Spatial Characterization of Peri-Urban Neighborhoods Generated by Parcel-Based Planning and Development in Satellite Towns South of Nairobi Metropolitan, Kenya

George O. Konguka; Sammy Letema; Caleb Mireri

doi:10.53941/ubs.2026.100029

Abstract

Peri-urbanization in African countries is often characterized by fragmented and poorly coordinated land-use planning and development, raising concerns regarding the liveability and sustainability of emerging peri-urban neighbourhoods. This study examines spatial characteristics of neighbourhoods created through ad hoc sporadic parcel-based land use planning practices of preparing land subdivision layout plans without an existing comprehensive land use plan that guides the neighbourhood development. The study seeks to establish how ad hoc parcel-based land use planning, subdivision, and development influence liveability and sustainability spatial characteristics of peri-urban neighbourhoods. Three neighbourhood liveability and sustainability spatial parameters; land use mix, proximity and density of neighbourhoods are evaluated in three neighbourhoods in peri-urban areas South of Nairobi Metropolitan area—Kitengela, Athi River and Ongata Rongai using spatial data from Registry Index Maps (RIMs), cadastral survey plans, land use plans, Google Images and OpenStreetMaps. The results reveal contrasting aggregated land-use allocations, with Athi River locality predominantly allocated to industrial (65.86%), residential (17.41%), and transportation (13.60%) uses; Kitengela to residential (58.53%), commercial (14.88%), transportation (14.44%), public-purpose (5.95%), and industrial (4.70%) uses; and Ongata Rongai to residential (92.18%) and transportation (7.82%) uses, with other uses accounting for less than 1% or 0% of land allocation. These findings demonstrate that ad hoc sporadic piecemeal parcel-based land use planning, subdivision and development prioritize creation of living (residential land use) and working (industrial and commercial use) spaces with limited provision of social spaces which improve quality of life, human well-being, and social development such education, health and safety, recreation, and governance facilities. This results in very low land use mix, mixed-up residential densities and limited accessibility. Reactionary piecemeal parcel-based land use planning, subdivision and development triggered by immediate development needs creates peri-urban neighbourhoods with low spatial liveability and sustainability characteristics. These findings highlight the need to adopt a digital parcel-based land use planning and subdivision approval system that assesses and integrates spatial planning requirements to aid in subdivision plan approval decision making in order to enhance neighbourhood liveability and sustainability.

