Impacts of Physical Planning Regulations On Street Trading Livelihood: Street Traders' Right To The City Perspective

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/345104894
IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL PLANNING REGULATIONS ON STREET TRADING

LIVELIHOOD: STREET TRADERS' RIGHT TO THE CITY PERSPECTIVE
Conference Paper · October 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 578
2 authors:
Ibelieve Isaac Yekeen Sanusi

Federal University of Technology Minna Federal University of Technology Minna
28 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 179 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ecological Footprint of Fuel Wood Consumption View project
Livelihood Impacts of Informal Street Trade in Nigeria View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ibelieve Isaac on 31 October 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2020 International Virtual Conference on: Critical Issues and Challenges to Sustainable Development in Africa.
Held at Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka on 27 th and 28th October, 2020
IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL PLANNING REGULATIONS ON STREET TRADING

LIVELIHOOD: STREET TRADERS’ RIGHT TO THE CITY PERSPECTIVE
Ibelieve Isaac* and Yekeen A. Sanusi
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Minna

*Corresponding Author: ibelieve.isaac@st.futminna.edu.ng, +2349098575008
ABSTRACT
The present century is marked by high rate of urbanisation. This unprecedented rate of
urbanisation is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Urbanisation in most developing
countries is associated with poverty and unemployment/underemployment. One of the
approaches adopted by the urban poor in adapting to, and addressing the menace of poverty
and low employment opportunities is by finding succour in the informal sector. A specific form
of the informal economy is street trading; and this study takes a special interrogation of this
sub-sector. This study, therefore, investigates the livelihood contributions of street trading, the
impacts of physical planning regulations on street trade, and the implications of these
regulations on the street traders’ right to the city. The narrative review approach was adopted
for the study. This study highlights that the informal sector has continuously experienced rapid
influx of new self-employees who engage in street trading as their survival and entrepreneurial
livelihood strategies. However, the study reveals that street traders encounter harassment and
evictions as a result of their weak land tenure security status. This affects their right to trade in
the city. The study recommends the securitisation of street traders’ land tenure. It also suggests
the need for governmental financial and policy support towards ensuring the livelihood
sustainability of street traders.
Keywords: Livelihood, Security of Tenure, Street Trading, Unemployment, Urbanisation of
Poverty.
Introduction
The phenomenal urbanisation of informality has been recognised by Mengistu and Jibat (2015)
who noted that the expansion of the informal sector is linked to its ability to create employment
opportunities for the poor. It has been estimated that the informal sector contributes up to 72%
of secondary jobs in Africa (Benjamin et al., 2014). Specifically, Mengistu and Jibat (2015)
noted that more than 50% of the total workforce in Africa and South-East Asia are employed
in the informal sector. With specific reference and comparison to other economic sectors,
Racaud (2018) observed that up to 72% of non-agricultural jobs emanated from the informal
sector of the economy. Brown, Lyons and Dankoco (2010) reported that:
In sub-Saharan Africa, the informal economy is now the main source of urban
jobs for the burgeoning urban poor. Informal employment is thought to account
for around 60 per cent of all urban jobs and to have provided90 per cent of all
new jobs….
1
The informal sector of third world economies has consistently experienced rapid growth as a
result of high rate of unemployment and poverty (Timalsina, 2011). Timalsina (2011)
conceptualised informal economy as any economic activity that is both unregulated and
unrecorded. The working condition of the informal sector employees is always poor.
Furthermore, the informal sector is also characterised by job insecurity, small-scale production
and small-medium-scale service delivery. Interestingly, Majale (2002) have argued that the
existence of informality symbolises policy failures, poor regulatory approaches and poor urban
governance.
Many definitions of street trading exist in the literature. However, from the town planners'
perspective, Ouwamanam et al. (2007) defined street trading as the act of engaging in
commercial activities in illegal structures or open spaces within the building line. Following
this perspective on street trading, Bogoro et al. (2012) argues that street trading is a form of
squatting which involves the perpetual display of gods (and services) along roadsides.
Ouwamanam et al. (2007) traced the history of the criminalisation of street trade to the ancient
traditional planning in Yorubaland where it was considered illegal to trade on the streets. They
however argued that the proliferation of traders on urban streets in recent times is linked to
unplanned urban growth on the one hand, and the elitist and top-down approach to urban
planning where there is no active participation of the residents on the other. This paper is aimed
at investigating the impacts of physical planning regulations on street trade. It specifically
investigates the livelihood contributions of street trading, the impacts of physical planning
regulations on street trade, and the implications of these regulations on the street traders’ right
to the city. The narrative review approach was adopted for the study.
Informal Sector, Street Trading Livelihoods and the Right to the City
The concept of informal economy was first developed by Hart (1973) to describe the economic
activities that take place at the margin or outside the boundaries of the formal sector of the
economy. Chukuezi (2010) conceptualised the informal sector as a small-scale enterprise
where the operation and management functions lie in the hands of small number of people who
act in administrative capacity in the enterprise. The phenomenal urbanisation of informality
has been recognised by Mengistu and Jibat (2015) who argued that the expansion of the
informal sector is linked to its ability to create employment opportunities for the poor.
Mbaukaan and Sanusi (2018) viewed livelihood as the daily engagements of people which are
undertaken in order to make ends meet. Eklund and Kabeza (2017) maintained that good
2
governance strategies are imperative in dealing with issues of poor people’s livelihoods and
this includes urban planning approach to the issue of street trade. More so, it has been argued
by Diao et al. (2019) that social acceptability of livelihood policies and programmes play a
significant role in ensuring the sustainability of livelihoods.
Oftentimes, in many parts of the world, street traders encounter forced eviction from public
spaces which is sometimes accompanied with the arrest and humiliation of street traders and
confiscation of their wares (Linares, 2018). Linares (2018) further noted that in most cases,
street traders cite their rights to work and right to the space of the city. However, in the case of
street traders in Lima, it was declared that the right of municipal authorities to regulate activities
in the city supersedes the individual rights of street traders to trade and work in the city space
(Roever and Linares, 2008). Conversely, however, Eto (2014) argued that the rights of street
traders to free enterprise is protected by existing legal documents and international covenants,
although such rights must not be exercised in a manner that breach the rights of others. Eto
(2014) contended that there is little (if any) evidence to suggest that street trading affects the
exercise of the rights of other residents of the city.
Crossa (2009) have reported that street traders in some cities have made concerted efforts to
overcome the uncertainties that characterise their use of urban public space. Through
continuous negotiation and rights-based claims, Martinez et al. (2018) reported that street
traders in Colombia have obtained legal status. As such, it is currently illegal to evict street
traders in Colombia; and street traders must be adequately compensated where the need to
relocate them arise (Martinez et al., 2018). Same rights have also been accorded to street traders
in Mexico (Crossa, 2009) and some parts of India (Jhabvala, 2010).
Meneses-Reyes and Caballero-Juarez (2014) observed that the labelling of activities in urban
areas as informal and illegal has three broad perspectives. Firstly, the legalistic perspective uses
legal language to illegalise those activities and maintain the supremacy of the rule of law
(Azuela, 2006). Secondly, the regulatory perspective emphasises the objectivity of rules and
regulations that aims at minimising negative impacts (Delaney, 2010). The third perspective is
the critical perspective that sees informal activities as an approach to the management and
consumption of space (Devlin, 2011). These three viewpoints are highly indispensable in
analysing the rights of street traders (Meneses-Reyes and Caballero-Juarez, 2014).
Nevertheless, in developing countries, the popular belief among regulatory agencies and
municipal authorities is that street trading constitutes a breach of law (Meneses, 2013).
3
It has been argued that citizens have the right to trade goods and services in public spaces and
on the streets (Davy, 2009); although such right is highly contested in the policy arena (Staeheli
and Mitchell, 2010). Such contest has contributed to a redefinition of rights owing to the
ideological conflict between the right to work and trade on the street and the right to free
movement of commuters (Delaney, 2010; Devlin, 2011). However, practical evidence suggests
that the right to work on the street has been commoditised, and is therefore, subject to the
affordability of the traders (Meneses, 2013). For instance, in Mexico, there is a distinction
between authorise and unauthorised street traders (Meneses-Reyes and Caballero-Juarez,
2014).
Authorisation of street trading is subject to the payment of stipulated levies after which the full
right to trade and work on the street of the city is granted (Meneses-Reyes and Caballero-
Juarez, 2014). Once the permit to trade on the street is obtained, the question of interference
with free flow of traffic no longer arises (Meneses, 2013). This is an evidence of the prevalence
of ‘double-standards’ in the existing urban planning and regulatory frameworks. Muller (2012),
therefore, argues that urban planning and management policies in developing countries are
targeted towards ‘punishing the poor’.
Morange (2015), however, observed that owing to their consistent experience of eviction and
arrests, street traders have developed resilience to enforcements. He noted that street traders
lay claims to their right to the space of the city, their right to work, and their right to trade.
Crossa (2015) reported that street traders in Cocoacan city of Mexico have embarked on several
protests against the city’s stringent planning regulations against street trade. The strict and
inflexible urban policies and regulations create a scenario of ‘they versus us’ between street
traders and municipal authorities (Muller, 2012).
The legality, formality and appropriateness of street trading, inter alia, are subjectively
determined. With regards to their dynamics in the space of the city, Coletto (2010, 2013)
attempted to investigate the level of legality of trading in public spaces, while Bellinvia (2013)
traced the evolutionary trends of planning regulations on street selling. Adhikari (2017)
maintained that the legal status of street trade is contested, thereby exposing street traders to
tenure insecurity. He noted, however, that the adoption of the human rights approach by the
street retailers has yielded positive results.
4
Security of Land Tenure among Street Traders in Cities

