Camargo 2024

19/2/24, 15:45 Understanding urban densification in Latin American cities: determinants of the production of built space in informal areas
ormal areas in Bog…
Cities
Volume 148, May 2024, 104839
Understanding urban densification in Latin American cities:

determinants of the production of built space in informal areas in
Bogota (2007-2018) ☆
Angélica Patricia Camargo Sierra , Alex Smith Araque Solano , David Holguín Lozano
Show more
Outline Share Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104839
Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license open access
Highlights
• Urban informality is a persistent but changing phenomenon in the global south.
• Densification of informal settlements is driving the persistence of informality.
• Market pressures are driving construction in the urban peripheries.
• Demographic changes put pressure on demand for built residential space.
• Population density does not necessarily coincide with building density.
Abstract
In Bogotá, as in most large Latin American cities, urban informality is a persistent phenomenon. Although the expansion of new informal
land has decreased, the densification of existing informal settlements is one of the mechanisms driving the persistence of informality.
While a lot is known about the factors that triggered informal expansion in Latin American, less is known about the recent processes of
informal production in large cities and the role of informality in the densification process. We analyze the build-up area in 2007 and 2018
in formal and informal zones. Information was reduced through principal components analysis, and we evaluated with linear regression
how urban structure, demographic dynamics, and urban regulations explain changes in building density in the period. We conclude that
market pressures are forcing low-income sectors to build in peripheral areas to maintain their location within the city at the cost of high
density and low access to urban amenities. On the other hand, the flexibility of informal built space production allows them to respond
more quickly to increased demand. Formal constructions explain part of the production of built space in informal legalized zones that
could press the displacement of the population.
Previous Next
Keywords
Urban informality; Urban growth; Housing market
1. Introduction
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275124000532 1/19
19/2/24, 15:45 Understanding urban densification in Latin American cities: determinants of the production of built space in informal areas in Bog…
Informal urbanization has been recognized as one of the main forms of access to urban land and housing by the poor in most Latin
American cities (Ward et al., 2015). One of the foremost common characteristics of this form of urbanization has to do with irregular land
access. Either through the invasion, taking of someone else's land, or purchasing from an illegal developer who sells land to future settlers.
Another regularity refers to the location of the settlements, generally in peripheral areas of the cities, without adequate provision of
public and social services. Housing is produced mainly through self-construction in a progressive process that lasts several years and
almost always begins with a very precarious dwelling that undergoes a long process of improvement and consolidation (Abramo, 2012;
Lombard, 2014; ONU-Hábitat, 2003). Although housing improves over time, precariousness tends to be prolonged, even when the
neighborhoods are already well consolidated (Clichevsky, 2009; Ward et al., 2015). It is a practice of making a city by the inhabitants and
is one of the most defining elements of the urban growth of Latin American cities and others from the global south (Jaramillo, 2008;
AlSayyad, and Roy, 2003).
In the case of Bogotá, one-quarter of the urbanized area is informal (approximately 8.700 ha). Although more than 3.000 ha were occupied
in the period 1980–2000, fewer than 400 ha of new informal land emerged in the last two decades, which shows a decrease in informal
occupation that parallels the decrease in formal growth and demographic slowdown.1 The changes have resulted in densification.
Between 2007 and 2018, the built-up space grew by 68 % in informal areas and 40 % in formal areas. The consequences of this increase in
housing density and verticalization are a deterioration of habitability and less access to urban goods. Thus, the densification of
consolidated neighborhoods has become a mechanism for the persistence of urban precariousness and informality in large cities in Latin
America.
Extensive research on informal urbanization has highlighted the main structural determinants of its growth, such as internal migration,
demographic and urban transition, inequality, and poverty (Da Mata, 2013; Jaramillo, 2008; John-Nsa, 2021). However, despite their
relevance, these variables have lost explanatory power with respect to the phenomenon of informality in recent decades (Da Mata, 2013).
More recently, causes associated with the functioning of land and housing markets, and the inefficiency of housing policy that
perpetuates access barriers to formal housing for the lower-income population, seems to be more important to explain the recent
informal growth (Bouillon, 2012). Despite significant advances in understanding the causes of urban informality, less is known about the
densification process in informally occupied areas.
In this study, we examine the determinants of the growth of built space in areas of informal origin in Bogota to understand the recent
functioning of urban informality in large cities. Understanding the characteristics and explanatory variables of the residential
densification process in these areas may help to guide public policy actions to improve the living conditions of the population living in
poor neighborhoods.
We explore three hypotheses about the determinants of the growth of informal built space. First, we analyze the role of market pressures
on formal and informal construction. Demands for location within the city increase built space prices and force land-use changes in
central areas, pushing households to the popular periphery, which accelerates the production of built space in informal areas. Second, we
evaluate the role of sociodemographic changes and socioeconomic characteristics of households. We assume that population growth and
household socioeconomic conditions increase the demand for more built space. For example, an increase in rental demand in popular
sectors may be captured by homeowners and encourage them to invest in the expansion of their houses.
Finally, we inquire about the relationship between the stipulation of land use regulations in informal zones and the production of built
space. The main mechanism of state intervention in informal zones is the formalization and regularization of settlements. In the
Colombian case, this process begins with the urban legalization that incorporates the neighborhood into the urban perimeter, permits the
subsequent provision of public services and infrastructure, and stipulates land use regulations that enable the formal production of new
construction. Therefore, we ask whether formal production contributes to the densification of areas of informal origin.
In the first part, we review the literature and present the theoretical arguments that support our hypotheses. Subsequently, we present
the facts in support of the importance of the production of built space in Bogota's current configuration of urban informality. Third, we
present the methodology for the econometric models through which we explore the hypotheses above, the results of our estimations, and
finally, discussion and conclusions.
2. Urban informality and triggers for the production of built space

