Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
31 August 2020 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied
Prof Ivan Turok
Prof Ivan Turok

The number of people infected by the coronavirus is linked to the density of urban living. 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. This is a disturbing situation and demands greater attention across society.

This is according to Prof Ivan Turok from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the Department of Economics and Finance, and the Centre for Development Support at the University of the Free State (UFS), who has recently been awarded a Research Chair in City-Region Economies at the UFS by the South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI).

Prof Turok was part of a webinar discussion on ‘Urban Living Post-COVID-19’ with Dr Geci Karuri-Sebina – who manages the research programme at South African Cities Network and who has two decades’ experience working and publishing in the fields of urban development, innovation, and foresight – and Mr Thireshen Govender, architect and founder of UrbanWorks. They analysed how COVID-19 challenges urban living, social distancing, and the de-densification of cities as South Africa heads towards 70% of its population living in urban areas.

According to Prof Turok, urban density has been blamed for the spread of the virus. “The fear of people crowding together has caused negative reactions from government, from business, and from households. This is unlikely to be a short-lived, temporary phenomenon. It will be with us for some time to come.”

“The virus poses an ongoing risk to society, with the prospect of second and third waves taking hold. A lockdown could be re-imposed and further efforts could be made to enforce distancing and de-densification of cities, particularly our densest settlements,” said Prof Turok.

 

De-risking urban density

There was a simple but compelling idea at the heart of his presentation, which should also be “at the heart of a more effective and inclusive response to the pandemic”. At the moment, the government’s response to the crisis facing our poorest communities is uninspiring. “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?”

With reference to New York, which was severely affected by the virus, Prof Turok showed that it was not density per se that was the problem, but rather the type of density. The densest part of the city (Manhattan) was far less affected by the virus than poorer outlying communities. “This gives us a clue that more floor space in taller buildings helps to prevent crowding and makes density more liveable,” said Prof Turok.

The reality in South Africa is also different when you drill down and distinguish between different kinds of places. Big cities have been affected worse than towns and rural areas – in terms of the incidence of infections and the number of deaths. Within cities, there have been far more problems in the townships and informal settlements than in the suburbs. In Cape Town, for example, the southern and northern suburbs and the central city have been barely affected by the virus. However, infections have been very high on the Cape Flats, including Khayelitsha, Langa, Gugulethu, Philippi, and Mitchells Plain.

“Population densities in some of these areas are more than 100 times higher than in the affluent suburbs. The differences are very striking.”

“Incomes on the Cape Flats are also much lower than elsewhere in the city. So, there is a correspondence between density and the disease, unlike New York,” says Prof Turok.

All the discussions about the pandemic so far has focused on the negative aspects of urban density for the risk of transmission. This ignores all the benefits of dense urban living. Intense human interaction fosters learning and creativity, which raises productivity and innovation. Concentrated populations generate economies of scale in the provision of infrastructure and institutions such as universities. Cities give firms greater choice of workers and vice versa.

 

Pure population density and economic density

Prof Turok continued by saying that physical distancing can be socially and economically damaging. “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.”

“We need to understand that people crowding together in dense informal settlements is a symptom of something more fundamental, namely poverty. 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,” said Prof Turok.

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. A better living and working environment would strengthen community resilience to public-health problems and promote all-round development. The idea of economic density offers a practical vision that can inspire hope in a better future, rather than the status quo of wearing masks in crowded places.

“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.”

News Archive

Hearing loss a silent public health crisis in South Africa
2017-03-27

Description: Hearing loss a silent public health crisis in South Africa Tags: Hearing, Deaf, World Hearing Day
Dr Magteld Smith engages on the topic of hearing loss
and how it coincides with the commemoration of
World Hearing awareness during the month of March.
Photo: Oteng Mpete 

Communication is a principal challenge for people with hearing loss. It can be difficult to negotiate everyday interactions, whether in the workplace, on the street, in classrooms, courts, during consultations with health professionals, or even when contacting the police. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) World Hearing Day is an annual advocacy event held each year on 3 March to raise awareness and promote ear and hearing care across the world. In many countries this awareness campaign usually starts on 3 March but many continue to create awareness for the full month of March. 

Hearing loss is a global reality
According to Dr Magteld Smith, a researcher at the University of the Free State (UFS) School of Medicine’s Department of Otorhinolaryngology, unaddressed hearing loss poses a high cost for the economy globally and has a significant impact on the lives of those affected. Interventions to address hearing loss are available in South Africa but are not accessible or affordable for most citizens. This is partly because not only persons with hearing loss but also people with disabilities experience barriers in accessing services that many of us take for granted, including health, education, employment, and transport as well as information. These difficulties are exacerbated in less-advantaged communities.

“WHO estimates that there are more than 360 million persons with hearing loss globally. The statistics in South Africa are unreliable due to the different definitions used by Statistics South Africa and the absence of training of the officials who conduct and collect statistics concerning hearing loss in South Africa,” says Dr Smith. 

According to Dr Smith, analysis from retrospective studies reflects that about 17 out of 1 000 infants are born daily in South Africa with severe to profound hearing loss. However, Dr Smith states that the number could be higher because of late diagnosis, high levels of undiagnosed and untreated hearing loss. This excludes young adults, adults and the elderly as well as children with acquired (become deaf after birth) hearing loss.

Crisis that needs urgent intervention 
Dr Smith says hearing loss is an emergency which the South African government fails to prioritise. She says that research published confirms that the risk compounding the projected increase in hearing loss that comes with an ageing population. This is a looming and silent public-health crisis.
She believes that the government should take urgent action to align research-spending with the current and projected size and impact of hearing loss. It should also collaborate across related conditions, such as vision, neurodegenerative diseases and neurological conditions. Furthermore, the government needs, and is obligated, to deliver more accessible and integrated services and develop quality standards that take account of the whole pathway – linking public health, clinical and social needs.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept