends, envi­
ronmental hazards, etc.). We conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the
effect of alternative slum/non-slum population shares on the results,
assessing a ±50% change in the projected slum populations for 2030.
Finally, we estimate the total basic service demands for 2030 based
on the rates and percentage of access described below in the scenarios,
and calculated the total percentage increase in basic service demand
based on the ratio of the total demand in each 2030 scenario to the total
baseline demand in 2010/2011. Although per capita resource con­
sumption tends to increase over time as it is linked to economic growth
(UNEP, 2011), none of our scenarios projected growth in future elec­
tricity/water consumption beyond current and/or minimum benchmark
levels, as there are insufficient data to create reliable projections. Thus,
this study roughly estimates future urban scenarios, but more detailed
projections of slum and non-slum population, and/or more detailed
bottom-up modeling of infrastructure needs and resource use could
improve the precision of our results.

4
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
For this analysis, we assume that average service levels apply only to
those with access, and that those without access implicitly have zero
consumption from formal sources. In many cases, zero consumption
more likely represents water/electricity consumed from unsafe, unreli­
able or informal sources. We considered higher service rates for non-
slums than slums (based on the average demands found in the litera­
ture). Thus, scenarios with a higher percentage of non-slums (with the
same total population), result in higher total demand for services, even
when looking at universal services for both slum and non-slum pop­
ulations. Our four main scenarios are as follows:
2.6.1. Fixed scenario
In 2030, (i) the percentage of access to basic services for slum and
non-slums remain as in the baseline; (ii) per capita water/electricity
consumption rates for slum and non-slums will remain as in the baseline
(2010/2011); (iii) the service deficits are related to the percentage in­
dicators of access (i.e., populations, slum and non-slum, that supposedly
have a demand for basic services, but do not have access to the public
supply), so the deficit corresponds to the amount of solid waste gener­
ated but not collected, and the water and electricity consumed from
unsafe, unreliable, or informal sources.
2.6.2. Universal Access (UAC) scenario
In 2030, (i) there will be universal access to all basic services; (ii)
slum water/electricity consumption rates will meet the minimum rec­
ommended benchmarks (if not there yet) see Table 2;
2.6.3. Non-slum Decrease (NSD) scenario
In 2030 (i) there will be universal access to all basic services; (ii) per
capita slum water/electricity consumption rates will meet the minimum
recommended benchmarks (if not there yet; see Table 2); (iii) there will
be a 10% decrease in baseline water/electricity consumption and solid
waste generation rates for non-slums (this was based on Nagpure et al.
(2018) analysis of inequality in consumption of basic services across
urban socioeconomic quintiles in India).
Fig. 1. From a total of 122 studies reviewed, (a) illustrates the number of studies by publication date in 5 year intervals; (b) the number of studies by analyzed region
or country, and (c) the number of studies by type of publication and language.
5
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
2.6.4. Equal Increase (EQU) scenario
In 2030, (i) there will be universal access to all basic services; (ii) per
capita slum water/electricity consumption rates will meet the minimum
recommended benchmarks (if not there yet; see Table 2); (iii) there will
be a calculated decrease in average per-capita service demand for the
total city population so that total demand will remain the same as the
Fixed Scenario.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Indicators occurrence
The main characteristics of the reviewed literature are summarized
in Fig. 1 (SM, Table A.1) provides more details on the studies). There has
been a significant increase in publications on slum infrastructure in the
past 20 years (Fig. 1a), which might indicate and/or be a consequence of
an increase in data availability and awareness of the importance of these
settlements to urban sustainability. SM, Section A.3, presents a com­
parison between the increase in slum-specific literature and the increase
in all urban infrastructure literature. The topics show a similar increase
in publications in the last 20 years, with the highest number of papers
published in the past five years (2014-2018), but the total number of
slum urban infrastructure papers corresponded to less than 2% of all
papers published on general urban infrastructure topics. We calculate
the 2% based on: Number of papers that appear under the search terms
“slum urban infrastructure” - which we reviewed divided by Total
number of papers that appear under the search term “urban
infrastructure”.
Considering the studies focused on slum infrastructure, most were
published in English (Fig. 1c), and most focused on Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) (Fig. 1b). The
studies cover 19 developing countries, with the majority (70%) being
about slums in India (30%), favelas in Brazil (19%), and informal set­
tlements in Kenya (12%) and South Africa (9%).
Fig. 2 presents the indicators that have an occurrence close to or
above 5% across the literature (i.e. appeared in more than five studies),
providing a picture of which slum characteristics were most frequently
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
0%
Fig. 2. Percentage of occurrence (top x-axis) and number of studies (bottom x-axis) of different quantitative slum indicators across the reviewed literature grouped
into different categories: demographics, health, education, economy, dwelling characteristics, land, access to basic services, and transportation. The figure shows
only indicators with occurrence close to 5% (in 5 or more studies).
assessed. Other indicators that do not meet the cut-off criteria, but are
identified in some studies are listed in SM, Section A.4. Studies on
informal settlements usually explore data related to dwelling charac­
teristics, demographics, and access to basic services, especially access to
treated water, which was addressed in almost 50% of all studies (Fig. 2).
Among the access to basic services indicators, solid waste generation is
the least studied (24% occurrence). Fewer studies present data on
dwelling infrastructure, whose specific characteristics have less than
20% occurrence, apart from security of tenure. Indicators on trans­
portation, health, land, economy, and education are the least studied by
the existing slum infrastructure literature (having less than 10%
occurrence for almost all indicators). Average family income is an
exception, appearing in almost 35% of the studies.
Considering that priority is given to different development concerns
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
according to the level of development of a region, issues of survivability
(e.g. food, health care, water, and sanitation) usually come before other
human development concerns can be addressed (Fischer & Amekudzi,
2011). Thus, although indicators such as access to green spaces, number
of available schools, and access to transportation are also infrastructure-
related topics and essential for the well-being of a population, the lack of
the most basic services still prevails in slums, receiving greater research
attention. Moreover, the terms we searched for targeted “urban infra­
structure” in a broader sense, but when a targeted search was made for
“slum health indicators” or “WASH”, for example, more health and well-
being-related indicators were identified. The results are included in the
Supplemental Material (section A.2). They showed that when more
specific key words were searched, other indicators became more
recurrent. This means that some papers could have been missed out due
6
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
to the nature of search terms used (i.e. Ahmed, 2014; Gopal & Nagendra,
2014; Parikh et al., 2015). The difference in the findings might indicate a
slight disconnect between what different academic communities quan­
titatively study on the living conditions in slums.
3.2. Inequality webs
Based on the most frequently assessed indicators across slum urban
infrastructure literature, we create a portrait of the selected cities’ urban
inequalities (illustrated in the spider charts in Fig. 3), based on the
baseline, while.
Fig. 4 represents per capita water/electricity consumption and solid
waste generation rates. From Fig. 3 (a and b), it is possible to see that, in
the Brazilian cities, the percentage of access to basic services in slums is
just slightly lower than the non-slum access (shown on the left-hand side
of the figures), with the greatest discrepancies being in the access to
improved sanitation in Sao Paulo.
There is also a lower rate of solid waste collection in the Sao Paulo
slums, which might be attributed to their location in physically
7
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
inaccessible areas that are challenging for waste collection trucks to
reach. The smaller gap in access to infrastructure in Brazilian slums,
compared to those in other cities, is related to a shift in favela policy in
the country in the late 1980s, towards upgrading favelas rather than
eliminating them (Pilo’, 2017). Since then, the fight for access to basic
services in the urban peripheries has been strongly connected to a
strengthening citizenship and attempt to reaffirm the slum-dwellers’
right to the city (Holston, 2008), with infrastructure upgrading playing a
pivotal part in guaranteeing and reshaping this right (Pilo’, 2017).
Compared to the Brazilian cities, Lima shows a more significant gap
between access to basic services in slums and non-slums, especially
regarding water and sanitation. In contrast to the situation for access to
services in Brazilian cities described above, the slum/non-slum gap in all
three Latin American cities is quite striking for the per capita indicators
(on the right-hand side of Fig. 3). The average income in the slum
population is notably lower than in the non-slum population (approxi­
mately 65% lower in the three cities), which could be one of the drivers
of the smaller rates of electricity/water consumption and solid waste
generation in Latin American slums. Another relevant driver could be
Fig. 3. Normalized Average Household Income
(Average Income), Average Water Consumption
(Water-C), Average Electricity Consumption
(Electricity-C), Average Solid Waste Generation
(Waste-Gen), Access to Treated Water (Water-A),
Access to Improved Sanitation (Sanitation-A),
Access to Electricity (Electricity-A), and Access
to Solid Waste Collection (Waste-Col) for slum
and non-slum urban populations in (a) Sao
Paulo, (b) Rio de Janeiro, (c) Lima, (d) Johan­
nesburg, (e) Mumbai, (f) Hyderabad.
T.C.G. Trindade et al. Cities 110 (2021) 103050