References

1.
Awumbila, M. Drivers of Migration and Urbanization in Africa: Key Trends and Issues. In Proceedings of the UN Expert Group Meeting on Sustainable Cities, Human Mobility and International Migration, Legon, Ghana, 7–8 September 2017.
2.
Fente, M.F.; Abebe, B.G.; Woldeamanuel, M.G. Exploring the Nexus of Migration Dynamics and Urban Expansion: Key Drivers of Horizontal Spatial Growth in Woldia Township, Ethiopia. Front. Hum. Dyn. 2025, 6, 1517341. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2024.1517341.
3.
Habitat, U.N. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Rep. 2016, 3, 4–51.
4.
Idowu, M.A.; Ajibade, L.T. Urban Growth and Land Use Change Impacts on Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sustainable Soil Systems in Global South; Ogwu, M.C., Izah, S.C., Dessureault-Rompré, J., et al., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 167–196.
5.
Akanbang, B.A.A.; Hamid, A.A.; Baanbil, J.N.; et al. Trends and Drivers of Urbanisation in Africa: Exploring the Implications for Urban Planning and Development. In Urban Planning Challenges and Innovations in Sub-Saharan Africa; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2025; pp. 10–29. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003480884-2.
6.
Adu-Gyamfi, A. Planning for Peri Urbanism: Navigating the Complex Terrain of Transport Services. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104440.
7.
Christiawan, P.I.; Nguyen, T.P.L. Peri-Urbanization in Populous Developing Asian Countries: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2024, 19, 949–962. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.190313.
8.
Rajendran, L.P.; Raúl, L.; Chen, M.; et al. The ‘peri-urban turn’: A systems thinking approach for a paradigm shift in reconceptualising urban-rural futures in the global South. Habitat Int. 2024, 146, 103041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103041.
9.
Varkey, A.M.; Manasi, S. A Review of Peri-Urban Definitions, Land Use Changes and Challenges to Development. Urban India 2019, 39, 96–146.
10.
Wandl, A.; Magoni, M. Sustainable Planning of Peri-Urban Areas: Introduction to the Special Issue. Plan. Pract. Res. 2017, 32, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2017.1378984.
11.
Ayeni, A.O.; Aborisade, A.G.; Aiyegbajeje, F.O.; et al. The Dynamics of Peri-Urban Expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for Sustainable Development in Nigeria and Ghana. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00742-0.
12.
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S.; Kalantari, Z.; Egidi, G.; et al. Urbanisation-driven land degradation and socioeconomic challenges in peri-urban areas: Insights from Southern Europe. Ambio 2022, 51, 1446–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01701-7.
13.
Adugbila, E.J.; Martinez, J.A.; Pfeffer, K. Road infrastructure expansion and socio-spatial fragmentation in the peri-urban zone in Accra, Ghana. Cities 2023, 133, 104154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104154.
14.
Aguilar, A.G.; Flores, M.A.; Lara, L.F. Peri-Urbanization and Land Use Fragmentation in Mexico City. Informality, Environmental Deterioration, and Ineffective Urban Policy. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 4, 790474. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.790474.
15.
Tan, J.; Gu, K.; Zheng, Y. Peri-urban planning: A landscape perspective. Plan. Theory 2024, 23, 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952231178203.
16.
LeGates, R.; Hudalah, D. Peri-Urban Planning for Developing East Asia: Learning from Chengdu, China and Yogyakarta/Kartamantul, Indonesia. J. Urban Aff. 2014, 36, 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12106.
17.
Metternicht, G. Land Use and Spatial Planning: Enabling Sustainable Management of Land Resources; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71861-3.
18.
Chigara, B.; Magwaro-Ndiweni, L.; Mudzengerere, F.H.; et al. An Analysis of the Effects of Piecemeal Planning on Development of Small Urban Centres in Zimbabwe: Case Study of Plumtree. Int. J. Manag. Soc. Sci. Res. 2013, 2, 2319–4421.
19.
Mabaso, A.; Shekede, M.D.; Christa, I.; et al. Urban Physical Development and Master Planning in Zimbabwe: An Assessment of Conformance in the City of Mutare. J. Stud. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 72–88.
20.
Muzorewa, T.; Nyandoro, M. Investment by Private Land Developer Companies and Postcolonial Urban Growth in Ruwa (Zimbabwe), 1986–2015. Town Reg. Plan. 2019, 74, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.18820/2415-0495/trp74i1.5.
21.
Yamungu, N.E. Street-Level Bureaucrats and Piecemeal Planning Approaches in the Tanzanian Small Towns of Mlandizi and Sirari. Ph.D. Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2019.
22.
Olima, W.H.A.; Obala, L.M. The Effect of Existing Land Tenure Systems on Urban Land Development: A Case Study of Kenya’s Secondary Towns, with Emphasis on Kisumu. Habitat Int. 1999, 23, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-3975(98)00024-1.
23.
Sawyer, L. Piecemeal Urbanisation at the Peripheries of Lagos. Afr. Stud. 2014, 73, 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2014.925207.
24.