Sustainable Development Goal 2 aims at “making inclusive and resilient cities” (Kamalipour
and Peimani, 2019). It is important to stress that inclusive cities must consider the priorities of
the urban poor and economically disadvantaged groups such as street traders (Meneses-Reyes
and Rodriguez, 2013; Adama, 2020). Kamalipour and Peimani (2019) argued that because of
its ability to accommodate the poor and skill-less majority of urban residents, street trading is
now considered as integral to the functionality of cities. However, owing to their status as
illegal occupants of urban public space, and because they lack security of tenure, street traders
are largely nomadic traders who run with their wares at the sight of municipal authorities (Steel
et al., 2014; Omar and Ishak, 2016; Adama, 2020; Hossain and Wadood, 2020).
Olajide et al. (2018) observed that because the urban poor are engaged in informality, they
often lack security of tenure or face difficulty in an attempt towards securitisation of their land
tenure status. As a result, they argued, urban planning policies and the livelihoods of the poor
are usually in conflict.
In similar terms, it has been argued by Mazhambe (2017) that urban authorities have the
tendency to deliberately harass street traders and see them as a nuisance to the urban
streetscape. He maintained that, for instance, although street traders in Harare are effective tax
payers, there has not been any public policy effort aimed at legalising the activity.
Kamalipour and Peimani (2019) noted that insecurity of tenure can lead to livelihood
insecurity. Furthermore, Graaf and Ha (2015) argued that insecure livelihoods can lead to a
wide range of social, economic and health challenges such as food insecurity, crimes, ill-health,
low life expectancy and proliferation of slums and squatter settlements. Existing urban
planning regulations in Nigeria such as setback regulations and zoning ordinance, for instance,
contributes to the livelihood vulnerability and insecurity among urban poor residents (Olajide
et al., 2018; Adama, 2020). The Nigerian Building Code specifically emphasises the need to
deviate from the occupation of setbacks by temporary economic activities and stipulates strict
punitive measures to deal with offenders.
It has been noted by Neuwirth (2013) that municipal authorities are sentimental and biased in
their attack of street traders. Their selective attack is evident from the fact that they mostly
target the poor and new immigrants whose businesses are relatively small (Omoniyi, 2013);
while large businesses are left to operate freely on the street (Neuwirth, 2013). As Meneses-
Reyes and Rodriguez (2013) observed, the eviction of street traders is engendered by selfish
5
interests. This is seen in the case of Brazil during the World Cup of 2014 and the Rio Summer
Olympics of 2016 (Omar and Ishak, 2016; Kamalipour and Peimani, 2019).
In recognition of the dilemma encountered by the street traders and their disfavoured identity,
UN-Habitat (2016) advocated for the integration of the informal economy into the formal
economy for the purpose of achieving inclusive and participatory urban governance. However,
Kamete (2017) maintained that the potential flaws and complexities in such integration efforts
are the reductionist approach to the formalisation exercise and the insensitivity to the needs of
the beneficiaries of the process.
Physical Planning Regulations versus Street Trading Livelihood