Fig. 4. (a) Residential electricity consumption in kWh/capita for slum (light orange) and non-slum populations (dark orange) and (b) residential water consumption
in L/capita.day for slum (light blue) and non-slum populations (dark blue), with selected minimum benchmarks. Data sources for electricity: (Borchers et al., 2000;
Cervi, 2010; City of Johannesburg, 2008; Fondo de Inclusión Social Energético (FISE), 2015; Government of Telangana, 2016; Governo do Estado de Sao Paulo, 2017;
Instituto Trata Brazil, 2015; Mimmi, 2012; Rojas & Lallement, 2007; T. L. V. da. Silva, 2003; Sreekumar & Josey, 2012). Data sources for water: (Dias et al., 2010;
Goldblatt, 1999; Instituto Nacional de Estatdistica e Informatica (INEI)., 2014; Shaban & Sharma, 2007; Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Saneamento (SNIS),
2016; USAID, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c; WCCD, 2018). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

the high rates of water and electricity consumption in the average urban
area (Fig. 3a), especially in Rio, where the water consumption rate is
twice that of Sao Paulo’s, showing room for improvement towards a
more sustainable use of resources in non-slum areas.
The city of Johannesburg presents the greatest gap both in terms of
per capita and percentage indicators (Fig. 3d). Aside from access to solid
waste collection, Johannesburg’s informal settlements’ indicators are all
60% lower than the non-slum ones.
Fig. 4 makes the difference in electricity and water consumption
rates even more evident, with the latter being almost 80% lower than the
adopted minimum benchmark for water consumption (100 L/capita/
day). Considering that almost 20% of Johannesburg’s population lives in
informal settlements, this critical gap indicates a serious discrepancy
between slum and non-slum communities. The gap might be a conse­
quence of Johannesburg’s apartheid legacy, which marginalized a sig­
nificant portion of the population by the imposition of racial
segregation, community dislocation, and entrenched inequalities in the
built urban environment (Turok, 1994).
The Indian cities, Mumbai and Hyderabad, also report considerable
gaps between slums and non-slums indicators. However, in their cases,
not only the slums, but also the non-slum populations do not have
universal access to all basic services, especially in Mumbai. In India,
inequalities in water and sanitation services exist both within and be­
tween cities (Saroj et al., 2019). Within cities, spatial inequalities are
striking across economic status, housing types, educational level, socio-
religious groups, and the occupational structure, especially regarding
access and availability to basic services (Saroj et al., 2019).
According to Murthy (2012), the rapid rise in urbanization led to
pervasive poor living conditions and high population density in the
slums of Mumbai, generally located on environmentally hazardous land.
Moreover, the water supply is not equally distributed, with higher access
and consumption in high-income communities with piped infrastruc­
ture. In Mumbai’s slums, access to treated water and sanitation services
is usually insufficient or inexistent and waterborne diseases are frequent
and widespread (Murthy, 2012). Hyderabad presents a similar profile,
where improved access to basic services is hampered by economic
(poverty), spatial (intra-city and intra-slum geography), social (group
identity discrimination), governmental (extent of government recogni­
tion), and political (shallow or captured representation) factors (Pierce,
2017). The city was also urbanized rapidly due to population growth
coupled with economic development, which resulted in severe socio­
economic and environmental consequences (Franco et al., 2017).
Access to basic services is traditionally measured and monitored by
the percentage of the population connected to the service. However, in
Fig. 3, the gap between per capita and percentage indicators shows that
guaranteeing physical access may not be enough to ensure that basic
services are equitably distributed across the city. This illustrates how
quantitative indicators alone are not sufficient to characterize infra­
structure in slums and their associated inequalities. Thus, guaranteeing
universal access by 2030 should not be seen as a binary (access/no ac­
cess), as governments should also ensure that these services are deliv­
ered with reliability, quality and sufficient quantity to all communities.
3.3. Future scenarios
It is widely accepted that the Global South will experience even
greater urbanization and population growth in the next decades adding
to the challenges these cities face in providing universal basic services to
their residents (UN-Habitat, 2016). Inspired by the aspirations of
SDG11, we scope four scenarios of waste collection, treated water, and
electricity consumption for the cities in 2030, starting from the baseline
described previously in Table 2, and Fig. 4 and Fig. 3. While the Fixed
Scenario assumes that use and access to basic services remain in 2030 as
in the baseline, the Universal Access (UAC) Scenario assumes 100%
access to services including minimum water/electricity benchmark
consumption levels (and with no change in use patterns if above the
benchmark), and the Non-slum Decrease (NSD) Scenario is similar to the
UAC, but with a 10% decrease in non-slum service use rates. The Equal
Increase (EQU) Scenario also assumes universal access to basic services,
but has a calculated decrease in average service demand for the total city
population so the total demand in 2030 remains the same as in the Fixed
Scenario.
The population projections are shown in Table 3, with more details
in SM, Section A.5. While we adopt the total urban populations