Follmann, A.; Kennedy, L.; Pfeffer, K.; et al. Peri-urban transformation in the Global South: A comparative socio-spatial analytics approach. Reg. Stud. 2023, 57, 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2095365.
25.
Shaw, B.J.; van Vliet, J.; Verburg, P.H. The peri-urbanization of Europe: A systematic review of a multifaceted process. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 196, 103733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103733.
26.
Naikoo, M.W.; Rihan, M.; Shahfahad; et al. Analysis of peri-urban land use/land cover change and its drivers using geospatial techniques and geographically weighted regression. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 116421–116439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18853-4.
27.
Abolhasani, S.; Taleai, M.; Karimi, M.; et al. Simulating Urban Growth under Planning Policies through Parcel-Based Cellular Automata (ParCA) Model. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2016, 30, 2276–2301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2016.1184271.
28.
Shen, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of land use plans in containing urban expansion: An integrated view. Land Use Policy 2019, 80, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.001.
29.
Salem, M.; Ravetz, J.; Sareen, S.; et al. Managing the urban-rural transition: A review of approaches and policies for peri-urban land use. J. Urban Manag. 2025, 14, 1115–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2025.04.006.
30.
Agyemang, F.S.; Morrison, N. Recognising the Barriers to Securing Affordable Housing through the Land Use Planning System in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Perspective from Ghana. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 2640–2659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017724092.
31.
Ogundele, F.O.; Ayo, O.; Odewumi, S.G.; et al. Challenges and prospects of physical development control: A case study of Festac Town, Lagos, Nigeria. Afr. J. Political Sci. Int. Relat. 2011, 5, 174–178. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajpsir.9000018.
32.
Tesfay, S.M.; Gebregiorgis, G.A.; Ayele, D.G. Peri-Urban Land Transformation in the Global South: Revisiting Conceptual Vectors and Theoretical Perspectives. Land 2025, 14, 1483. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071483.
33.
Follmann, A. Geographies of peri-urbanization in the global south. Geogr. Compass 2022, 16, e12650. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12650.
34.
Ananda Krishnan, S.; Sujith, K.M. Understanding the Need of Satellite Towns in India. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1114, 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1114/1/012043.
35.
Sharifi, A. From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.002.
36.
Davies, W.K.; Townshend, I.J. New Urbanisms: From Neo-Traditional Neighbourhoods to New Regionalism. In Theme Cities: Solutions for Urban Problems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 17–61.
37.
Iannillo, A.; Fasolino, I. Land-Use Mix and Urban Sustainability: Benefits and Indicators Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313460.
38.
Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R.; Sharifi, A.; Hajian Hossein Abadi, M.; et al. From Garden City to 15-Minute City: A Historical Perspective and Critical Assessment. Land 2023, 12, 512. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020512.
39.
Howard, E. Garden Cities of to-Morrow; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965.
40.
Clark, B. Ebenezer Howard and The Marriage of Town and Country: An Introduction to Howard’s Garden Cities of To-Morrow (Selections). Organ. Environ. 2003, 16, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026602250258.
41.
Howard, E. Garden Cities of to-Morrow; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203716779.
42.
Scott, M.; Lennon, M.; Haase, D.; et al. Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city/Re-naturing the city/Reflections on urban landscapes, ecosystems services and nature-based solutions in cities/Multifunctional green infrastructure and climate change adaptation: Brownfield greening as an adaptation strategy for vulnerable communities?/Delivering green infrastructure through planning: Insights from practice in Fingal, Ireland/Planning for biophilic cities: From theory to practice. Plan. Theory Pract. 2016, 17, 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1158907.
43.
Furuseth, O.J. Neotraditional Planning: A New Strategy for Building Neighborhoods? Land Use Policy 1997, 14, 201–213.
44.
Gatarić, D.; Belij, M.; Đerčan, B.; et al. The origin and development of Garden cities: An overview. Zb. Rad.-Geogr. Fak. Univ. u Beogr. 2019, 67-1, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrgfub1901033g.
45.
Gu, R.; Xie, Z.; Takatori, C.; et al. To What Extent Can Satellite Cities and New Towns Serve as a Steering Instrument for Polycentric Urban Expansion during Massive Population Growth?—A Comparative Analysis of Tokyo and Shanghai. ISPRS Int. J. Geo.-Inf. 2023, 12, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12060234.
46.
Abubakar, I.R.; Doan, P.L. Building new capital cities in Africa: Lessons for new satellite towns in developing countries. Afr. Stud. 2017, 76, 546–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2017.1376850.