Regarding its role in society, causes, and solutions, the theory of urban informality has come from multiple approaches and shores of
social thought. Carrizosa (2022) identifies several approaches seen in a temporal perspective. First, a dualist view based on the
marginality theory; although this theory had different perspectives, it was widely criticized and even recently reinterpreted (Perlman,
2010). In opposition to the theory of marginality appears the structuralist perspective, with significant development in Latin America
since the so-called dependency theory (Schteingart, 1973), they argue that informality is a result of the globalization process and the
peripheral nature of capitalist accumulation. From this perspective, the most direct causes are associated with historical structural factors
related to rapid population growth and urbanization in a framework of slow-growth economies and low wages, coupled with the
weakness of the state apparatus in its regulatory and coercive role in land occupation processes (Da Mata, 2013; Jaramillo, 2008).
More contemporary approaches question the persistent conceptual dichotomies in the analysis of informality, instead analyzing the
formality-informality relation as a continuum (Abramo, 2012; Barry, 2015; Perlman, 2010). In this approach, it is crucial to consider the
contributions from the postcolonial theories; from these positions, the deep historical roots related to the colonial past and the unequal
bases of global capitalism are posited as causes of urban informality; consequently, the formal and informal relationship should be seen as
dialectical (Finn, 2023).
Some aspects could be pointed out in this long and rich reflection on urban informality. First, the causal complexity of the phenomenon:
structural, historical, and contextual factors; local, regional, and global aspects and logics; economic, political, and social processes are
involved in the causes and explanations of informality. Secondly, the automatic associations of informality with poverty and illegality are
increasingly blurred (Roy, 2009). Thus, there is a need to understand the complex interactions between the different elements of social
and urban systems, as well as between the state and citizenship (Davis, 2018), which complexifies the critical view on the role of the state
in its production and policies (Davis, 2018; Roy, 2009).
Regarding the practices through which informal urbanization processes take place in Latin America, there are two typical forms of access
to informal land in Latin American cities: invasion and illegal subdivisions. In the former, the inhabitants occupy the land illegally, while
in the latter, an owner or possessor illegally plots and sells portions of land with minimal or nonexistent infrastructure to future settlers
(Azuela de la Cueva, 1993). Although, according to Clichevsky (2009), the types of informality have become more complex in recent years,
the densification of consolidated settlements and the informalization of areas that have emerged legally have recently been the
predominant mechanisms of access to land by popular sectors. Beyond theoretical considerations, urban informality is usually associated
with irregular practices related to urban and construction standards, real estate transaction rules, and land ownership rights (Abramo,
2012; Azuela de la Cueva, 1993). In terms of the material dimension, informality is related to a series of precariousness, such as
inadequate construction materials, overcrowding, and lack of urban infrastructure and public services (Bouillon, 2012; ONU-Hábitat,
2003).
Finally, another critical aspect associated with urban informality is the structural difficulty of providing adequate access to housing for the
entire population. The inefficiency of social housing policies associated with a deregulated land market has generated barriers to entry
into the formal market for a significant percentage of the population. This segment, unable to access the lowest-value formal housing,
must resort to informal options (Da Mata, 2013; Jaramillo, 2008).
Despite the understanding of the causes of the extension of urban informality, less is known about the densification process in informally
occupied areas. Several authors have pointed out a paucity of studies about the densification process in cities of the global south and the
role of urban informality in urban densification. (Dave, 2010; Harrison et al., 2021; Meus, 2021; Mottelson, 2021; Waters, 2016).
Recent studies have addressed densification processes in African cities. Lategan and Cilliers (2016) and Todes et al. (2017), for example,
analyze densification produced in some cities in South Africa, particularly on the effects produced by renting the backyards of subsidized
social housing built after apartheid. Also, Scheba et al. (2021) characterize the densification processes of informal settlements in Cape
Town. They conclude with the need for density analysis from a more granular approach. Mottelson (2021) in Maputo (Mozambique), using
satellite analysis, finds differences between increasing building and population densities. In Latin America, studies on densification have
generally focused on understanding its implications in terms of spatial and public policy (Acioly Jr, 2002; Zillmann, 2002). For the case of
Lima, Meus (2021) describes the densification in informal neighborhoods based on qualitative and quantitative information and concludes
that family size, socioeconomic status, and public policies seem to influence the densification process. Recent studies on consolidated
informal settlements in several Latin American cities, including Bogota, show that the densification process in this context is produced by
the growth of families and the expansion of the rental market, also concluding that densification is an important factor in housing and
urban deterioration (Azhar et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2015; Valverde & Zárate, 2015). However, a better understanding of the triggers and
effects of informality densification processes in the global south is required to advance housing policy strategies.
2.1. Urban structure, residential location, and market pressures in the shaping of informality
According to the new economic geography analytical framework, urbanization and localization configure the optimal city size (Albouy et
al., 2019). Location is defined by land rent supply aimed at avoiding transportation costs. Firms and households are located in accordance
with what they can offer as land rent after discounting the costs of production factors in the first case and reproduction costs of the labor
force in the second, both of which depend on transportation costs (Fujita & Thisse, 2002). The equilibrium rent at any point in the city is
the envelope of the maximum rents offered among the different urban activities and can be expressed by the following equation, where
R* is the optimal rent at any location, is the offered rent, r the radius and i is the index of economic activities:
(1)
Here, it becomes evident that the maximum land rent is paid in each location within a city. The land rent offered is a result of the
distribution of the income price among the productive agents claimed by the landowners. The high land prices generated by high demand
require maximum land use so that the agglomeration of employment descends in the gradient described by the envelope of the various
differential rents marked in Eq. 1 (Alonso, 1964, p. 116). As a result, residential areas located on the commercial frontier change their use
in such a way that there is a displacement toward the urban frontier in all locations, thus generating demand pressure for residential
space in peripheral areas (Puga, 1999).
The theory of residential location indicates that a growing population and, therefore, intense competition for land causes an increase in
land rents throughout the territory and puts outward pressure on the city's edges, i.e., urban sprawl. Likewise, improvement in household
income increases demand for land and produces a decrease in the relative value of the cost of transportation, which makes life in the
suburbs more attractive (Fujita & Thisse, 2002). In addition, as more land becomes available in the suburbs, more consumers will move
out of the Central Business District, which causes land rents and density in the center to fall, naturally increasing accessibility.
This last phenomenon is evident in North American cities. However, it is completely different in Latin American cities, where lagging
mobility infrastructure has led to a general increase in transportation costs throughout the city, such that any gains are filtered into land
rents. As a result, the upper classes will be able to pay rents anywhere in the city, generally close to the center, while the lower classes will
have to be located in the peripheries and assume high transportation costs. This fact configures the market segmentation, with formal and
informal markets coexisting in most global south cities (Selod & Tobin, 2018; Goytia, 2019). The existence and relations of these two
submarkets put pressure on the overutilization of land in the peripheries through densification processes or migration to places where
land rents compensate for high transportation costs.
2.2. Socioeconomic aspects: household income, rental market and housing construction
A fundamental aspect of informal sectors is the gradual and progressive construction of housing. The first construction is built with
provisional materials that are later replaced by one-floor houses built with blocks and bricks (Rosas Meza, 2009). Over time, the upper
floors are gradually built. The difference in the pace of construction between some houses and others is fundamentally associated with
differences in household income flows (Lombard, 2014). Most households eventually build dwellings with similar characteristics in terms
of size, but they do so at different rates depending on their income (Augustijn-Beckers et al., 2011). Thus, housing construction fluctuates
and is irregular in these sectors. Housing tends to grow faster in terms of size in the early stages of its development. With the
advancement of the owner's life cycle and the improvement in their income, they invest more in applying internal improvements and
finishing touches to the house (Camargo, 2017). The progressive growth of housing and families is undoubtedly a factor in densification in
informal areas (Meus, 2021; Ward et al., 2015; Zillmann, 2002).
On the other hand, it is important to highlight the economic importance of housing for low-income sectors; housing is the main asset and
the main object of investment of poor urban people (Abramo, 2012; Moser, 2010). The use of this asset takes the form of renting
residential and commercial space in their houses. The possibility of the economic use of housing depends on the owner's disposable
income to expand the house and the existence of sufficient rental demand in poor neighborhoods. Among other reasons, the
precariousness of the labor market and low levels of social security fuel the culture of mobilizing housing as a productive asset.
Another aspect that promotes the construction of built space in informal settlements has to do with the demographic dynamics of
households and residential practices in popular sectors, particularly intergenerational cohabitation and shared housing. Thus, we presume
that the growth of informal built space may respond to changes in housing needs motivated, for example, by the formation of new
households that share housing with the owner or by extended households, which are generally overrepresented in informal sectors
(Camargo, 2017). Both renting and cohabitation are very important for the household's economy and represent a form of solidarity and
reciprocity in the context of housing in popular sectors. These mechanisms are probably important vectors for the growth of built space.
The rental market seems to be a significant driver of the densification process in informal settlements (Lategan & Cilliers, 2016). In fact,
there is an increase in the rental market in most Latin American cities (Blanco et al., 2014) and apparently in much of the global south
(Scheba et al., 2021). Renting is positioned as a very important mechanism of housing provision for the low-income population in Latin
America (Blanco et al., 2014). Recent studies identify a densification process at the population and building level in consolidated informal
neighborhoods, partly motivated by the rental market (Abramo, 2012; Augustijn-Beckers et al., 2011; Azhar et al., 2021; Gilbert, 2003;
Stiphany et al., 2021; Valverde & Zárate, 2015).
2.3. The impact of urban legalization and land use regulation on the growth of built-up space
The production of built space in low-income sectors also depends on public intervention in informal settlements. In the case of Colombia,
for the local government to invest in neighborhoods that have arisen informally, it must go through a process of legalization. This process
makes the provision of public services and urban infrastructure feasible and can be implemented through neighborhood improvement
programs. Thus, legalization processes encourage the production of built space because they eliminate the risk of eviction and promote
investment in housing given legal security, which could also attract demand for new houses (Corredor, 2020).
The formalization process continues with the provision of urban infrastructure. Different authors argue that this type of intervention ends
up indirectly encouraging the growth of informality, since the expectations of improvement are incorporated into the prices of land that
can be occupied informally, such as land close to legalized neighborhoods, and promotes the densification of existing neighborhoods that
have not yet been legalized (Clichevsky, 2009; Stiphany et al., 2021).
On the other hand, interventions in informal settlements accelerate competition for new formal and informal land, generating increases in
land prices (Corredor, 2020). Thus, the legalization of the neighborhood plays a habilitative role for urban land and, when added to land
use regulation, could attract the investment of formal builders. In fact, in the best-located neighborhoods, legalization can facilitate
displacement processes toward the peripheries, reproducing the pattern of segregation and completing the circle of growth and
densification of the informal space (Clichevsky, 2009).
3. Residential densification and growth of built-up space in informal sectors in Bogota