The Physical Planning Act (2012) of Kenya identifies street trading as a major cause of
disorderliness of urban streetscapes and stipulates severe punishment for unlicensed street
vendors. In Colombia, the Local Planning Regulations of the city of Bogota reinforce the
exclusion of street traders from public space (Falla and Valencia, 2019). In Ghana, the National
Environmental Sanitation Policy ([NESP] 1999) both illegalises and criminalises street
vending, and stipulates strict sanctions for offenders. The policy posits that street trade,
particularly street food vending, is associated with poor environmental sanitation which
undermines the efforts of planning agencies in creating health and aesthetically pleasing cities
(Apaasongo et al., 2016).
In the pre-independence era, several laws in Nigeria discouraged and criminalized the use of
roadsides for commercial activities. Aluko (2011) listed some of these laws to include the Town
and Country Planning Ordinance (1946), Land Development (Roads) Law (1948), Building
Line Regulations (1948) and Public Health Laws (1957). The same trend has continued into
the post-independence era. In year 1984, the Federal Government of Nigeria declared a 'War
against Street Trade' with the aim of clearing street traders out of the streets of Nigerian cities
(Mabogunje, 1993; Gani, 2015). Gani (2015) stated that the objectives of the programme
include improving the sanitary condition of the streets where they are located, improving traffic
flow, and estimating higher tax turnover through the formalisation of the informal economy.
The Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act ([URP Act] 1992) also discourages the use of
unapproved locations such as the right-of-way for commercial activities. In Abuja, Nigeria, the
local planning agency responsible for solid waste management and the regulation of street
trading is the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB).
Impact of Urban Regulations on Street Trading: Implications for the Right to the City
6
Adama (2020) observed that AEFB have maintained the culture of forcefully evicting traders
from the streets without the provision of alternative adequate and well-planned location for the
small-scale survivalist entrepreneurs. She noted that the activities of this agency infringes on
the street traders’ right to livelihood and the right to the city by consistently subjecting them to
evictions and arrest on the one hand, and subjecting their sheds to demolition on the other.
The violation of the street traders’ rights to trade in the space of the city is the outcome of the
setback and zoning regulations in Nigeria. Ebo (2013) noted that zoning regulations in Nigeria
prohibits non-stationary commercial activities in the city. For instance, Abuja Environmental
Protection Board Act ([AEPB Act] 1997) criminalised street trading on the ground that it
causes traffic congestion, littering of the streets and environmental degradation. Omoegun
(2015) and Omoegun et al. (2019) reported that [almost] all urban planning policies and
regulations in Lagos maintain zero-tolerance approach to street trade. Similar observation was
made by Gandy (2005) who noted that transport policy, environmental policies and building
codes in Nigeria disallows any economic activity beyond the building line.
The Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (2008) observed that planning in Nigeria is
characterised high level of enforcement of setback regulations, thereby resulting in the
consistent eviction of [economically] marginal citizens, including street traders. This trend is
not maintained by planning agencies across the world. For instance, in India, town planning
agencies adopt the National Policy for Urban Street Vendors for restraining potential street
traders from utilising the street for their trading livelihood (Sundaram, 2008). According to
Sundaram (2008), their harsh enforcement of this anti-street trade policy is evident in their
brazen destruction/seizing of the street traders’ wares, demolition of their physical structures
and even arrest and detention of the traders.
The Oyo State Urban Development Policy/Planning Act illegalises street trading, including the
erection of temporary sheds by street vendors on ‘areas not approved or approvable’ (Olajoke
and Adeboyejo, 2013). Similarly, Enugu State Planning Act illegalises urban informal
economic activities, including street trading, on the premise that street vendors exhibit non-
compliance towards setback regulations (Okeke, 2000; Onyebueke, 2000). More so, Edo State
Town Planning Board has constituted mobile courts aimed at prosecuting street vendors for
creating disorder in the city and constituting eyesores to the streetscapes of the city
(Enogholase, 2009).
7
The foregoing justifies the argument of Watson (2009) that urban planning policies and
regulations in third world countries are usually anti-poor. To address this, Adeboyejo (2013)
suggested the need to reinvent urban planning and governance such that the peculiarities of the
poor, vulnerable and marginal persons can be incorporated into the urban design, urban
development and urban policies.
Street trading is the largest livelihood activity in the informal sector (Turner and Schoenberger,
2011). To buttress this claim, Chukuezi (2010a) and Mengistu and Jibat (2015) reported that
street trading is a major employer of informal sector labour in Africa. Despite its contributions
in job creation, however, it has been noted that existing urban land use plans does not take into
consideration the peculiarities of street trading livelihoods (Etzold, 2015). The planning
authorities, therefore, do not give title documents to street traders to operate on the streets
where the sustainability of their livelihoods can be achieved, thereby denying them their right
to livelihood in the city (Graaf and Ha, 2015). As a result, they often lack security of land
tenure and their livelihood is often considered as illegal and informal (Devlin, 2015).
Furthermore, Tipple (2001), Yahya (2001), Bellinvia (2013) and Mazhambe (2017) reported
that physical planning regulations in sub-Saharan Africa are usually too bureaucratic and too
discriminatory, thereby endangering the livelihoods of the people. Adama (2020) submitted
that denying street traders the title documents to the space they occupy is an intrusion on their
right to trade and livelihood on the one hand, and their right to the city on the other.
Graaf and Ha (2015) have reported that governments and their agencies in many parts of the
world are expressing strong determination to eradicate street-based livelihoods. Specifically,
Brown et al. (2010) noted that although street traders are the largest sub-group in the informal
sector and although street trading is the largest employer of labour in Africa, the daily operation
and the security of the livelihoods of street traders is shrouded in uncertainty. Street traders
suffer incessant exclusion from the urban planning and development process; yet, they are
citizens who have both a right to the space of the city and the right to livelihood (Meneses-
Reyes and Rodriguez, 2013; Xue and Huang, 2015; Adama, 2020).