8
T.C.G. Trindade et al. Cities 110 (2021) 103050

Table 3
Slum and non-slum populations in 2010 and population projections for 2030.
City Type Baseline Population Baseline Population Population Increase 2030 Population 2030 Population
(millions) (%) (%) (millions) (%)

Sao Paulo Favela 1.3 12 5 1.4 11

Non-Favela 9.9 88 9 10.9 89
Total 11.2 100 9 12.3 100
Rio de Janeiro Favela 1.4 22 13 1.55 23
Non-Favela 4.9 78 8 5.35 77
Total 6.3 100 9 6.9 100
Lima BUMa 4.1 48 24 5.1 52
Non-BUM 4.4 52 8 4.7 48
Total 8.5 100 17 9.9 100
Johannesburg ISb 0.6 15 36 0.8 19
Non-IS 3.4 85 2 3.5 81
Total 4.0 100 7 4.3 100
Mumbai Slum 5.2 42 19 6.2 28
Non-Slum 7.2 58 124 16.2 72
Total 12.4 100 80 22.4 100
Hyderabad Slum 2.3 30 140 5.5 43
Non-Slum 5.4 70 33 7.2 57
Total 7.7 100 65 12.8 100
a
Barrios Urbanos Marginales (BUM).
b
Informal Settlements (IS).

Fig. 5. (a) Total residential solid waste generation (Mt), (b) total residential treated water demand (GL), and (c) total residential electricity demand (TWh), by city
for the baseline and fixed future scenario (Fixed 2030).

9
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
presented in official estimates (Fundação Seade, 2015; United Nations,
2016), we determine the share of slum/non-slum populations relative to
that total based on the results of our slum population projections. In the
past decades, the slum populations in all cities experienced a deceler­
ating growth rate compared to the total urban populations’. In Mumbai,
the number of people living in slums even decreased in absolute
numbers from 2001 to 2011. Based on this slowing trend in slum pop­
ulation growth observed in the historical data, we adopt the lowest
slum-population estimates resulting from our projections for 2030.
Due to a larger number of data points for Sao Paulo and Rio, we
calculate projections for these cities using three different methods (Lo­
gistic, Geometric Increase, and Arithmetic Increase). For Johannesburg,
Mumbai, and Hyderabad, only data on slum populations for 2001 and
2011 are available, so the Geometric Increase and Arithmetic Increase
methods are applied. For Lima, only slum population data for 2012 is
found, but Ministerio de Vivienda (2014) also provided the average
percentage population increase in the past decades, so the Geometric
Increase method is employed.
Considering that these population estimates have a high degree of
uncertainty, we conduct a sensitivity analysis to explore the effect of
alternative slum/non-slum population shares on the results (SM, Section
A.5). We hold the total population constant and estimate the results
related to a ± 50% change in the chosen projections results for slum
populations in 2030.
Using these methods, the slum populations are expected to grow in
all cities, but the percentage of the population that is slum residents is
expected to decrease in some urban areas (Sao Paulo and Mumbai). The
slum-population percentages estimated by the projection formulas differ
up to 15 percentage points from the baseline numbers. The 2030 Fixed
Scenario effectively represents an extension of the status quo and so is
the starting point for our analysis and comparison to the baseline.
Subsequent results for other scenarios are discussed below.
3.3.1. Fixed scenario results: an analysis of service deficits
Fig. 5 shows a breakdown of met and unmet services in the slum/
non-slum populations for both the baseline and the 2030 Fixed sce­
narios. The service deficits are calculated based on the percentage of the
population that does not have access to these services, but presumably
still has a demand for the service. Note that we treat lack of access as
equivalent to no consumption from the public supply, so these deficits
stem largely from lack of access and not just insufficient average con­
sumption (as relevant, see Fig. 4). If demand is not met by the public
supply, they may be obtaining the service from unsafe, unreliable and/
or informal sources.
Overall, the highest service deficits in 2030 for the Fixed Scenario are
related to treated water and solid waste collection. The increase in future
demand for both services is most significant in the Indian cities, which
are projected to experience the most rapid population growth and to
have the highest total and slum populations in 2030 (Table 2). If the
same percentages of solid waste collection are maintained in 2030 as in
the baseline and generation rates were to remain unchanged, uncol­
lected solid waste in 2030 would amount to 2700 kt in Mumbai (25% of
that total mass is from slums and 75% from non-slums, together repre­
senting 35% higher mass than what Mumbai’s largest landfill currently
receives annually (Ayub & Khan, 2011), and 500 kt in Hyderabad (20%
from slums and 80% from non-slums, and twice what their largest
landfill receives annually (Annepu, 2012). In Sao Paulo, the deficit in
collection would be around 300 kt (40% from slums and 60% from non-
slums), and 260 kt in Lima (40% from slums, 60% from non-slums), both
equivalent to 10% of the annual capacity of their respective largest
landfills (Prefeitura do Municipio de Sao Paulo, 2014; Red de Expertos
en Residuos - RED, 2018). Due to their larger population and higher
solid waste generation rate, usually the total mass of uncollected solid
waste is higher in the non-slum portion of each city, even though that
population segment has greater access to the collection service.
Mumbai’s water demand is marked by severe deficits in the Fixed
10
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
scenario (20% total) for both the slum and non-slum populations
(around 200 GL and 400 GL, respectively). Considering that the city has
a drinking water treatment annual installed capacity of 1423 GL (City of
Mumbai, n.d.), the water deficit in 2030 would be equivalent to over
40% of its current capacity. Hyderabad and Lima also have water con­
sumption rates below the benchmark in their slums, and their Fixed
scenarios show significant water deficits in 2030. In the Fixed scenario,
Hyderabad is projected to have a 35% deficit in total treated water de­
mand (100 GL in slums and 130 GL non-slums, equivalent to 60% of
their current treatment capacity) and Lima a 15% deficit (43 GL in slums
and 51 GL in non-slums, equivalent to 30% of their current treatment
capacity). With the exception of Lima, the remaining cities are close to
meeting minimum electricity benchmarks on average in the baseline,
though a) this does not account for local heterogeneity (e.g., between
slum households) and b) continuing to meet these benchmarks will
require a substantial expansion of electricity supply, especially in the
Indian cities.
The Brazilian cities are close to meeting minimum benchmarks on
average across all three service categories, but further analysis is
required regarding inter-household heterogeneity/inequality and plans
to maintain and enhance (or conserve and redistribute) current service
levels. For instance, in Sao Paulo, some favela-communities have
extremely poor living conditions, being far from the favela average ac­
cess illustrated in Fig. 4b. According to Marques and Saraiva (2017),
approximately 20% of the informal communities in the city have less
than 10% connection to sewerage systems, 80% connection to water
supply, 30% of solid waste collection, and 76% connection to the elec­
tricity grid, illustrating an heterogeneity among favela communities that
is lost when one observes average numbers. Therefore, although using
averages is useful to determine the general scope of the problem, more
detailed city-level studies, projects, and policies should employ methods
that account for those heterogeneities.
3.3.2. Percentage increase in basic services demand for scoping scenarios
compared to baseline
Based on SDG11, a key target for 2030 is to provide universal access
to all basic services, which is the focus of the three remaining scenarios.
Fig. 6 illustrates the percentage increase in total solid waste, treated
water, and electricity demand for all 2030 scoping scenarios compared
to the baseline. Mumbai presents the highest percentage increase in
demand for all services in all scenarios, followed by Hyderabad and
Lima. Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Johannesburg have lower per­
centage increases in demand, with only small differences between the
Fixed, Non-slum Decrease, and Equal Increase scenarios. In the Brazilian
cities, the 10% reduction among non-slum residents in the Non-slum
Decrease scenario would nearly offset the entire 2030 increase of all
services, except for solid waste generation in Sao Paulo. These results are
subject to considerable uncertainties due the lack of slum-specific data
and the use of average per capita indicators.
In Lima, the Universal Access scenario would result in nearly double
the increase in service demand compared to the Fixed scenario (32% to
45% increase over 2010, depending on the service). Water demand
would have the highest growth due to a significant increase in water
consumption in slums. Lima experiences a persistent problem with
water shortages, in spite of recent upgrades in water infrastructure
(Ioris, 2012). According to Ioris (2012), the upgrades were not capable
of addressing recurrent water management problems, related especially
to the discriminatory treatment of the urban poor, and the rapid and
disorganized expansion of the metropolitan area, increasing the risks of
future water shortages.
Johannesburg is expected to experience the smallest total population
growth by 2030 (7%, see Table 3). However, due to the low rates of
access/consumption of water and electricity in the informal settlements,
the Universal Access scenario would result in an increase of almost 20%
in the total demand for these services. For the Indian cities, while the
increase in service demand for the Fixed and Equal Increase scenarios
T.C.G. Trindade et al. Cities 110 (2021) 103050