Regarding the evolution of urban growth in Latin American cities, most cities expanded built areas while decreasing density between
1990 and 2014 (Angel et al., 2016). The density of Buenos Aires, for example, went from 106.7 inhab/ha to 94.2 inhab/ha in this period;
Mexico from 138 to 110 inhab/ha, and Sao Paulo from 120 to 114 inhab/ha. Caracas, Santiago, Lima, and Rio de Janeiro had a similar pattern
(Angel et al., 2016). However, Bogota had a different growth pattern than the rest of the cities; the increase in its built-up area was lower
(barely 23 % versus 73 % in the rest of the cities), going from 24,581 ha to 31,845 ha, and unlike the rest of the cities, it had a considerable
increase in its density, going from 181.6 to 245.6 inhab/ha between 1990 and 2014. Bogota has the highest density in its built-up area in
Latin America.
Regarding the density of informal areas, there is limited data for Latin America, even though about 30 % of the population lives in these
sectors. However, most studies agree they are the densest areas, with around 400 inhabit/ha (Harrison et al., 2021; Meus, 2021; Stiphany
et al., 2021).
Informality in Bogotá has historically been associated with migration processes from the countryside that began in the first decades of the
twentieth century and intensified in the 1950s and 1970s; many families arriving in search of job opportunities first arrived in central
areas of the city and then settled in peripheral settlements (Torres, 2009). In some cases, social movements carried out land occupations,
but most of the informal urbanization in Bogota (more than 95 %) has been developed through illegal land acquisition processes by agents
who acquired land in the periphery of the city and sold it to low-income families (Camargo & Hurtado, 2013; Torres, 2009).
In Bogotá, of the nearly 8.700 ha of land occupied informally, 96 % was developed before 2000, and only 382 ha were developed in the last
two decades. This decline in expansion was not exclusive to informal areas; the rate of urban sprawl decreased throughout the city. The
growth of the entire city between 2010 and 2016 was just 476 ha, of which 120 was informal (SDP, 2018). Occupation trends in Bogota
show a process of densification within the city, although it has simultaneously expelled people to the municipalities of the metropolitan
area.
Several reasons may explain the decrease in the occupation of new informal land. First, there has been a slowdown in population growth
in the city, which has put less pressure on both formal and informal land occupation. On the other hand, there has also been a depletion of
areas for illegal occupation, as the few that remain available and those that have recently been occupied are on steep slopes, are very
remote and suffer from adverse climatic conditions. Additionally, migration to the metropolitan area may have decreased the pressure on
informal land in Bogotá. However, we assume that, despite the market pressures reflected in the general increase in land prices in Bogotá,
most of the low-income population is forced to maintain their location within the city.
Thus, given the persistence of demand and the low supply of affordable formal housing and available informal land, the way forward will
be the densification of existing popular areas, as shown by data concerning the production of built space based on cadastral (Unidad
Administrativa de Catastro Distrital (UACD), 2022) and demographic2 information and by information about neighborhoods of informal
origin. According to these data, approximately 110 million square meters were built between 2007 and 2019, more than 35 million in
areas of informal origin, reflected in a rate of 68.1 % in the period (40 % in formal zones). The areas of most significant construction in
informal land were the most peripheral (see Map 1).
Download : Download high-res image (468KB)

Download : Download full-size image
Map 1. Growth of built-up areas in informal zones in Bogota 2007–2018. Source: own elaboration with data from Departamento
Administrativo de Catastro Distrital.
Despite high population densities in the peripheries, building densities are much lower than in formal areas. The average number of
residential square meters built per person in 2018 was 30 in informal areas, while in formal areas, it was almost twice as much
(56.2 m2/person).
In summary, during the period under analysis, Bogota had a slight expansion in urban land, both in formal and informal zone and the
tendency has been to densify and build in existing areas. However, more rapid construction has taken place in informal areas. As a result,
the production of residential built space has been very inequitable throughout the city, reinforcing patterns of residential segregation. The
most densely populated areas of the city are simultaneously the areas with the least available residential and public space.
4. Methodological aspects
We modeled the increased building-up area in formal and informal zones in Bogotá in the years 2007 and 2018 with information about
the changes in some variables. The population censuses in Colombia for the years 2005 and 2018 show important changes in the
demographic dynamics of the city, for example, the lower intercensal population growth rate in Bogota, 0.77 %, and a population overflow
over the metropolitan area that help explain the growth rate of 3.69 % in these municipalities. Since we have had official access to the
cadastral base only since 2007, we used these years for the analysis.
As expressed in the equation where US includes variables of urban structure and public intervention, SD contain demographic and socio-
economic variables, LR incorporates variables of land regulation. Cx and Cy are the coordinates, is a random variable with finite
variance.
(2)
To address the first hypothesis, we assume that land occupation is modulated both by the market and by public interventions. Thus,
economic centralities, public goods, and accessibility express the interaction between the two. Accordingly, we consider that the distance
to urban facilities for education, health, recreation, religion, sports, green areas, and employment centralities is a good proxy for
household land rent. We define accessibility as the distance to stations of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (Called Transmilenio) system and to
stops of the collective public transport system (called SITP). On the other hand, the percentage of the built-up area dedicated to residential
use in the building, the variation of housing prices, and the total built-up area in the city block3 indicate market pressures and the sites
where construction is more likely. We group all these variables as urban structure, US in equation.
Demographic dynamics are determined by population growth, changes in fertility and mortality, and associated changes in population age
structure as a dominant demographic trend (Bloom, 2020). In Bogotá, the population rate growth has decreased as a symptom of
demographic transition. Demographic changes, such as an increase in the number of households or changes in household size, put
pressure on the demand for built space. Thus, we include as demographic variables in the model the growth in the number of households
on the block (household growth), the household composition understood as the average household size, and the residential arrangements
of households corresponding to changes in the number of households per dwelling. For socioeconomic variables, we include the mode in
the block of the head of household's age and educational level. The sum of these variables corresponds to the second group, SD, in Eq. 2.
The third group of variables refers to land regulations, LR, in the equation. Which, in theory, modulate the building process of formal and
informal zones. We include variables associated with the assignment of land use regulations and the approval of construction licenses.
The designation of land uses in Bogota includes seven areas of economic activity; our focus is on the area of residential activity. We
constructed a variable for urban planning treatments, defined as a scale in terms of the permitted buildability as a factor variable
(improvement, consolidation, development, and renewal treatment). Finally, we explored the dynamics of formal construction by way of a
variable for construction licenses, which is a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if the block has a building license and 0 otherwise.
Density in the two last censos, 2005 and 2018, were included to confirm the occupation in disponible sites. Finally, the dynamics of formal
construction were explored by way of a variable for construction licenses, which is a dichotomous variable with a value of 1 if the block
has a building license and 0 otherwise. Coordinates were included to capture unobserved spatial and neighborhood effects. A detailed
description of each of the variables used in the model is provided in the appendix. The model was estimated by ordinary least squares
model with robust errors.
With the above considerations, we carried out the pertinent measurements. In the first place, we measured the Euclidean distances from
the block centroid to the facilities and the nearest transportation system. Then, we use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for two
reasons: first, households' preferences for public goods are usually aggregated. Second, to reduce information by constructing a basic
index of access to LPG and accessibility to the public transportation system, PTS. The coefficients of the first eigenvector associated with
the first component are used as the index weights. The spatial results are in map 2. Variables ordered in scale, such as education level and
urban treatment, are treated as factors. The software used is Stata for econometric modeling and ArcGis for mapping.4
Download : Download high-res image (313KB)