Modern urban planning evokes the notions of orderliness and disorderliness in the urban space
(Lombard and Meth, 2017). As Devlin (2015) observed, street trading and other forms of urban
informal livelihoods are characterised in the planning milieu as contributors to disorder in
cities. Furthermore, Gani (2015) noted that street trading contributes to environmental hazards
and poor sanitation. He maintained that town planning discourages street vending in order to
8
ensure better visual quality of the cityscape and minimise illegal use of space. Contrary to the
view of Devlin (2015) and Gani (2015), however, Graaf and Ha (2015) and Kamalipour and
Peimani (2019) maintained that street trade contributes to the visual quality of urban
streetscapes. Lombard and Meth (2017) recalls that street trade is historically a necessary
feature of urban development, maintaining that street trade gives [economic] life to the city
while at the same time reinforcing the social capital of the residents. Adama (2020) observed
that since town planning is aimed at the ‘production of space’ to satisfy the needs of the urban
residents, street trade cannot be effectively wished away because it creates livelihood
opportunities, brings ease to life and constitutes the ‘space of encounter’ in the urban scene.
Neuwirth (2013) submitted, therefore, that it is the present intolerant planning approach to
street trading is a major factor responsible for the disorderliness created by street traders.
Evidences from case studies by Roever and Linares (2008), Omoniyi (2013), Devlin (2015),
Kamete (2017) and Linares (2018) suggests that that in areas where communicative planning
ideals have been explored between planning agencies and street traders, street traders maintain
orderly occupation of streets.
It has been argued by Majale (2002) that urban poverty in Africa is intensified by the policies
and actions of urban authorities. He maintained that the livelihoods of the urban poor in
developing countries are negatively affected by the existing regulations. Similarly, Tipple
(2001) and Neuwirth (2013) submitted that physical planning regulations negatively affect both
the life and livelihoods of the urban residents in the Global South. Similar argument has been
advanced by Yahya (2001) and Njoh (2006) who maintained that physical planning in Africa
hinders/constrains the livelihoods of the poor majority. Elsewhere (such as in India), pro-poor
policies and regulations have been evolved to offset these issues (Majale, 2002). These pro-
poor policies and regulations take into account the realities of the vulnerability context of poor
people’s livelihoods (Tipple, 2001; Neuwirth, 2013). However, Adama (2020) noted that
zoning and setbacks regulations in Nigeria lend poor consideration to the fact that the street
represents a viable location where majority of informal sector workers engage in their
livelihood strategies. She argued that appropriating the space of the city and restricting
livelihood activities violates the right of the residents. Arguing from the Lefebvrerian
perspective, Graaf and Ha (2015) stated that street traders have been deliberately and arbitrarily
denied their rights to trading space because of the ‘commoditisation and privatisation of public
space’. Because they cannot afford the commoditised spaces of the city, street traders are
exposed to recurrent harassment from state officials (Etzold, 2015).
9
Adama (2020) argues that master planning approach to urban development does not serve
public interest per se, but the interests of a specific section of the public. This follows the
argument of Yahya (2001) that the regulations of most master plans are highly unrealistic,
especially for the urban poor, unemployed and vulnerable groups. Since most street traders are
nomadic (Devlin, 2011), Falla and Valencia (2019) suggested the need to ensure their active
involvement throughout the planning process in order to capture their space needs in the urban
land use plan. The role of planning approach and instruments in creating livelihood
vulnerability for street vendors have been recognised by Sundaram (2008), Crossa (2015) and
Falla and Valencia (2019) who noted that in the cities where incremental and participatory
planning are adopted (such as in Mumbai in India, Cocoacan in Mexico and Bogota in
Colombia), street traders experience a considerably higher freedom to trade in the streets of the
city. Therefore, Adama (2020) contends that (master) planning is the most visible instrument
of socio-spatial exclusion of the urban poor, including street traders. To further justify street
traders’ experience of exclusion, Omoniyi (2013) reported that the street retailers in Abuja are
subjected to consistent inhuman arrests and criminalisation by the police and urban planning
authorities. As a result, street traders have adopted the ready-to-run approach in resilience to
the arrests and violent confrontations they experience with the public agencies (Olabisi, 2013).
It is apparent from the foregoing that physical planning in developing countries has not been
favourable to the street traders’ livelihood.
Skinner (2008) expressed that existing physical planning regulations in Africa such as traffic
regulations, zoning ordinance, building codes and setback regulations represent ‘a well-
entrenched tradition of repression, persecution and prosecution’ of street traders. This is the
trend in Nigeria. Potts (2007) noted that exclusionary planning approaches in Africa have
persisted over time, thereby giving rise to several anti-poor and anti-informality regulations.
Hansen (2004) observed that these include ‘post colonial regulations on markets, trading
licensing, town and country planning and public health restricted trading … to established
markets’.
The planning tradition of creating Central Business District (CBD) often creates traffic
problems at the city centre even in the absence of any cognate business activity (Steel et al.,
2014). Generally, spatial planning approach in African cities encourages socioeconomic class-
based spatial segregation (Hart, 2008; Steel et al., 2014; Mengistu and Jibat, 2015; Olajide et
al., 2018). Apparently, the Central Business District provides multiple opportunities for street
trade (Steel et al., 2014). However, it has been reported that the livelihoods of street traders are
10
vulnerable to failure owing to their insecure tenure status (Olajide et al., 2018). Malaza, Todes
and Williamson (2009) maintained, however, that although street trading presents a serious
problem to physical planners by defying setback and building line regulations, it is a very vital
livelihood strategy to the urban poor. They argued further that the impasse between street
traders and physical planners in relation to obedience of planning regulations is traceable to the
inappropriateness of the planning policies adopted. Brown et al. (2010) opined that physical
planning regulations such as certificate of occupancy, zoning ordinance and planning approval
play a significant role in the denial of the street traders’ citizenship. They argued that:
In practice, citizenship is sometimes denied to the poor and marginal by

