Staff Reporter
Having a high number of people living in an area might not necessarily promote the spread of the coronavirus, but lack of meaningful economic activity could promote a rapid spread of the disease, a University of the Free State (UFS) lecturer has said.
Professor Ivan Turok, from the UFS Department of Economics and Finance and the Centre for Development Support, says the problem with the spread of COVID-19 is not about high volumes of people in an area, but the level of economic activity in that place.
Turok, who was part of a webinar discussion on ‘Urban Living Post-COVID-19’ on Friday, said urban density has been blamed for the spread of the virus with little or no focus put on the economic circumstances of the people.
“The fear of people crowding together has caused negative reactions from government, business and households,” said Turok, who also works with the Human Sciences Research Council.
“We need a more positive vision for the future than wearing masks and washing our hands.
“We need to be bolder and more imaginative about de-risking urban density.
“In other words, making crowded neighbourhoods safer and more secure for people to live in.
“Density poses multiple risks to residents. How do we reduce these risks in ways that generate wider benefits, rather than business as usual – forcing people to change their behaviour and follow protocols?”
Turok sat on the panel with Dr Geci Karuri-Sebina who manages the research programme at the South African Cities Network and has two decades of experience working and publishing in the fields of urban development, innovation and foresight as well as Govender who is the architect and founder of UrbanWorks.
They analysed how COVID-19 challenges urban living, social distancing and the de-densification of cities as South Africa is close to having 70 percent of its population living in urban areas.
Turok said while big cities have been more affected compared to smaller towns and rural areas in terms of infections and the number of deaths, there are far more problems in the townships and informal settlements than in the suburbs linked to economic activity.
He said South Africa’s townships and informal settlements are bearing the brunt of the disease, on top of all their existing problems of unemployment, poverty, hunger and crime.
In Cape Town, for example, he said the southern and northern suburbs as well as the city centre have been hardly affected by the virus, but infections have been very high in the Cape Flats, including Khayelitsha, Langa, Gugulethu, Philippi and Mitchells Plain.
“Incomes in the Cape Flats are also much lower than elsewhere in the city. So, there is a correspondence between density and the disease,” said Turok.
He lamented the fact that discussions about the pandemic have so far focused on the negative aspects of urban density for the risk of transmission.
This, he said, ignores all the benefits of dense urban living.
Turok said physical distancing can be socially and economically damaging because he believes intense human interaction fosters learning and creativity and raises productivity and innovation.
He said concentrated populations generate economies of scale in the provision of infrastructure and institutions such as universities.
“Attempts to force people apart through de-densification undermine all kinds of personal networks, weaken the social fabric of communities and erode the economic advantages of proximity that are so important for cities.”
He pointed out that at the moment, the government’s response to the crisis facing the country’s poorest communities is uninspiring.
Turok suggested that a key part of a lasting solution can be summed up as building economic density.
This involves increasing investment in two- or three-storey buildings to give people more living space and to free up land at ground-floor level to accommodate essential infrastructure and more public space for markets and social interaction.
He said a better living and working environment would strengthen community resilience to public-health problems and promote all-round development.
“We need to understand that people crowding together in dense informal settlements is a symptom of something more fundamental, namely poverty,” said Turok.
“The pressure on land reflects the fact that low-income households can’t afford the space standards of middle- and upper-income groups.
“Forcing people apart – or to stay home – to reduce the risk of transmission just treats the symptoms of the problem.
“It cannot be a lasting solution.
“It doesn’t build resilience to confront the multiple challenges facing poor communities.
“We need to de-risk urban density through tangible investment, rather than forced distancing or dispersal.
“This will help to bring about far-reaching improvements to people’s lives in cities.
“At the moment, the lack of economic density in impoverished communities is a much bigger problem than excessive population densities.”