Download : Download full-size image
Map 2. Index of accessibility of public transport (left) and index of accessibility of facilities (right). Source: own elaboration with data
from Secretaría Distrial de Planeación. Legend: In_cp_mov: index of accessibility to transportation systems. In_d_equi: Index of
accessibility to equipment.
5. Estimation results
The results presented in Table 1 indicate that the increase in informal blocks' total and residential built-up area is approximately 13.5 %
higher than in formal blocks. Doubling the distance to employment centrality, transportation accessibility, and green areas increases the
built-up area by 1.21 %, 2.48 %, and 1.48 %, respectively. In areas located twice the distance to urban facilities and offers, the total built-up
area increased by 18 % and 17 % in residential edification. The block size coefficient indicates that largest blocks concentrate the most
significant increase in the built-up area, regardless of whether they were residential or mixed-use blocks. Price variation has a negative
but small relationship with built-up space. If the price of built space is increased by 100 %, the total built area is reduced by only 2 %, while
the built residential area has a marginal reduction.
Table 1. Estimates of the increase in built-up area.
Variable Total built areaa Residential built areab
Blocksc located in informal zone 0.135*** 0.135***
Distance to centrality 0.0121** 0.0123***
Distance to urban facilities 0.182*** 0.170***
Accessibility 0.0248*** 0.030***
Distance green area 0.0148*** 0.0106**
Block area 0.838*** 0. 834***
Residential share −0.00612*** −0.00614***
Price variation −0.0200** −0.00569
Household growth 2.186*** 2.216***
Household composition 1.230*** 0.9956**
Residential arrangement change −0.128 −0.2037
Age of the head −0.0259*** −0.0253***
Educational level
Secondary −0.0265 −0.04939
Academic midd. −0.0269*** −0.0368***
Technical midd. 0.0830 0.08748
Normal college 0.136 0.09445
Technical −0.101*** −0.1261***
Undergraduate 0.0041 −0.04914
P. Graduate −0.0096 −0.1558
Residential activity 0.1138** 0.2052***
Planning treatments
Improvement −0.161 −0.1888
Consolidation −0.229 −0.2681
Development 0.0344 0.0050
Renewal −0.1717 −0.2038
Density_2005 −0.00046** 0.0002417
Density_2018 1.8497*** 1.8638***
Building license 0.223*** 0.2246***
Coor x −1.247*** −1.0712***
Coor y 0.519*** 0.3769***
Variable Total built areaa Residential built areab
Constant −94.61*** −80.9287***
Observations 17,544 17,575
R-squared 0.5326 0.5107
Source: Author's calculations.
a
It corresponds to the total area built on the block (the group of buildings that is surrounded by streets).
b
It corresponds to the total area built on the block for residential use only.
c
Group of buildings that is surrounded by streets.
These results suggest that areas farthest from public goods grew faster. An increase in accessibility is associated with a 21 % growth in
residential built-up areas. As shown in map 2, the most peripheral areas have the least accessibility to transportation systems and urban
facilities.
Demographic variables have the greatest explanatory power of all variables. Increasing the average household growth rate by 1 % increases
the built-up area by 2.18 %. The change in household composition indicates that the built-up area increases by 1.23 % for a one percentage
point increase in the number of persons per household. However, this rate is decreasing at an average of 0.0162 % per year, so accelerating
the reduction in household size increases the built-up area. The change in residential arrangements is not statistically significant in any of
the models. It is not surprising that households and dwellings tend to equalize to one on average per block; as the population drops while
the number of households rises, the demand for built-up space increases.
On the other hand, increasing the average age of the head of household reduces the built-up area of the block slightly. Older people tend
to live in less dense places. Changing the average age from 30 to 60 years reduces the built-up area by one-third of a percentage point.
Regarding educational level, the total built-up area was increased mainly in those blocks with a household with academic middle school
and technical level of education.
Only the residential normative use has statistical significance in explaining the growth of the total and residential constructions. On the
other hand, the building license coefficient suggests the existence of informal constructions throughout the city. Population density in
2005 has no statistical significance in the residential area. On the contrary, density in 2018 explains the growth of built-up space in those
blocks with the possibility of densification. The regression model for residential areas maintains similar coefficients in statistical terms;
land prices and density in 2005 lose significance. The coordinates of the block centroids indicate that there are greater construction
increases in the blocks on the northern and western borders of the city. The blocks located to the north and west of the city had, on
average, higher rates of construction growth. For every degree (longitudinal) farther west, the increment in total area increases by 1.2 %,
and for every degree (latitudinal) farther north, the increment in total area increases by 0.51 % and 10.7 and 0.37 for residential edification
model.
These estimations show that residential dynamics drive urban construction. Market pressures do not make significant differences
between total and residential built-up areas. Except for accessibility and distance to green areas, the coefficients for total built-up and
residential areas are similar.
Table 2 presents the models for formal and informal zones in terms of total built and residential areas. For the first group of variables,
distance to centrality, access to transportation, distance to green areas, and prices are not statistically significant in the formal zones. Also,
in the second group, household composition changes and educational level different a technical and normal college are not statistically
significant. Finally, activity area, any planning treatments, population density in 2005 y north area, neither are statistically significant.
However, in formal blocks where the number of households per dwelling increased, the built-up area decreased. On the other hand, the
share of residential area in total area has the same effect of increasing the current residential built-up area. The city is saturated
expansively.
Table 2. Increase in total and residential building by formal and informal zones.
Source: Authors.
aIt corresponds to the total area built on the block.
bIt corresponds to the total area built on the block for residential use only.
There is a consistency in informal zones with what happened in the whole city. Prices acquire statistical significance, and density 2018 has
a higher coefficient, confirming the densification of informal zones where the household composition changes significantly. There is a
certain consistency in terms of housing precariousness in informal areas. There is an increase in building density in areas with inadequate
provision of public goods, low prices, and rearrangement of households in housing.
The comparison between what happens to formal and informal residential construction confirms the critical urban imbalance in Bogota.
While the growth of the built-up area in formal zones has been close to the centralities, informal residential growth increases with
distance. Access to the center is increasingly less available to a greater number of inhabitants. Moving away from employment centers
increases built-up area; for these households, access to these centers is more costly in terms of distance.
In informal blocks, facilities have the highest coefficient in all models; their absence is notorious in these areas. Access to transportation is
statistically significant in all informality models; this fact indicates that the cost of transportation for these households is associated with
low income. Again, prices do not affect the increase in built-up area in residential informal areas. In general, residents must pay these
prices to maintain their location within the city.
In the informal residential zones, the growth rate of households and the change in household composition are lower than those of all the
estimated models. The increase of 1 % in the rate of number of persons per household reduces the growth rate in the built space by 1.6 % in
formal zones, which have smaller households. The variable of households per dwelling in the formal areas is statistically significant. The
number of households per dwelling decreases 66 % faster than in the formal areas, and the area increases by a smaller number. This
finding confirms the high densities and the presence of small dwellings in informal areas, as well as the lower quality of life for the
inhabitants of such areas than for their peers in formal areas. The age of the head of household reduces the built-up area slightly more for
heads of formal households. Households with academic middle educational level reduce the built-up residential area, while normalist
education increases the area. Except for technical education in formal residential zones, the remaining education categories are not
statistically significant. Thus, the education of the population in informal zones is relatively homogeneous.
Regarding land use regulations, as the possibility of building or the legal right to build increases, the informal residential built-up area is