powerful élites who assign to them ‘outsider status’, often used as justification
for violence…. Arguments in favour of street trading may be presented as a
libertarian perspective based on the freedom to sell and work. Arguments
against street trading are often put forward by urban élites—for example,
established businesses who seek to protect their trade … and city governments
who—based on Western norms of city planning and efficiency—characterise
traders from a modernist perspective as transgressors representing deviant
behaviour that should not be tolerated in urban public space ….(Emphasis ours).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Street trading is one of the most easily accessible and viable livelihood strategies, particularly
for the urban poor and new immigrants. It is the largest livelihood activity in the informal
sector. The size of the informal sector in general and street trading in particular is traceable to
the problem of inadequate formal sector jobs. Street trading has proven to be a sustainable
livelihood strategy for the poor and low income groups in developing countries, including
Nigeria. The extant literature on the impacts of physical planning regulations on street trade
presents several important points for reflection. Some of these are summarised in the ensuing
paragraphs:
Third world countries, including Nigeria, are experiencing unprecedented rate of urbanisation.
This is accompanied by the urbanisation of unemployment, poverty and informality. The
formal sector in the Global South is incapable of providing the needed employment for the
citizens. The informal sector contributes significantly in job creation, thereby helping in the
fight against the problem of unemployment, and consequently, reducing poverty.
11
Street trade is the largest livelihood activity in the informal sector of the economy. It is the
highest contributor of the jobs in the informal economy. It is a valuable and highly sustainable
livelihood to the urban residents in the third world, especially the new immigrants, poor and
vulnerable groups.
The existing physical planning approaches in most African countries, including Nigeria, adopts
the ideals of dichotomising between ordered versus unordered, regulated versus unregulated,
legal versus illegal, formal versus informal and planned versus unplanned urban economic
activities. This has led to the classification of street trade as informal, illegal, unregulated and
unplanned economic activity in the urban space. Therefore, street traders lack policy support
and their livelihood is exposed to constant threats of constant repression, persecution and
prosecution.
The viewpoint of street trade as illegal and informal is a subject of ‘double standards’. For
instance, street traders are allowed to operate when they obtain licenses or when they are able
to pay stipulated fees to the planning agencies. In other words, all the arguments of the negative
implications of street trade cease to come to play when licensing and ability to pay the required
fees comes into the equation. Another problem, however is that there is usually a limited
number of licenses available for street traders and the level of encroachment that can be
permitted is also limited. Therefore, access to trading license and space among street traders is
predicted by the street trader’s ‘connection’.
However, this study has shown that existing physical planning regulations are anti-poor,
thereby denying street traders their right to trade and right to the city. It also shows that planning
authorities have adopted stringent and repressive control mechanisms that are aimed at
eradicating street trade, and consequently, exposing the street traders to the worrisome web of
poverty. The study recommends the securitisation of street traders’ land tenure. It also suggests
the need for governmental financial and policy support towards ensuring the livelihood
sustainability of street traders. Furthermore, the study suggests the formulation and
implementation of pro-poor and pro-street traders’ planning policies in order to ensure the
attainment of inclusive cities in Nigeria.
References
Adama, O. (2020). Abuja is not for the poor: Street vending and the politics of public space.
Geoforum, 109, 14–23
12
Adeboyejo, A. T. (2013). Nigerian cities: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Being a Lead Paper
Presented at the Conference of ‘Cities in Transition’, held at The Polytechnic, Ibadan
between May 7th and May 8th, 2013
AEPB Act (1997). Abuja Environmental Protection Board Act. Abuja: AEFB
Aluko, O. (2011). Functionality of the town planning authorities in effecting urban and regional
planning laws and control in Nigeria: The case of Lagos State. African Research
Review, 5(6 S23), 156-171
Anyidoho, N. A. (2013). Informal Economy Monitoring Study:Street vendors in Accra, Ghana.