Fig. 6. Change in a) solid waste collection, b) treated water demand, and c) electricity demand for 2030 scoping scenarios by city. All values are percentages relative
to baseline. The upper error bar values are associated with a 50% decrease in the 2030 slum population projections and the lower error bar values, a 50% increase in
the 2030 slum population projections (while the total population officially projected for 2030 is assumed to remain constant).

were similar to the population growth in 2030, universal access and
increased water consumption would almost double water and waste
collection demands over 2010.
The error bars in Fig. 6 represent the sensitivity analysis results for
the ±50% change in slum population in 2030. The results for the cities
with smaller baseline slum population shares (Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro,
and Johannesburg) are less sensitive to the change in slum population in
2030 (max ±13 percentage point change). The results for the cities with
larger baseline slum population shares (Lima) or that are expecting large
population growth (Mumbai and Hyderabad) are more sensitive to the
changes in slum population. A decrease in slum population (while the
total 2030 population remains fixed) would result in a larger non-slum
population, leading to larger total future service demands. The nega­
tive values in the Fixed scenario (Lima and Johannesburg, Fig. 6) mean
that the non-slum population would be smaller than in the baseline. The
negative values in the Non-slum Decrease scenario (Sao Paulo, Rio,
Lima, and Johannesburg, Fig. 6) mean that reducing 10% of non-slum
service demands would result in total service demands smaller than
the baseline. SM, Section A.5 provides more details on the sensitivity
analysis results.
3.3.3. Equal increase scenario decrease in service demand rates
In the Equal Increase (EQU) scenario, we calculate a decrease in
average service demand for the non-slum population so the total service
demand in 2030 would remain the same as the Fixed scenario, but with
universal access to all services. Table 4 summarizes the results. The
decrease in non-slum service demand would be the highest for resi­
dential water consumption in Hyderabad and Lima (around 50%). For
residential electricity consumption, average per capita consumption
would have to drop from 20% to 35%, except for Sao Paulo, where even
a minimal decrease would suffice. Although the service consumption
rates would have to drop remarkably in some cases, even after this
decrease, the non-slum demand would still be considerably higher than
the slums’ current averages (except for water consumption in Hyder­
abad). While the results for Sao Paulo, Rio, and Johannesburg are not
very sensitive to the changes in slum population in 2030 (holding total
population at a single projected level), Lima, Mumbai, and Hyderabad’s
results were more sensitive to them (more details in SM, Section A.5).
The baseline electricity and water consumption in non-slum areas in
the six cities are similar to those in the Global North, showing potential
room for improvement towards a more sustainable use of resources.
According to data available on the World Council on City Data Portal

11
T.C.G. Trindade et al. Cities 110 (2021) 103050

Table 4
Decrease in baseline solid waste generation, water consumption, electricity consumption, and required average rates for the year 2030 under the Equal Increase
scenario, assuming universal access to all services.
Service Parameters Sao Paulo Rio de Janeiro Lima Johannesb. Mumbai Hyderabad