47.
Soomro, T.A.; Soomro, M.A. Planning Failure of Satellite Town: A Case Study of Korangi, Karachi-Pakistan. Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 37, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.1801.19.
48.
Batchelor, P. The Origin of the Garden City Concept of Urban Form. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 1969, 28, 184–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/988557.
49.
Rohe, W.M. From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2009, 75, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360902751077.
50.
Meenakshi, S. Neighborhood Unit and Its Conceptualization in the Contemporary Urban Context. India J. 2011, 8, 81–87.
51.
Patricios, N.N. The Neighborhood Concept: A Retrospective of Physical Design and Social Interaction. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2002, 19, 70–90.
52.
Perry, C. The Neighborhood Unit. In The Urban Design Reader; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1929; pp. 54–65.
53.
Byun, N.; Choi, Y.; Choi, J. The Neighborhood Unit: Effective or Obsolete? J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2014, 13, 617–624.
54.
Duany, A.; Speck, J.; Lydon, M.; et al. The Smart Growth Manual. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2011, 7, 89–90
55.
Edwards, M.M.; Haines, A. Evaluating Smart Growth: Implications for Small Communities. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2007, 27, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x07305792.
56.
Pollard, T.; Pollard III, O.A. Smart Growth: The Promise, Politics, and Potential Pitfalls of Emerging Growth Management Strategies. Va. Environ. Law J. 2000, 19, 247–285.
57.
Talen, E. Measuring Urbanism: Issues in Smart Growth Research. J. Urban Des. 2003, 8, 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480032000155141.
58.
Downs, A. Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2005, 71, 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976707.
59.
Geyer, H.S. The Theory and Praxis of Mixed-Use Development-An Integrative Literature Review. Cities 2024, 147, 104774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104774.
60.
Kolbadi, N.; Mohammadi, M.; Namvar, F. Smart Growth Theory as One of the Main Paradigms of Sustainable City. Int. J. Rev. Life Sci. 2015, 5, 209–219.
61.
Rahnama, M.R.; Roshani, P.; Hassani, A.; et al. Use Principles of New Urbanism Approach in Designing Sustainable Urban Spaces. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2012, 2, 195–203.
62.
Sohmer, R.R.; Lang, R.E. From seaside to Southside: New urbanism’s quest to save the inner city. Hous. Policy Debate 2000, 11, 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2000.9521386.
63.
Trudeau, D. A Typology of New Urbanism Neighborhoods. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2013, 6, 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.771695.
64.
Morris, W.; Kaufman, J.A. The New Urbanism: An Introduction to the Movement and Its Potential Impact on Travel Demand with an Outline of Its Application in Western Australia. Urban Des. Int. 1998, 3, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.1998.27.
65.
Lowry, J.H.; Lowry, M.B. Comparing spatial metrics that quantify urban form. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2014, 44, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.11.005.
66.
Aparício, J.T.; Arsénio, E.; Santos, F.C.; et al. Walkability defined neighborhoods for sustainable cities. Cities 2024, 149, 104944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104944.
67.
Mugah, F.; Wangai, P.; Letema, S. Exploring the accessibility of amenities across three distinct residential neighbourhoods: A case study of Nairobi city, Kenya. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. -Urban Des. Plan. 2025, 178, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1680/jurdp.24.00067.
68.
ROK Physical Planning Handbook 2007; 2007.
69.
ROK Physical and Land Use Planning Handbook 2025; 2025.
70.
Bahadure, S.; Kotharkar, R. Assessing Sustainability of Mixed Use Neighbourhoods through Residents’ Travel Behaviour and Perception: The Case of Nagpur, India. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12164–12189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912164.
71.
Nkeki, N.F.; Asikhia, M.O. Quantifying the Urban Built Environment: A Neighbourhood-Scale Analysis. TeMA-J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2021, 14, 189–209.
72.
Mugah, F.; Letema, S. Sustainability Assessment of Residential Neighbourhoods with Varying Densities in Nairobi, Kenya. Discov. Cities 2025, 2, 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-025-00101-2.
73.
Komo, W.M.A.; Sho, K.; Seta, F. Effectiveness of Riyadh’s Urban Growth Boundaries: An Evaluation Based on Building Permits, Vacancy, Road Infrastructure, and Land Price Variation. Jpn. Archit. Rev. 2026, 9, e70082. https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.70082.
74.
Hosseini, S.H.; Hajilou, M. Drivers of urban sprawl in urban areas of Iran. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2019, 98, 1137–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12381.

Scilight Press

Author Information

Abstract

Keywords

References

About Scilight

Journals

Publishing Policies

Contact Us