Manchester, UK: WIEGO
Apaassongo, I. L., Aidoo, R., & Ohene-Yankyera, K. (2016). Securing safe food, order in cities
and protected urban livelihoods: Modelling of preference for regulations of informal
street food trade in Kumasi. World Development Perspectives, 3, 1–6
Benjamin. N., Beegle, K. G., Recanatini, F., &Santini, M. (2014).Informal economy and the
World Bank.Policy Research Working Paper No.WPS 6888. Washington DC, World
Bank Group.
Bogoro, A. G., Ali, C., & Bukar, A. G. (2012). Women and solid waste segregation in Bauchi,
Nigeria. International Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 2(8), 25-45
Brown, A. (2006). Challenging street livelihoods. In: Brown, A. (Ed.). Contested space: Street
trading, public space, and livelihoods in developing cities. ITDG: London, UK, 2006;
pp. 3–16.
Brown, A., Lyons, M., &Dankoco, I. (2010). Street traders and the emerging spaces for urban
voice and citizenship in African cities. Urban Studies, 47(3), 666–683
Chukuezi, C. O. (2010). Urban informal sector and unemployment in third world cities: The
situation in Nigeria. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 131-137
Clarke, E. (2005). Do occupational health services really exist in Ghana? A special focus on
the agricultural and informal sectors. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Health Services. Retrieved
from http://wiego.org/publications/dooccupational-health-services-really-exist-ghana-
special-focusagricultural-and-inforon 6th October, 2019
Coy, M., & Topfer, T. (2014). Inner city development in megacities between degradation and
renewal: The case of Sao Paulo. In: Kraas, F., Aggarwal, S., Coy, M., & Mertins, G.
(Eds.). Megacities: Our global urban future. International Year of Planet Earth.
Springer: Dordrecht. pp. 101-119
Crossa, V. (2009).Resisting the entrepreneurial city: Street vendors' struggle in Mexico City's
historic center. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 43–63
Crossa, V. (2015). Creative resistance: The case of Mexico city’s street artisans and vendors. .
In: Graaff, K., & Ha, N. (Eds.). Street vending in the neoliberal city: A global
perspective on the practices and politics of a marginalized economy. Berghahn, New
York.
13
Devlin, R. (2011). An area that governs itself: Informality, uncertainty and the management of
street vending in New York City. Planning Theory, 10 (1),
Devlin, R.T. (2015). Street vending and the politics of space in New York City. In: Graaff, K.,
& Ha, N. (Eds.). Street vending in the neoliberal city: A global perspective on the
practices and politics of a marginalized economy. Berghahn, New York.
Ebo, I. (2013). Planning for exclusion in Abuja. Retrieved from