Solid waste generation Baseline average (tonnes/capita/year) 0.4 0.52 0.22 0.4 0.34 0.22
Total decrease in EQU scenario (%) 7 9.5 41 14 43 46
(±1)a (±6)a (±15)a (±6)a (±8)a (±14)a
EQU non-slum generation 2030 (tonnes/capita/year) 0.38 0.51 0.2 0.38 0.25 0.15
Slum solid waste generation 2010/11 (tonnes/capita/year) 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.07
Slum solid waste generation 2030 (tonnes/capita/year) 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.07
Water consumption Baseline treated water consumption (litres/capita.day) 152 329 193 309 279 162
Total decrease in EQU scenario (%) 4 16 49 23 37 50
(± 1)a (± 10)a (± 20)a (± 5)a (± 11)a (± 13)a
EQU non-slum treated water consumption 2030 (litres/capita.day) 149 324 161 274 258 100
Slum treated water consumption 2010/11 (litres/capita.day) 129 129 60 23 100 81
Slum treated water consumption 2030 (litres/capita.day) 129 129 100 100 100 100
Electricity consumption Baseline electricity consumption (kWh/capita.year) 1000 2330 5 68 1552 1121 1279
Total decrease in EQU scenario (%) 5 17 41 20 20 35
(± 3)a (± 9)a (± 25)a (± 12)a (± 7)a (± 16)a
EQU non-slum electricity consumption 2030 (kWh/capita.year) 986 2281 487 1377 1233 1059
Slum electricity consumption 2010/11 (kWh/capita.year) 713 800 283 670 540 432
Slum electricity consumption 2030 (kWh/capita.year) 713 800 300 670 540 432
a
± Error values are associated with a ±50% change in the 2030 slum population projections.

(WCCD), the estimated average annual electricity consumption of non-
slum areas in Sao Paulo, Mumbai, and Hyderabad are similar to those
in London and Barcelona (1350 to 1550 kWh/capita), and Rio’s non-
slum electricity consumption is higher than Los Angeles and Bris­
bane’s (2 100 kWh/capita). Water consumption is similar, where Sao
Paulo, Hyderabad, and Lima’s non-slum consumption is similar to
Brisbane, London, and Barcelona’s (150 to 200 L/capita/day), and Rio
and Mumbai non-slum areas are as high as Dubai and Toronto’s (be­
tween 300 and 400 L/capita/day).
Sustainable urban settlements should promote a healthy living
environment through balancing the exploitation of natural resources for
human development and environmental protection and guaranteeing
the fulfillment of economic, social, and political needs (Mani et al.,
2005). Although decoupling economic and population growth from
extensive use of resources is challenging and emerging economies show
a steady increase of resource flows (UNEP, 2011), when sustainable
consumption behaviors are promoted among high-consuming pop­
ulations, universal basic services can be provided with small changes in
material-energy requirements (Nagpure et al., 2018).
Based on these results, achieving universal access to basic services by
2030 might seem like a daunting task for these cities and the challenges
vary by city. Access to basic services in Sao Paulo and Rio are close to
universal and the cities do not expect significant population growth.
Thus, universal access could be achievable by 2030 if they adopt
appropriate policies. In contrast, cities with large and rapidly growing
slum populations (e.g. Mumbai and Hyderabad) require major in­
vestments from the government. However, these challenges are not
impossible to overcome. For instance, despite a 25% growth in popu­
lation between 1980 and 1990, Singapore managed to increase its
household sewage collection rate from 75% to universal in less than a
decade (Otaki, 2004). The city is well known by an approach to water
management that not only relies on development of physical infra­
structure, but also emphasizes proper legislation and enforcement,
water pricing, public education as well as research and development
(Luan, 2010).
Nevertheless, most of the cities studied here plan to address these
challenges in the coming decades. By 2020, Sao Paulo plans to invest
more than US $350 million in the provision and improvement of basic
services for approximately 27,500 families living in favelas (Prefeitura
do Municipio de Sao Paulo, 2017), which could nearly universalize basic
services provision. Similarly for Rio, it is estimated that the city has to
invest around US $1 billion to expand water and sanitation services to
almost three billion residents (FIRJAN - Federação das Indústrias do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro, 2017). Lima expects to achieve 100% coverage
for treated water by 2021 (Gobierno del Peru, 2017), and Johannes­
burg’s development plan asserts that the city will be water secure by
2040 (City of Johannesburg, 2017). We did not find specific targets for
future access to basic services in Mumbai and Hyderabad. While the
above plans are promising, challenges like the discontinuous nature of
public administration, corruption, limited resources, and divergent
governance interests could potentially hamper implementation of plans
such as these, as noted by Weinstein (2008) and Ezeh et al. (2017).
4. Conclusions
Addressing the “slum challenge” is essential for urban sustainability
and the capacity of cities to provide a minimum quality of life to their
residents. To addresses this challenge, this paper reviews how slums are
currently characterized by quantitative studies and scopes out the
challenge of providing them with universal basic services by 2030. The
paper answers the following questions:
(i) Overall, which quantitative indicators have been the focus of
existing studies in the broad literature on slum infrastructure?
According to the results and challenges raised here, there are limited
quantitative data on infrastructure in slums and the literature has
focused on the study of quantitative indicators for percentage access to
basic services. Few studies look at patterns of water and electricity
consumption, or waste generation, and even fewer provide information
on infrastructure related to transportation, education, and quality of life
in slums. Thus, future research efforts should delve more into quanti­
tative assessments of slum indicators, going beyond simple metrics of
access related to connection to the public supply, and also accounting for
quantity, quality, and reliability of the service. Future studies are also
warranted on analysing other indicators that are paramount for under­
standing the living conditions of slum dwellers, but are rarely addressed
in the slum urban infrastructure literature.
(ii) How can these indicators be used to increase understanding of
infrastructure gaps in slum settlements? What are their
limitations?
Due to data limitations, our analysis focuses primarily on current
access to basic services (water, waste, and electricity) and future scoping
scenarios, unveiling that the size and types of infrastructure challenges
are different for different cities in the Global South. Our study shows that
quantitative indicators facilitate the visualization and monitoring of