reduced. As a result of the urban legalization process that enables informal land to be used for formal production, the results indicate the
entry of the formal market in informal zones. The coordinates show the pressure toward the urban boundary basically in informal zones.
The results indicate a strong edification process in zones of informal origin. The coefficients are generally statistically significant and
higher in magnitude. Households lose urban offerings and are increasingly located toward the edge of the city.
6. Discussion
Our findings suggest that urban informality requires another analysis perspective than that carried out so far due to the importance of
building densification in informal areas in Latin American cities. Given the increased growth of built space in areas of informal origin in
Bogota in recent years, our study addressed the factors that trigger this dynamic. Three aspects became evident considering our results.
First, the land market operates according to economic theory, which demonstrates the limited capacity of the public policy to regulate the
dynamics in the territory. The result is that market pressures are driving construction in the urban peripheries. The areas experiencing
greater building growth, particularly within informal sectors, are those with less equipment, fewer green areas, and lower urban
accessibility. However, land prices have a negative effect on the production of built space throughout the city, thus confirming the effects
of market pressures on the processes of space production in the city.
Second, the growth of built space, formal and informal, responds to increased demand, mainly explained by the formation of new
households and changes in its composition. Our findings show that the informal residential market has greater elasticity to respond to
demand growth. Demographic dynamics configure a complex relation between the formal and informal land and built space markets.
Recent studies on residential densification have reached similar conclusions for both Latin American cities and others in the global south
(Azhar et al., 2021; Harrison et al., 2021; Jones, 2017; Mazarro et al., 2022; Meus, 2021). Understanding the logic of informal built space
production rather than attempting to formalize it would be an essential step toward a better solution to the housing crisis in the region.
Although it was not possible to include the effects of tenure data in the model, as identified by other studies in Latin America (Azhar et al.,
2021; Stiphany et al., 2021), the rental market may be motivating this increase in households demanding housing in informal sectors,
which is fundamental to explaining the density and growth of built space. The effects of the informal rental market on the densification
process will be the subject of future studies.
Finally, as we expected, land regulations have a limited effect on informal built space production dynamics. However, allocated building
licenses are an important variable in explaining the growth of built space in both formal and legalized informal areas. Two aspects are
relevant to these findings. On the one hand, the results indicate the existence of informal edification (without license) in formal zones. On
the other hand, its statistical significance in informal areas is evidence of the pressure of the formal market on informal areas. This fact is
consistent with the expulsion of poor households to social housing projects in the metropolitan area. This situation shows the coexistence
or a porous border between formality and informality. The market expels low-income households to formal zones in other municipalities
to locate formal households in informal zones in Bogotá.
As has been identified in other contexts, densification in informal zones occurs as a result of market forces but also as a result of urban
regulations. Although with different mechanisms and interactions than in other areas of the world (Van Oostrum, 2021).
The role of formal developers in consolidated informal areas is beginning to be an important vector of growth and densification; we do
not yet know if it is generating displacement or gentrification. However, our results confirm, as in other Latin American cities, that areas
that popular sectors have traditionally occupied are beginning to be areas of interest for real estate capital (Betancur, 2014; Cummings,
2015; Janoschka & Sequera, 2018; Valverde & Zárate, 2015). Whether or not this pressures processes of displacement and
sociodemographic change is a matter for discussion and to explore in future research (Ghafur, 2006). As Zhu (2012) shows, in the case of
Vietnam, the state failed to provide a sustainable housing supply and appropriate property rights in an economy in a capitalist transition.
In Colombia, the law has land management instruments to facilitate housing production, but real estate producers only meet effective
demand.
As other studies conclude (Meus, 2021; Mottelson, 2021; Visagie & Turok, 2020); we found that population density does not necessarily
coincide with building density. The places where most construction took place were not the most densely populated. The reduction of
new informal areas in the city and the densification due to the conditions of informal built space exclude part of the population that must
be located outside the city. Only those with an income to resist the precariousness can gain access, even if marginalized. The rest must go
to the metropolitan margins. The densification of areas of informal origin co-occurs as the informal metropolitan expansion; this is an
important field of exploration for future research (Meus, 2021).
Our research on Bogota's case contributes to identifying and explaining different dynamics of informal production in large cities, where
the causes associated with migration and poverty have lost explanatory power with respect to previous decades. It also contributes to the
understanding of urban densification by highlighting the role of the real estate market, which, in the case of Bogota, has a greater share of
renting than in other cities in the region, in addition to the important role played by the informal market in this process. As Harrison et al.
(2021) point out, these are topics about which there is less knowledge, especially in the cities of the global south. In contrast to what other
studies in cities of the Global South have found, more urban regulations, such as those imposed in Bogotá, have not been able to diminish
the power of the market and private developers to guide the processes of urban growth and densification (Azhdari et al., 2022).
7. Conclusions
In this study, we examine the determinants of the growth of built space in areas of informal origin in Bogota to understand the recent
functioning of urban informality in large cities. We use built area in each city block in 2007 and 2018, differentiating those of informal
origin to evaluate how market pressures on urban structure, demographic and socio-economic dynamics, and urban regulation explain
changes in building density in the period with linear regression analysis. Information was reduced through principal components analysis.
According to our results, the increase in built-up areas in informal legalized zones is approximately 13.5 % higher than in formal ones. Our
findings point out three main drivers for this increase.
The first relates to the pressures the real estate market exerts on the urban structure. The growth of built-up space in informal areas is
greater in more peripheral zones, with less access to employment centers, green areas, urban amenities, and less accessibility to
transportation. The price of land, however, has a small negative effect on the growth of the built-up area. We conclude that the pressures
of the real estate market on the city's centralities are transmitted to the informal peripheries through increased building density due to
competition from the formal market for informal land. The households in Bogota have no choice but to assume land rents, regardless of
the high urban costs, if they want to remain in the city.
In the second place, demographic aspects. Household growth and changes in household composition are the two most important
variables in explaining building density in formal and informal areas. However, the flexibility of informal built space production processes
allows them to respond more quickly to increased demand.
Finally, buildings with licenses explain part of the production of built space in informal legalized zones. It means that formal production
contributes to the densification of areas of informal origin and could press the displacement of the population from consolidated popular
sectors to the far peripheries or metropolitan areas.
Patterns of residential densification evidence profound inequalities. While densification and the growth of built space in high-income
areas create integrated spaces with urban amenities appropriate for elites, informal densification is peripheral and reproduces historical
socio-spatial segregation and exclusion patterns. The geographies of population and residential densification are relational and closely
linked to the production of socio-spatial inequalities (McFarlane, 2020).
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Angélica Patricia Camargo Sierraa: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project administration,
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Alex Smith Araque Solanob: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft, Visualization, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. David Holguín Lozanoc:
Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest