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opensecurity/planning-for-exclusion-in-abuja/ on
13th May, 2020
Enogholase, G. (2009) Edo mobile court prosecutes 15 persons for street trading. National
News, 1st October 2009
Etzold, B. (2015). Selling in insecurity, living with violence: eviction drives against street
vendors in Dhaka and the informal politics of exploitation. In: Graaff, K., & Ha, N.
(Eds.). Street vending in the neoliberal city: A global perspective on the practices and
politics of a marginalized economy. Berghahn, New York.
Falla, A. V., & Valencia, S. C. (2019). Beyond state regulation of informality: Understanding
access to public space by street traders in Bogota. International Development Planning
Review, 41(1), 85-105
Gandy, M. (2005). Learning from Lagos. New Left Review, 33, 37-52
Gani, B. A. (2015). Effects of street trading on urban aeas in Nigeria. Global Advanced
Research Journal of Management and Business Studies, 5(2), 051-056
Graaff, K., & Ha, N. (2015). Street vending in the neoliberal city: A global perspective on the
practices and politics of a marginalized economy. Berghahn, New York
Hossain, B., &Wadood, S. N. (2020).Impact of urban microfinance on the livelihood

strategies of borrower slum dwellers in the Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Journal of Urban
Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Kamalipour, H., & Peimani, N. (2019).Negotiating space and visibility: Forms of informality
in public space. Sustainability, 11, 4807
Kamete, A. Y. (2017). Pernicious assimilation: Reframing the integration of the urban informal
economy. Southern Africa. Urban Geography, 39(2), 167-189
Linares, L. A. (2018). The paradoxes of informalizing street trade in the Latin American city.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38(7-8), 651-672
Lombard, M., & Meth, P. (2017).Informalities. In: Jayne, M., Ward, K. (Eds.). Urban theory:
New critical perspectives. Routledge, London and New York.
Mabogunje, A. L. (1993). Infrastructure: The crux of modern urban development. Urban Age,
1(3), 3
Malaza, N., Todes, A., & Williamson, A. (2009).Gender in planning and urban development.
Commonwealth Secretariat Discussion Paper Number 7. United Kingdom:
Commonwealth Secretariat
14
Mazhambe, A. (2017). Assessment of the contribution of street vending to the Zimbabwe

economy. A case of street vendors in Harare CBD. Journal of Business and
Management, 19(9 I), PP 91-100
Meneses-Reyes, R., & Caballero-Juarez, J. A. (2014). The right to work on the street: Public
space and constitutional rights. Planning Theory, 13(4), 370-386
Mengistu, T., &Jibat, N. (2015). Street vending as the safety-net for the disadvantaged people:
The case of Jimma Town. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 7(5),
123-137.
National Environmental Sanitation Policy (1999). Laws of Ghana. Accra, Ghana
NESP (1999). National Environmental Sanitation Policy. Abuja, Nigeria
Neuwirth, R. (2013). Life and livelihood, on the street. SAIS Review of International Affairs,
33(1), 65-71
Okeke, D. C. (2000). Urban land use planning and informal sector syndrome: A case study of
Enugu. Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners, 13, 56-65
Olajide, O. A., Agunbiade, M. E., & Bishi, H. B. (2018). The realities of Lagos urban
development vision on livelihoods of the urban poor. Journal of Urban Management,
7, 21–31
Olajoke, A., & Adeboyejo, A. T. (2013). Urban informal enterprises and space utilization in
Ibadan, Nigeria. World Development, 3(3), 85-93
Omoegun, A. O. (2015). Street trader displacements and the relevance of the right to the city
concept in a rapidly urbanizing African city: Lagos, Nigeria. PhD Dissertation, Cardiff
University
Omoegun, A. O., Mackie, P., & Brown, A. (2019). The aftermath of eviction in the Nigerian
informal economy. International Development Planning Review, 41(1), 107-128
Omoniyi, T. (2013). Nigeria: Harsh world of vendors. The Daily Trust, 4 March 2013.
Retrieved from https://allafrica.com/stories/201303040476.html on 11th February, 2020
Onyebueke (2000). Incidence of informal enterprises in urban residential zones: Analysis of