12
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
infrastructure gaps between slum and non-slum settlements, which can
be used to inform future plans, programs and projects that aim to
ameliorate the living conditions of these populations. For instance, in
the Latin American cities covered here, the percentage of access to basic
services in slums is just slightly lower than the average city access, but
the gap between the communities broadens when per capita indicators
are compared. In Johannesburg, the discrepancy between slum and non-
slum communities is evident for both per capita and percentage in­
dicators. The same is the case for the Indian cities, although their non-
slum communities also do not have universal access to basic services.
However, quantitative indicators alone are not enough to fully un­
derstand the realities of slum settlements. Looking at access, for
instance, monitoring physical access to basic services is not sufficient to
guarantee that a certain service is reaching the communities with the
required quality, quantity, or reliability. In addition, there are aspects of
quality of life that are challenging to quantify (e.g. community
engagement, sense of belonging), which reinforces the importance of not
only a quantitative and qualitative approach, but a transdisciplinary
study of these communities.
Moreover, as demonstrated by our study, the lack of sufficient
quantitative data on slums poses a challenge for increasing the use of
these indicators in future projections, studies, or enhancement plans.
Our study is based on data on slum infrastructure and living conditions
from different sources. The slum censuses are the major sources of in­
formation for demographics and percentage of access, but we had to
augment these with other reports and journal articles to estimate per
capita water/electricity consumption and waste generation rates.
Considering the limited research on slum service use patterns, the data
resulted from different studies from different years, which provided only
a high level quantitative assessment of current inequality of access to
services and access in the future scoping scenarios, indicating a latent
need for more bottom-up/detailed studies on the topic. Also due to data
limitations and the lack of official slum-specific population projections
for the cities, we estimate the slum population in 2030 using population
projection formulas, fitting historical data into projection curves, which
fails to account for other factors. Moreover, the analyses are based on
benchmarks and average per capita indicators. Although they are useful
to determine the general scope of the problem, more detailed city-level
studies should employ methods that account for the heterogeneities
within slum settlements and between slum and non-slum populations.
(iii) How can these indicators assist in evaluating the challenges of
achieving universal access to basic services (as per SDG 11)?
Quantitative indicators on slum infrastructure can be used to scope
the challenges of achieving universal access to basic services, helping
stakeholders and policy makers to understand the potential size of the
challenges and better plan on how to tackle these issues. As shown by
this paper, by 2030, large cities in the developing world are expected to
experience rapid population growth, which might hamper their efforts
to provide universal access to basic services both to formal and informal
communities. Although providing universal access is a first step towards
urban sustainability, this does not translate directly into an equitable
distribution of resources, which is also influenced by other economic,
social, and political factors. Nevertheless, this could become more
feasible if municipalities focused not only on closing the gap between
the urban poor and the average urban population, but also on decou­
pling development from extensive use of resources, which could lessen
pressure on the world’s climate and the environment (UNEP, 2011).
Consumption and waste generation rates of the higher-income com­
munities within the studied cities are comparable to average rates in
some Global North cities, suggesting an opportunity for conservation,
bringing resource use to more sustainable levels. Investing in low-impact
technologies, efficient appliances, environmental education, and
behavioural change, could gradually decrease the average urban pop­
ulation’s demands, decreasing the demand for new infrastructure, and,
13
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
consequently, increasing the feasibility of providing accessible and
sufficient services to all urban residents.
Data availability
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear
in the submitted article or the SM.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tatiana C.G. Trindade: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi­
gation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Heather L. MacLean:
Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. I. Daniel
Posen: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funds from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council, the University of Toronto, and the Brikh
Bhan Goyal Award.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103050.
References
AGECC. (2010). Energy for a sustainable future: Report and recommendations (The
Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change).
Ahmed, I. (2014). Factors in building resilience in urban slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh
(Procedia Economics and Finance).
Annepu, R. K. (2012). Sustainable solid waste management in India. Columbia University.
AP Alliance for Child Rights. 2013. Are Our Cities Child Friendly? Prioritizing Children’s
Needs in Urban Planning & Development: A Case Study of Hyderabad. http://humaraba
chpan.org.
Ayub, S., & Khan, A. H. (2011). Landfill practice in India: A review (Journal of Chemical
and Pharmaceutical Research).
Bardhan, R., Debnath, R., Malik, J., & Sarkar, A. (2018). Low-income housing layouts under
socio-architectural complexities: A parametric study for sustainable slum rehabilitation
(Sustainable Cities and Society).
Baud, I., et al. (2010). Understanding heterogeneity in Metropolitan India: The added
value of remote sensing data for analyzing sub-standard residential areas.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation., 12(5),
359–374.
Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in
the slums of Calcutta. Social Indicators Research, 55, 329–352.
Borchers, M., et al. (2000). National Electrification Programme Evaluation: Summary report
(Cape Town).
Butera, Federico Maria, Paola Caputo, Rajendra Singh Adhikari, and Angelo Facchini.
2016. “Urban Development and Energy Access in Informal Settlements. A Review for
Latin America and Africa.” (In Procedia Engineering),.
Centre for Good Governance. (2008). Poverty reduction at city level: Strategy development
for Hyderabad (Urban Poverty Reduction Strategy for Hyderabad).
Cervi, J. L. (2010). A Pegada Ecológica Do Município Do Rio de Janeiro. Revista de La Red
Iberoamericana de Economia Ecologica, 15, 15–29.
City of Johannesburg. (2008). City of Johannesburg State of Energy Report 2008, 1, 67–77.