Angelica Patricia Camargo Sierra reports financial support was provided by Colombian General System of Royalties. If there are other
authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A
Variables and statistics
Variables Description Number Mean Standard Min Max

deviation
Informal block Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the block is built in an informal 39,118 0.484 0.5 0 1
zone and 0 if it is built in a formal zone.
Distance to centrality Natural logarithm of the distance in meters from the center of the block to 34,017 6.56 1.197 −2.314 8.88
the nearest main road in the city.
Distance to urban Natural logarithm of the distance in meters from the center of the block to 38,821 8.21 0.546 3.803 9.725
facilities the nearest urban facility.
Total area Natural logarithm of the area in square meters of the block. 37,234 8.198 1.042 1.386 13.235

deviation
Accessibility Natural logarithm of the distance in meters from the center of the block to 27,319 6.738 0.943 −3.998 8.71
the nearest elements of the mobility system.
Distance green area Natural logarithm of the distance in meters from the center of the block to 36,222 4.695 1.419 −6.753 8.444
the nearest green area of the city.
Price variation Percentage change in average price per square meter between 2007 and 39,118 0.815 0.783 −6.878 12.053
2017 using the price deflator.
Household growth Growth rate of households per block. 32,952 0.011 0.045 −0.359 0.443
Household Annual percentage change in the number of persons per household 32,952 −0.016 0.014 −0.43 0.177
composition
Residential Annual percentage change in the number of households per dwelling 32,952 −0.004 0.019 −0.166 0.107
arrangement change
Age of the head Average age of the head of household for 2018 36,402 46.892 5.863 18 80.75
Educational level . . . . .
Elementary Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.224 0.417 0 1
educational degree of the block is elementary school, and 0 in any other
case
Secondary Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.02 0.139 0 1
educational degree is basic secondary education, and 0 in any other case.
Academic midd. Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.518 0.5 0 1
educational degree of the block is the academic mean, and 0 in any other
case.
Technical midd. Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.002 0.039 0 1
educational degree of the block is a technical mean, and 0 in any other case.
Normalist Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0 0.022 0 1
educational degree of the block is a normalist, and 0 in any other case.
Technical Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.034 0.182 0 1
educational degree of the block is a technical, and 0 in any other case.
Undergraduate Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.156 0.363 0 1
educational degree is a university degree, and 0 in any other case.
P. Graduate Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the median of the highest 35,419 0.046 0.209 0 1
educational degree is a master or Phd, and 0 in any other case.
Residential activity Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the block is located in a 39,118 0.833 0.373 0 1
residential activity zone, as defined in the 2004 urban plan.
Planning treatments Normative treatments according 2004 urban plan
Conservation Dummy variable that assumes the value of 1 if the block has been assigned 37,751 0.02 0.14 0 1
conservation treatment and 0 in any other case.
Improvement Dummy variable that assumes the value of 1 if the block has been assigned 37,751 0.432 0.495 0 1
integral improvement treatment and 0 in any other case.
Consolidation Dummy variable that assumes the value of 1 if the block has been assigned 37,751 0.483 0.5 0 1
consolidation treatment and 0 in any other case.
Development Dummy variable that assumes a value of 1 if the block has been assigned 37,751 0.038 0.192 0 1
development treatment and 0 in any other case.
Renewal Dummy variable that assumes the value of 1 if the block has been assigned 37,751 0.026 0.16 0 1
urban renewal treatment and 0 in any other case.
Density 2005 Population density of the block in 2005 39,118 55.338 40.153 0 1.004.821
Building license Dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the block had any building 39,118 0.454 0.498 0 1
license for residential use between the years 2012 and 2017.

deviation
Residential blocks Percentage of properties with residential use in the block in 2007 39,118 81.947 32.135 0 100
Cord x Longitudinal coordinate (in degrees) of the block centroid. 39,118 −74.094 1.299 −74.219 0
Coord y Latitudinal coordinate (in degrees) of the block centroid. 39,118 4.625 0.107 0 4.825
Recommended articles
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Abramo, 2012 P. Abramo
La ciudad com-fusa: mercado y producción de la estructura urbana en las grandes metrópolis latinoamericanas
Eure, 38 (114) (2012), pp. 35-69, 10.4067/s0250-71612012000200002
View in Scopus Google Scholar
Acioly Jr, 2002 Acioly, Jr, C. C. (2002). Can urban management deliver the sustainable city? Guided densification in Brazil versus informal
compactness in Egypt. In compact cities (pp. 139-152). Routledge.
Google Scholar
Albouy, Behrens, Robert-Nicoud and Seegert, 2019 D. Albouy, K. Behrens, F. Robert-Nicoud, N. Seegert
The optimal distribution of population across cities
Journal of Urban Economics, 110 (2019), pp. 102-113, 10.1016/j.jue.2018.08.004
View PDF View article View in Scopus Google Scholar
Alonso, 1964 W. Alonso

Location and land use
Harvard University Press, Toward a general theory of land rent (1964)
Google Scholar
AlSayyad and Roy, 2003 N. AlSayyad, A. Roy (Eds.), Urban informality: Transnational perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia,
Lexington Books (2003)
Google Scholar
Angel et al., 2016 S. Angel, A.M. Blei, J. Parent, P. Lamson-Hall, N. Galarza-Sanchez, D.L. Civco, K. Thom
Atlas of urban expansion—2016 edition
(2016)
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Google Scholar
Augustijn-Beckers, Flacke and Retsios, 2011 E.W. Augustijn-Beckers, J. Flacke, B. Retsios

Simulating informal settlement growth in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: An agent-based housing model
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 35 (2) (2011), pp. 93-103, 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.01.001
Azhar, Buttrey and Ward, 2021 A. Azhar, H. Buttrey, P.M. Ward

“Slumification” of consolidated informal settlements: A largely unseen challenge
Current Urban Studies, 9 (3) (2021), pp. 315-342, 10.4236/cus.2021.93020
Azhdari, Alidadi and Pojani, 2022 A. Azhdari, M. Alidadi, D. Pojani

What drives urban densification?
Free market versus government planning in Iran. Journal of Planning Education and Research (2022), 10.1177/0739456X221126625
Google Scholar
Azuela de la Cueva, 1993 A. Azuela de la Cueva
Los asentamientos populares y el orden jurídico en la urbanización periférica de América Latina
Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 55 (3) (1993), pp. 133-168
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3540926
Google Scholar
Barry, 2015 M. Barry
Property Theory, Methods, and the Continuum of Land Rights, UN Habitat, Nairobi (2015)
Google Scholar
Betancur, 2014 J.J. Betancur