the pattern and determinants in Enugu. Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Town
Planners, 13, 26-38
Ouwamanam, M. A., Olusesi, O. O., & Babatunde, S. O. (2007). Investigation into causes,
effects and controlof environmental pollution in Amuwo-Odofin Local Government
Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. School Health Journal, 19(1), 71-79
Physical Planning Act (2012). Physical Planning Act of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya
Racaud, S. (2018). Ambiguous resource: “Informal” street trading in Kisumu, Kenya. Articulo
- Journal of Urban Research, 17-18, Articulo - Revue de sciences humaines
15
Roever, S., & Linares, L. A. (2008).Case report of Lima Peru prepared for International
Labour Organization in India. Unpublished manuscript.
Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (2008). The myth of Abuja master plan: forced
evictions as urban planning in Abuja, Nigeria. Abuja, Nigeria: Social and Economic
Rights Action Centre
Steel, W. F., Ujoranyi, T. D. and Owusu, G. (2014).Why evictions don’t deter street traders:
Case Study in Accra, Ghana. Ghana Social Science Journal, 11(2), 52-76
Sundaram, S. S. (2008). National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and its impact. Economic
and Political Weekly 2008, 22-25
Taheri, T. M. (2018). Negotiating the order: The politics and policing of street vending in
Tehran. International Development Planning Review, 41, 173–192
Timalsina, K. P. (2011). An urban informal economy: Livelihood opportunity to poor or

challenges for urban governance, study of street vending activities of Kathmandu
Metropolitan City. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 2(2.2 Q II),
1-13
Town and Country Planning Ordinance (1946). Nigerian Town and Country Planning
Ordinance (No. 4). Abuja, Nigeria: Lawlords Publications
Turner, S., & Schoenberger, L. (2011). Street vendor livelihoods and everyday politics in
Hanoi, Vietnam: The seeds of a diverse economy? Urban Studies,49(5), 1027-1044.
Retrieved fromdoi:10.1177/0042098011408934 on 11th October, 2019
UN-Habitat (2007). Forced evictions—towards solutions? Second report of the advisory group
on forced evictions to the executive director of UN-Habitat. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-
Habitat
URP Act (1992). Urban and Regional Planning Act (Decree 88). Abuja, Nigeria: Lawlords
Publications
Watson, V. (2009). ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away’: Urban planning and 21st century
urbanization. Progress in Planning, 72(3), 151-193
Xue, D., & Huang, G. (2015).Informality and the state’s ambivalence in the regulation of street
vending in transforming Guangzhou, China. Geoforum
16
View publication stats

Impacts of Physical Planning Regulations On Street Trading Livelihood: Street Traders' Right To The City Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impacts of Physical Planning Regulations On Street Trading Livelihood: Street Traders' Right To The City Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL PLANNING REGULATIONS ON STREET TRADING

Conference Paper · October 2020

Ibelieve Isaac Yekeen Sanusi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ecological Footprint of Fuel Wood Consumption View project

Livelihood Impacts of Informal Street Trade in Nigeria View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL PLANNING REGULATIONS ON STREET TRADING

Ibelieve Isaac* and Yekeen A. Sanusi

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Federal University of Technology, Minna

Security of Land Tenure among Street Traders in Cities

Physical Planning Regulations versus Street Trading Livelihood

In practice, citizenship is sometimes denied to the poor and marginal by

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Anyidoho, N. A. (2013). Informal Economy Monitoring Study:Street vendors in Accra, Ghana.

Ebo, I. (2013). Planning for exclusion in Abuja. Retrieved from

Hossain, B., &Wadood, S. N. (2020).Impact of urban microfinance on the livelihood

Mazhambe, A. (2017). Assessment of the contribution of street vending to the Zimbabwe

National Environmental Sanitation Policy (1999). Laws of Ghana. Accra, Ghana

NESP (1999). National Environmental Sanitation Policy. Abuja, Nigeria

Onyebueke (2000). Incidence of informal enterprises in urban residential zones: Analysis of

Timalsina, K. P. (2011). An urban informal economy: Livelihood opportunity to poor or

View publication stats

You might also like