http://www.cityenergy.org.za/uploads/resource_48.pdf.
City of Johannesburg. 2017. Joburg 2040 Growth and Development Strategy.
City of Mumbai. (2018). Water Works. https://portal.mcgm.gov.in.
Cordano, A. V., et al. (2012). Acceso a La Energía En El Perú: Algunas Opciones de
Política. Lima http://www.osinergmin.gob.pe/seccion/centro_documental/Instit
ucional/Estudios_Economicos/Documentos_de_Trabajo/Documento_de_Trabajo_29.
pdf.
Silva, T. L. V.d. (2003). Estimativa de Padrao de Consumo Energetico de Comunidades
Carentes, Estudo de Caso - Complexo Da Mare. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Degert, I., Parikh, P., & Kabir, R. (2016). Sustainability assessment of a slum upgrading
intervention in Bangladesh. Cities., 56, 63–73.
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
Dias, D. M., Martinez, C. B., & Libânio, M. (2010). Avaliação Do Impacto Da Variação Da
Renda No Consumo Domiciliar de Água. Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental., 15(2),
155–166.
El Menshawy, Adel, Sherine Shafik Aly, and Ahmed Moussa Salman. 2011. “Sustainable
Upgrading of Informal Settlements in the Developing World, Case Study: Ezzbet Abd
El Meniem Riyadh, Alexandria, Egypt.” In Procedia Engineering.
Ezeh, A., et al. (2017). The history, geography, and sociology of slums and the health
problems of people who live in slums. The Lancet., 389(10068), 547–558.
FIRJAN - Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 2017. Saneamento No
Estado Do Rio de Janeiro: Cobertura e Oportunidades de Investimentos.
Fischer, J. M., & Amekudzi, A. (2011). Quality of life, sustainable civil infrastructure, and
sustainable development: Strategically expanding choice. Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, 137(39), 39–48.
Fondo de Inclusion Social Energetico (FISE). 2015. El Consumo Minimo de Energia
Electrica y Su Relacion Con La Seleccion de Beneficioarios Del Vale de Descuento.
http://www.fise.gob.pe/pags/PublicacionesFISE/El-consumo-minimo-energia-el
ectrica.pdf?2.
Fondo de Inclusión Social Energético (FISE). 2015. El Consumo Mínimo de Energía
Eléctrica y Su Relación Con La Selección de Beneficiarios Del Vale de Descuento.
http://www.fise.gob.pe/pags/PublicacionesFISE/El-consumo-minimo-energia-el
ectrica.pdf?2.
Franco, S., Mandla, V. R., & Rao, K. R. M. (2017). Trajectory of urban growth and its
socioeconomic impact on a rapidly emerging megacity. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 43(3), 04017002.
Fundação Seade. 2015. “Sistema Saede de Projeções Populacionais.” http://produtos.
seade.gov.br/produtos/projpop/.
Gobierno del Peru. 2017. Decreto Supremo Que Aprueba El Plan Nacional de Saneamiento
2017–2021.
Goldblatt, M. (1999). Assessing the effective demand for improved water supplies in
informal settlements: A willingness to pay survey in Vlakfontein and Finetown,
Johannesburg. Geoforum., 14(4), 439–462.
Gopal, D., & Nagendra, H. (2014). Vegetation in Bangalore’s slums: Boosting livelihoods,
well-being and social capital. Sustainability (Switzerland), 6(5), 2459–2473.
Government of India. (2011). 2011 census data. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/20
11-Common/CensusData2011.html.
Government of Maharashtra. (2009). Municipal solid waste management. http://mah
envis.nic.in/Pdf/MSW_.pdf.
Government of Telangana. 2016. Statistical Year Book 2016. http://www.telangana.gov.
in/PDFDocuments/Statistical-Year-Book-2016.pdf.
Governo do Estado de Sao Paulo. (2017). Anuário de Energéticos Por Município No Estado
de São Paulo - 2017 Ano Base 2016 (São Paulo).
Gulyani, S., Bassett, E. M., & Talukdar, D. (2014). A tale of two cities: A multi-
dimensional portrait of poverty and living conditions in the slums of Dakar and
Nairobi. Habitat International., 43, 98–107.
Holston, James. 2008. “Dangerous Spaces of Citizenship.” In Insurgent Citizenship:
Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil,.
IBGE. (2011). Censo Demografico 2010 - Aglomerados Subnormais (Primeiros Resultados).
IEA. (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris: International Energy Agency (IEA) of the
Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
Instituto Nacional de Estatdistica e Informatica (INEI). 2014. Anuario de Estadisticas
Ambientales 2013.
Instituto Trata Brazil. 2015. Saneamento Basico Em Areas Irregulares Em Sao Paulo.
http://www.tratabrasil.org.br/estudos/estudos-itb/itb/saneamento-basico-em-area
s-irregulares-em-sao-paulo.
Ioris, A. A. R. (2012). The persistent water problems of Lima, Peru: Neoliberalism,
institutional failures and social inequalities. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,
33(3), 335–350.
Kohli, D., Sliuzas, R., Kerle, N., & Stein, A. (2012). An ontology of slums for image-based
classification. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst., 36(2), 154–163.
Kovacic, Z. (2018). Governing informality through representation: Examples from slum
policies in Brazil and South Africa. Cities. Available 102122.
Krishna, A., Sriram, M. S., & Prakash, P. (2014). Slum types and adaptation strategies:
Identifying policy-relevant differences in Bangalore. Environment and Urbanization.,
26(2), 568–585.
Kumar, V., & Pandit, R. K. (2013). Problems of solid waste Management in Indian Cities.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(3).
Kumaran, T. Vasantha, and Divya Rajeswari Swaminathan. 2015. “Local Action Planning
for Pro-Poor Urban Governance in the Southern Megacity of Chennai, India.”.
Luan, Ivy Ong Bee. (2010). Singapore water management policies and practices.
International Journal of Water Resources Development., 26(1), 65–80.
Mani, M., Varghese, K., & Ganesh, L. S. (2005). Integrated model framework to simulate
sustainability of human settlements. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131
(3), 147–158.
Marques, E., & Saraiva, C. (2017). Urban integration or reconfigured inequalities?
Analyzing housing precarity in São Paulo, Brazil. Habitat International., 69, 18–26.
Martínez, J., Mboup, G., Sliuzas, R., & Stein, A. (2008). Trends in urban and slum
indicators across developing world cities, 1990-2003. Habitat International., 32(1),
86–108.
Marx, B., Stoker, T., & Suri, T. (2013). The economics of slums in the developing world.
Journal of Economic Perspectives., 27(4), 187–210.
Mation, L. F., Nadalin, V. G., & Krause, C. (2014). Favelização No Brasil Entre 2000 e 2010:
Resultados de Uma Classificação Comparável (Texto para Discussão IPEA).
Matous, P., & Ozawa, K. (2010). Measuring social Capital in a Philippine Slum (Field
Methods).
Meredith, T., & MacDonald, M. (2017). Community-supported slum-upgrading:
Innovations from Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya. Habitat International., 60, 1–9.
14
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
Mimmi, Luisa. 2012. Assessing the Demand for Improved Electricity in Urban Slums:
Findings from a Baseline Household Survey in Mumbai.
Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento - MVCS. (2014). Situación de Los
Barrios Urbano Marginales En El Perú 2012 (Lima).
Moser, C. O. N. (1998). The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty
reduction strategies. World Development., 26(1), 1–19.