Gentrification in Latin America: Overview and critical analysis
Urban Studies Research, 2014 (2014)
Google Scholar
Blanco, Cibils and Miranda, 2014 A.G.B. Blanco, V.F. Cibils, A.M. Miranda
Rental housing wanted: Policy options for Latin America and the Caribbean
(2014)
Inter-American Development Bank
Google Scholar
Bloom, 2020 Bloom, D. (2020) Demographics can be a potent driver of the pace and process of economic development. Population 2020.
IMF.
Google Scholar
Bouillon, 2012 C.P. Bouillon

Un espacio para el desarrollo
Los mercados de vivienda en América Latina y el Caribe, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (2012)
Google Scholar
Camargo, 2017 A. Camargo

Prácticas Residenciales y Movilidad Social en Sectores Populares Consolidados en Bogotá
Tesis Doctoral. Doctorado en Estudios Sociales Universidad Externado de Colombia (2017)
Google Scholar
Camargo and Hurtado, 2013 A. Camargo, A. Hurtado

Urbanización informal en Bogotá: agentes y lógicas de producción del espacio urbano
Revista invi, 28 (78) (2013), pp. 77-107
Carrizosa, 2022 Carrizosa, M. (2022) Urban informality and the making of African cities.
Google Scholar
Clichevsky, 2009 Clichevsky, N. (2009) Algunas reflexiones sobre informalidad y regularización del suelo urbano. Bitácora 14, (1) Pag. 63–
88. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/bitacora/article/view/18508 .
Google Scholar
Corredor, 2020 E. Corredor

Efecto de la legalización de barrios en los precios del suelo y la construcción en la ciudad informal
Master’s thesis, 1, Universidad del Rosario (2020), pp. 1-33
https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstream/handle/10336/25201/TesisMariaCorredor.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
CrossRef Google Scholar
Cummings, 2015 Cummings, J. (2015). Confronting favela chic: The gentrification of informal settlements in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In Global
gentrifications (pp. 81-100). Policy Press.
Google Scholar
Da Mata, 2013 D. Da Mata

Disentangling the causes of informal housing
Unpublished paper (2013)
Google Scholar
Dave, 2010 S. Dave

High urban densities in developing countries: A sustainable solution?
Built Environment, 36 (1) (2010), pp. 9-27, 10.2148/benv.36.1.9
Davis, 2018 D.E. Davis
Reflections on “the politics of informality”: What we know, how we got there, and where we might head next
Studies in Comparative International Development, 53 (2018), pp. 365-378
CrossRef View in Scopus Google Scholar
Finn, 2023 B.M. Finn

The structure of informality: The Zambian copperbelt and the informal/formal dialectic
Dialogues in Human Geography, 0 (0) (2023), 10.1177/20438206231168883
Google Scholar
Fujita and Thisse, 2002 M. Fujita, J.-F. Thisse

Economics of agglomeration: Cities, industrial location, and regional growth
Cambridge University Press (2002)
Google Scholar
Ghafur, 2006 S. Ghafur

Social exclusion and residential densification: Implications for integration of the urban poor in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Protibesh BUET, 10 (2006), pp. 2-14
Google Scholar
Gilbert, 2003 A. Gilbert

Rental housing: An essential option for the urban poor in developing countries
UN-Habitat, Nairobi Google Scholar (2003)
Google Scholar
Goytia, 2019 Goytia, Cynthia. (2019). Informal land markets. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0158 . The Wiley Blackwell
encyclopedia of urban and regional studies.
Google Scholar
Harrison, Klein and Todes, 2021 P. Harrison, G. Klein, A. Todes

Scholarship and policy on urban densification: Perspectives from city experiences
International Development Planning Review, 43 (2) (2021), 10.3828/idpr.2020.5
Google Scholar
Janoschka and Sequera, 2018 M. Janoschka, J. Sequera

Procesos de gentrificación y desplazamiento en América Latina: una perspectiva comparativista
(2018)
Cuerpos Parlantes
Google Scholar
Jaramillo, 2008 S. Jaramillo

Reflexiones de la “informalidad” fundiaria como peculiaridad de los mercados de suelo en América Latina
Territorios, Núm, 18-19 (2008), pp. 11-53
https://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/territorios/article/view/826
John-Nsa, 2021 C. John-Nsa

Understanding the factors influencing the spatial dynamics of informal settlements: The case of Enugu City, Nigeria
Town and Regional Planning, 79 (2021), pp. 29-43, 10.18820/2415-0495/trp79i1.5
Lategan and Cilliers, 2016 Lategan, L. G., & Cilliers, J. E. (2016). Towards more compact south African settlements through informal housing:
The case of backyard densification in Bridgton and Bongolethu, Oudtshoorn. Town and Regional Planning, 68, 12-26. DOI:
10.18820/2415-0495/trp68i1.2 .
Google Scholar
Jones, 2017 P. Jones

Housing resilience and the informal city
Journal of Regional and City Planning, 28 (2) (2017), pp. 129-139
Lombard, 2014 M. Lombard
Constructing ordinary places: Place-making in urban informal settlements in Mexico
Progress in Planning, 94 (2014), pp. 1-53, 10.1016/j.progress.2013.05.003
Mazarro, Sikder and Pedro, 2022 A. Mazarro, S.K. Sikder, A.A. Pedro
Spatializing inequality across residential built-up types: A relational geography of urban density in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Habitat International, 119 (2022), Article 102472
Google Scholar
McFarlane, 2020 C. McFarlane

De/re-densification: A relational geography of urban density
City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 24 (1–2) (2020), pp. 314-324, 10.1080/13604813.2020.1739911
Meus, 2021 M. Meus

Urban densification of informal settlements in Lima, Peru-study case of Vallecito alto in
Lima, Peru (2021)
Google Scholar
Moser, 2010 C.O. Moser

Ordinary families, extraordinary lives: Assets and poverty reduction in Guayaquil, 1978–2004
Brookings Institution Press (2010)
Google Scholar
Mottelson, 2021 Mottelson, J. (2021, February). Urban densification of informal settlements in sub-Saharan Africa: An analysis of recent
developments in Maputo, Mozambique. In ISUF 2020 virtual conference proceedings (Vol. 1).
Google Scholar
ONU-Hábitat, 2003 ONU-Hábitat

The challenge of slums
Global report on human settlements 2003, Nairobi, Kenyia (2003)
Google Scholar
Perlman, 2010 J. Perlman

Favela: Four decades of living on the edge in Rio de Janeiro
Oxford University Press (2010)
Google Scholar
Puga, 1999 D. Puga

The rise and fall of regional inequalities
European Economic Review, 43 (2) (1999), pp. 303-334, 10.2139/ssrn.39142
Rosas Meza, 2009 Rosas Meza, I. (2009) La cultura constructiva informal y la transformación de los barrios caraqueños. Bitácora No. 15 (2)
pag. 79–88 https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3150947.pdf .
Google Scholar
Roy, 2009 A. Roy

Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization
Planning Theory, 8 (1) (2009), pp. 76-87
Scheba, Turok and Visagie, 2021 Scheba, A., Turok, I., & Visagie, J. (2021). Inequality and urban density: Socio-economic drivers of uneven
densification in Cape Town. Environment and urbanization ASIA, 12(1_suppl), S107-S126.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425321998026 .
Google Scholar
Schteingart, 1973 M. Schteingart

