Informal settlements in the urban areas of Kerala are often spoken about as marginal pockets, but in reality they are deeply integrated into the functioning of the city. They house the workforce that cleans streets, builds buildings, delivers goods, cooks food, cares for the elderly, and keeps urban economies running. The problem is not their existence; it is the way cities refuse to acknowledge them as legitimate urban neighbourhoods deserving of full civic services.
Kerala’s informal settlements do not resemble the massive slums of larger metros. They are smaller, scattered, and embedded within mixed neighbourhoods—along canals, railway lines, industrial edges, market backstreets, and leftover land near infrastructure. Their invisibility makes them politically easy to ignore and administratively hard to plan for. Because they do not dominate the skyline, they rarely dominate policy attention.
These settlements emerge from structural gaps in housing supply. Urban job growth has outpaced affordable housing availability. Migrant workers, informal sector employees, and low-income service workers cannot access formal rental markets due to cost, documentation requirements, or discrimination. Informality becomes the only viable option close to workplaces. Distance is not a lifestyle choice; it is an economic constraint.
Basic services are uneven or absent. Water supply is often shared, informal, or tanker-dependent. Sanitation facilities are inadequate, leading to open defecation or overloaded toilets. Drainage is poor, making settlements highly vulnerable to flooding. Electricity connections may exist but are frequently unsafe or irregular. Waste collection is inconsistent, turning neighbourhoods into dumping zones for surrounding areas.
Health risks are amplified. Overcrowding, poor ventilation, contaminated water, and proximity to waste create ideal conditions for disease. During floods, heatwaves, or outbreaks, these settlements are hit first and hardest. Access to healthcare is hindered by distance, cost, and documentation barriers. Preventive care is a luxury few can afford.
Legal insecurity shapes daily life. Many residents lack tenure or formal recognition. Eviction threats—sometimes real, sometimes symbolic—hang constantly. This insecurity discourages investment in housing improvement. Why build a better roof if demolition could come tomorrow? Informality perpetuates itself through fear.
Children growing up in these areas face compounded disadvantage. Limited space, noise, poor lighting, and lack of study areas affect education. Schools may be nearby, but attendance fluctuates due to economic pressures and mobility. Intergenerational poverty becomes spatially reinforced.
Urban governance struggles to respond because informality cuts across departments. Housing, health, sanitation, labour, and social welfare intersect, but coordination is weak. Temporary relief measures replace long-term integration. Settlements are addressed during crises and forgotten afterward.
Public discourse often frames informal settlements as problems to be removed rather than communities to be upgraded. This framing justifies displacement in the name of development, beautification, or infrastructure. Relocation sites, when offered, are frequently distant from jobs, breaking livelihoods and social networks. The city solves a visual problem while creating deeper social and economic damage.
Yet informal settlements are not failures of residents; they are failures of planning. They represent unmet demand for affordable, well-located housing. Treating them as aberrations prevents cities from addressing the root cause.
Solving this requires a shift from erasure to integration. The first solution is recognition. Cities must formally identify and map informal settlements, not to police them, but to plan for services. What is unacknowledged cannot be improved.
In-situ upgrading should be the default approach. Where possible, settlements should be improved where they are, with water, sanitation, drainage, electricity, roads, and waste services. Upgrading preserves livelihoods, reduces disruption, and costs less than relocation when social impacts are considered.
Tenure security is critical. This does not always require full ownership titles. Long-term leases, no-eviction guarantees, or collective tenure arrangements can provide stability. Security encourages residents to invest in safer, better housing.
Housing quality must improve incrementally. Technical support, low-interest loans, and material assistance can enable households to strengthen structures, improve ventilation, and reduce fire risk. Small upgrades, when multiplied across settlements, dramatically improve safety and health.
Sanitation solutions must match density and context. Community toilets, decentralised wastewater treatment, and shared facilities can work when well-maintained and community-managed. Blanket assumptions about individual toilets often fail in constrained spaces.
Water access needs reliability, not just proximity. Formal connections, regular supply, and safe storage reduce disease burden. Informal tapping should be replaced with regulated access to ensure safety and accountability.
Drainage and flood resilience require priority. Many settlements sit in low-lying areas. Upgrading drains, restoring natural water paths, and elevating critical structures reduce recurring losses. Disaster preparedness at settlement level saves lives.
Health outreach must be proactive. Mobile clinics, community health workers, and preventive programs bridge access gaps. Health planning should treat informal settlements as priority zones, not residual areas.
Education support is essential. Study centres, after-school programs, and scholarships reduce dropout risk. When education stabilises, long-term dependence on informality weakens.
Affordable rental housing must expand citywide. Informal settlements persist because formal alternatives are absent. Public rental housing, incentives for low-cost private rentals, and dormitory-style housing for migrants can reduce pressure on informal land.
Labour and housing policy must align. Cities depend on informal labour but exclude workers from housing markets. Recognition of informal workers, portable benefits, and inclusive documentation systems reduce vulnerability.
Community participation is non-negotiable. Residents understand local risks, priorities, and social dynamics. Co-designing upgrades improves acceptance and effectiveness. Top-down solutions often fail because they misunderstand lived reality.
Eviction should be a last resort, not a planning tool. When relocation is unavoidable due to safety or infrastructure, it must be nearby, voluntary where possible, and livelihood-sensitive. Distance destroys more than homes; it destroys survival strategies.
Data and monitoring matter. Tracking service access, health outcomes, and upgrade progress ensures accountability. Informal does not mean unmeasurable.
Finally, political language must change. Informal settlements are not temporary blemishes waiting to be erased. They are enduring parts of the urban fabric shaped by economic reality. Cities that integrate them become more resilient, humane, and productive.
Kerala’s urban success depends on recognising that dignity is not a reward for formality. It is a prerequisite for a functioning city.