Moura, L. L. M.d. (2004). Perfil Socio-Economico Das Favelas Cariocas. Pontificia
Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro.
Murthy, S. L. (2012). Land security and the challenges of realizing the human right to
water and sanitation in the slums of Mumbai, India. Health and Human Rights., 14(2),
E61–E73.
Murungi, Caroline. 2016. “Benchmarking for the Provision of Water Supply and
Sanitation Services to the Urban Poor: An Assessment Framework.” Int. J. Water Vol.
10(Nos. 2/3): 155–74.
Nagpure, A. S., Reiner, M., & Ramaswami, A. (2018). Resource requirements of inclusive
urban development in India: Insights from ten cities. Environmental Research Letters.,
13(2), 025010.
Ooi, G. L., & Phua, K. H. (2007). Urbanization and slum formation. Journal of Urban
Health., 84(Suppl 1), 27–34.
Otaki, Y. (2004). Water systems and urban sanitation in Tokyo and Singapore during the 19th
to 20th centuries (In 6th International Summer Academy on Technology Studies).
Oxford English Dictionary. (2017). Oxford English dictionary online (Oxford English
Dictionary).
Pachauri, S. (2011). Reaching an international consensus on defining modern energy
access. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability., 3(4), 235–240.
Parikh, P., et al. (2015). Infrastructure provision, gender, and poverty in Indian slums.
World Development., 66, 468–486.
Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme (PSUP). 2016. Slum Almanac 2015/2016:
Tracking Improvement in the Lives of Slum Dwellers. https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/02-old/Slum_Almanac_2015-2016_EN.pdf.
Patel, A., Koizumi, N., & Crooks, A. (2014). Measuring slum severity in Mumbai and
Kolkata: A household-based approach. Habitat International., 41, 300–306.
Patel, A., Shah, P., & Beauregarda, B. E. (2020). Measuring multiple housing deprivations
in urban India using slum severity index. Habitat International, 101(102190).
Pierce, G. (2017). Why is basic service access worse in slums? A synthesis of obstacles.
Development in Practice., 27(3), 288–300.
Pilo’, Francesca. (2017). A socio-technical perspective to the right to the city:
Regularizing electricity access in Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research., 41(3), 396–413.
Prefeitura do Municipio de Sao Paulo. 2014. Plano de Gestão Integrada de Resíduos
Sólidos Da Cidade de Sao Paulo. http://www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretaria
s/upload/servicos/arquivos/PGIRS-2014.pdf.
Prefeitura do Municipio de Sao Paulo. 2017. Planeja Sampa: Programa de Metas
2017–2020.
Red de Expertos en Residuos - RED. 2018. Gestión de Rellenos Sanitarios En América
Latina. https://www.ceddet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RESIDUOS-003.pdf.
Republic of South Africa. 2006. Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP):
Determining Current Domestic Waste Generation per Capita. http://iwmp.environ
ment.gov.za/guideline/2/2_2_3.
Rojas, Juan Manuel, and Dominique Lallement. 2007. Meeting the Energy Needs of the
Urban Poor: Lessons from Electrification Practitioners. http://documents.worldban
k.org/curated/en/646981468320656703/pdf/434740ESM0ESMA1Box0327368B0
1PUBLIC1.pdf.
Roy, D., Bernal, D., & Lees, M. (2020). An exploratory factor analysis model for slum
severity index in Mexico City. Urban Studies., 57(4), 1–17.
Saigal, A. (2008). Community caretaking and women volunteer teachers in Mumbai
slums. Economic and Political Weekly., 43(42), 69–75.
Saroj, S. K., Goli, S., Rana, M. J., & Choudhary, B. K. (2019). Availability, accessibility, and
inequalities of water, sanitation, and hygiene(WASH) Services in Indian Metro Cities
(Sustainable Cities and Society).
Schueler, Adriana Soares de, Humberto Kzure, and Gustavo Badolati Racca. (2018).
“Como Estão Os Resíduos Urbanos Nas Favelas Cariocas?” urbe (Revista Brasileira de
Gestão Urbana).
Shaban, A., & Sharma, R. N. (2007). Water consumption patterns in domestic households
in major cities. Economic and Political Weekly., 42(23), 2190–2197.
Shyamal, S., Moulik, S. G., & Sen, S. (2006). The Mumbai slum sanitation program:
Partnering with slum communities for sustainable sanitation in a megalopolis.
Shyu, C. W. (2014). Ensuring access to electricity and minimum basic electricity needs as
a goal for the post-MDG development agenda after 2015. Energy for Sustainable
Development., 19, 29–38.
Silva, T. L. V.d. (2003). Estimativa de Padrao de Consumo Energetico de Comunidades
Carentes, Estudo de Caso - Complexo Da Mare. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Saneamento (SNIS). 2016. SNIS - Série Histórica.
http://app3.cidades.gov.br/serieHistorica/#.
Smit, S., Musango, J. K., Kovacic, Z., & Brent, A. C. (2017). Conceptualising slum in an
urban African context. Cities., 62, 107–119.
Sreekumar N, and Ann Josey. 2012. Electricity in Megacities.
The Housing Development Agency - HDA. 2013. Gauteng: Informal Settlements Status
(2013). http://thehda.co.za/pdf/uploads/multimedia/HDA_Gauteng_Report_lr.pdf.
The Housing Development Agency (HAD). 2012. South Africa: Informal Settlements Status.
fromhttp://thehda.co.za/pdf/uploads/multimedia/HDA_Informal_settlements_stat
us_South_Africa.pdf.
The World Bank. (2011). Identification of low cost green options and their macro-
environmental impact final report.
The World Bank Group. (2015). Beyond connections: Energy access redefined (The World
Bank).
T.C.G. Trindade et al.
Turok, I. (1994). Urban planning in the transition from apartheid. part 1: The legacy of
social control. Town Planning Review., 65(3), 243–259.
UNEP. 2011. International Resource Panel Decoupling Natural Resource Use and
Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth.
UN-Habitat. (2016). Urbanization and development: Emerging futures (World Cities Report).
United Nations. (2016). The World’s cities in 2016: Data booklet (Economic and social
affair).
United Nations. (2018). Sustainable development goal 11.
United Nations. 2019. “Make Cities and Human Settlements Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and
Sustainable.” https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-11/.
USAID. (2016a). Drinking water supply for urban poor: City of Hyderabad.
USAID. (2016b). Drinking water supply for urban poor: City of Hyderabad.
USAID. (2016c). Drinking water supply for urban poor: City of Mumbai.
Wang, J., Kuffer, M., & Pfeffer, K. (2019). The role of spatial heterogeneity in detecting urban
slums. Environment and Urban Systems: Computers.
15
Cities 110 (2021) 103050
WCCD. 2018. “World Council of City Data.” http://www.dataforcities.org/ (October 25,
2018).
Weeks, John R. et al. 2007. “Can We Spot a Neighborhood from the Air? Defining
Neighborhood Structure in Accra, Ghana.” In GeoJournal,.
Weinstein, L. (2008). Mumbai’s development mafias: Globalization, organized crime and
land development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research., 32(1),
22–39.
WHO. (2005). Minimum water quantity needed for domestic use in emergencies (Technical
Notes for Emergencies).
WHO. 2008. “Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality THIRD EDITION INCORPORATING
THE FIRST AND SECOND ADDENDA Volume 1 Recommendations Geneva 2008
WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.” Guidelines for Drinking-water
Quality.