Urbanización y dependencia en América Lati- na
Ediciones SIAP, Buenos Aires (1973)
Google Scholar
SDP, 2018 SDP (2018). Estudio de crecimiento y evolución de la huella urbana para los municipios que conforman la zona metropolitana de
Bogotá.
Google Scholar
Secretaría Distrital de Planeación, 2022a Secretaría Distrital de Planeación (2022a) Barrio Legalizado Bogotá [map]
https://www.ideca.gov.co/recursos/mapas/barrio-legalizado-bogota-dc .
Google Scholar
Secretaría Distrital de Planeación, 2022b Secretaría Distrital de Planeación (2022b) Licencias [map]
https://datosabiertos.bogota.gov.co/dataset/licencia-bogota-d-c .
Google Scholar
Selod and Tobin, 2018 Selod, Harris and Tobin, Lara, The informal city (June 20, 2018). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8482,
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3238317 .
Google Scholar
Stiphany, Ward and Perez, 2021 K. Stiphany, P.M. Ward, L.P. Perez
Informal settlement upgrading and the rise of renting in São Paulo
Brazil (2021), 10.1177/0739456X211065495
Google Scholar
Todes, Weakley and Harrison, 2017 A. Todes, D. Weakley, P. Harrison

Densifying Johannesburg: Context, policy and diversity
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33 (2) (2017), pp. 281-299, 10.1007/s10901-017-9561-6
Google Scholar
Torres, 2009 C. Torres

Ciudad informal colombiana: barrios construidos por la gente
Publicación Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (2009)
Google Scholar
Unidad Administrativa de Catastro Distrital (UACD), 2022 Unidad Administrativa de Catastro Distrital (UACD) (2022) Mapa de Referencia para
Bogotá [map] https://www.ideca.gov.co/recursos/mapas/mapa-de-referencia-para-bogota-dc .
Google Scholar
Valverde and Zárate, 2015 M. Valverde, M. Zárate

Densificación habitacional y procesos socio-espaciales en colonias populares
Academia XXII: revista semestral de investigación, 6 (11) (2015), pp. 81-100
http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/aca/article/view/51997
Google Scholar
Van Oostrum, 2021 M. Van Oostrum

Access, density and mix of informal settlement: Comparing urban villages in China and India
Cities, 117 (2021), Article 103334
Visagie and Turok, 2020 J. Visagie, I. Turok

Getting urban density to work in informal settlements in Africa
Environment and Urbanization, 32 (2) (2020), pp. 351-370, 10.1177/0956247820907808
Ward, Jiménez, Di Virgilio and Camargo, 2015 Ward P.M.; Jiménez, E.; Di Virgilio, M y Camargo, A. (2015). Políticas de Vivienda en Ciudades
Latinoaméricanas: una nueva generación de estrategias y enfoques para 2016 ONU-Habitat III. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario.
Google Scholar
Waters, 2016 Waters, J. (2016). Accessible cities: From urban density to multidimensional accessibility. Rethinking sustainable cities:
Accessible, green and fair; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 11-60.
Google Scholar
Zhu, 2012 J. Zhu
Development of sustainable urban forms for high-density low-income Asian countries: The case of Vietnam: The
institutional hindrance of the commons and anticommons
Cities, 29 (2012), pp. 77-87, 10.1016/j.cities.2011.08.005
Zillmann, 2002 Zillmann, K. (2002). Rethinking the compact city: Informal urban development in Caracas. In: Compact cities: Sustainable
urban forms for developing countries, 193-206.
Google Scholar
Cited by (0)
☆ This work was supported by “Sistema General de Regalías de Colombia” Proyect code BPIN 2016000100031.
1 This information corresponds to our calculations made with historical information on informal neighborhoods from Secretaría Distrital de Planeación (2022a) and
the reference maps produced by Unidad Administrativa de Catastro Distrital (UACD) (2022).
2 Information from Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística de Colombia DANE.
3 A city block is the group of buildings that is surrounded by streets.
4 Information source: building licenses and the prices of the built-up area are reference values of Secretaría Distrital de Planeación (2022b). The rates of population
growth, change in household composition, and change in residential arrangements in the two census periods are from DANE. The total built-up and housing areas
correspond to the cadastral information of Unidad Administrativa de Catastro Distrital (UACD) (2022).
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All content on this site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the Creative
Commons licensing terms apply.

Camargo 2024

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

Camargo 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19/2/24, 15:45 Understanding urban densification in Latin American cities: determinants of the production of built space in informal areas

ormal areas in Bog…

Understanding urban densification in Latin American cities:

Outline Share Cite

Under a Creative Commons license open access

• Densification of informal settlements is driving the persistence of informality.

• Market pressures are driving construction in the urban peripheries.

• Demographic changes put pressure on demand for built residential space.

• Population density does not necessarily coincide with building density.

2. Urban informality and triggers for the production of built space

3. Residential densification and growth of built-up space in informal sectors in Bogota

Download : Download high-res image (468KB)

Download : Download high-res image (313KB)

Table 1. Estimates of the increase in built-up area.

Variable Total built areaa Residential built areab

Blocksc located in informal zone 0.135*** 0.135***

Distance to centrality 0.0121** 0.0123***

Distance to urban facilities 0.182*** 0.170***

Accessibility 0.0248*** 0.030***

Distance green area 0.0148*** 0.0106**

Block area 0.838*** 0. 834***

Residential share −0.00612*** −0.00614***

Price variation −0.0200** −0.00569

Household growth 2.186*** 2.216***

Household composition 1.230*** 0.9956**

Residential arrangement change −0.128 −0.2037

Age of the head −0.0259*** −0.0253***

Secondary −0.0265 −0.04939

Academic midd. −0.0269*** −0.0368***

Technical midd. 0.0830 0.08748

Normal college 0.136 0.09445

Technical −0.101*** −0.1261***

Undergraduate 0.0041 −0.04914

P. Graduate −0.0096 −0.1558

Residential activity 0.1138** 0.2052***

Improvement −0.161 −0.1888

Consolidation −0.229 −0.2681

Development 0.0344 0.0050

Renewal −0.1717 −0.2038

Density_2005 −0.00046** 0.0002417

Density_2018 1.8497*** 1.8638***

Building license 0.223*** 0.2246***

Coor x −1.247*** −1.0712***

Coor y 0.519*** 0.3769***

Variable Total built areaa Residential built areab

Constant −94.61*** −80.9287***

Observations 17,544 17,575

R-squared 0.5326 0.5107

Source: Author's calculations.

aIt corresponds to the total area built on the block.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of competing interest

Variables and statistics

Variables Description Number Mean Standard Min Max

Variables Description Number Mean Standard Min Max

Planning treatments Normative treatments according 2004 urban plan

Variables Description Number Mean Standard Min Max

Alonso, 1964 W. Alonso

Augustijn-Beckers, Flacke and Retsios, 2011 E.W. Augustijn-Beckers, J. Flacke, B. Retsios

Azhar, Buttrey and Ward, 2021 A. Azhar, H. Buttrey, P.M. Ward

Azhdari, Alidadi and Pojani, 2022 A. Azhdari, M. Alidadi, D. Pojani

Azuela de la Cueva, 1993 A. Azuela de la Cueva

Betancur, 2014 J.J. Betancur

Blocksc located in informal zone 0.135* 0.135*

Distance to centrality 0.0121 0.0123*

Distance to urban facilities 0.182* 0.170*

Accessibility 0.0248* 0.030*

Distance green area 0.0148* 0.0106

Block area 0.838* 0. 834*

Residential share −0.00612* −0.00614*

Household growth 2.186* 2.216*

Household composition 1.230* 0.9956

Age of the head −0.0259* −0.0253*

Academic midd. −0.0269* −0.0368*

Technical −0.101* −0.1261*

Residential activity 0.1138 0.2052*

Density_2018 1.8497* 1.8638*

Building license 0.223* 0.2246*

Coor x −1.247* −1.0712*

Coor y 0.519* 0.3769*

Constant −94.61* −80.9287*