Translating Plans
to Development
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning
in Tanzania Secondary Cities
October 2018
Chyi-Yun Huang
Ally Namangaya
MaryGrace W. Lugakingira
Isabel D. Cantada
© 2018 The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org
Some rights reserved
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions
expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or
the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in
this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do
not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the
endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
Rights and Permissions
The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its
knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full
attribution to this work is given.
Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “Huang, CY; Namangaya, A.; Lugakingira M. W.; Cantada, I. D.
2018. Translating Plans to Development: Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary
Cities. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank.”
All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications,
The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@
worldbank.org.
TRANSLATING PLANS TO DEVELOPMENT
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning
in Tanzania Secondary Cities
OCTOBER 2018
Chyi-Yun Huang
Ally Namangaya
MaryGrace W. Lugakingira
Isabel D. Cantada
This report was prepared by a core team led by Chyi-Yun Huang and comprising Dr. Ally Namangaya
of Ardhi University, MaryGrace W. Lugakingira, and Isabel D. Cantada. Various spatial analyses and data
were contributed through the support of the Earth Observation for Sustainable Development (EO4SD)
Urban Project, a partnership between the European Space Agency and the World Bank, and for this
study executed primarily by GAF Germany, led by Sharon Gomez and Thomas Hausler, together with
Amelie Broszeit and Daniela Angelova. The team would also like to thank Prosper Tugonzomukama
and Xiang Xu for their technical inputs, and Roderick Babijes for his administrative support. The report
benefited from guidance and support from Andre Bald, Program Leader of the Tanzania Country Man-
agement Unit, and was developed under the overall leadership of Bernice K. Van Bronkhorst, Practice
Manager of the East and South Africa Region Urban and Disaster Risk Management Unit.
The team extends its gratitude to the counterparts in the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human
Settlements Development (MLHHSD), particularly under the guidance of Prof. John Lupala, with Mr.
Amulike Mahenge and their teams, as well as the President’s Office of Regional Administration and
Local Governments (PO-RALG) under the guidance of Eng. Davis Shemengale, Eng. Ezron Kilamhama,
Mr. Charles Mariki, and their teams, for the timely feedback, the support offered in the elaboration of
this study, and the excellent collaboration throughout. Last but not least, the team thanks the Local
Government Authorities of Arusha, Dodoma, Kigoma, Mbeya, Mtwara, Mwanza, and Tanga and their
staffs for their close cooperation in providing critical data and insights on the subject.
This study was made possible through the generous support of the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund
(KGGTF) and the Korea-World Bank Group Partnership Facility (KWPF). The KGGTF is a partnership
between the World Bank Group and the Republic of Korea. As an implementation-focused trust fund
that prioritizes the World Bank’s inclusive green growth objectives, this partnership supports countries
in their sustainable growth strategies and investments. In addition to funding, the KGGTF enhances
other World Bank tools and value-added services by providing access to technical experts and facili-
tating dialogue between practitioners of green growth policies and investments. The KGGTF strength-
ens and expands the World Bank’s climate smart investment portfolio.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the
views and position of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the Government of Tanzania.
Contents
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Background and Study Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Rationale for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Development Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Urban Development Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Policy and Institutional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Land-Use and Land-Cover Conformity to Master Plans and Detailed Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Observable Spatial Development Trends and Analysis of Secondary Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4. Key Takeaways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Phases of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.1: Census Data Population (1988–2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2.2: Decomposing Urban Change into Natural Growth and Migration (2002–12) . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2.3: Share of Employed Population by Main Occupation in Case Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2.4: Characteristics of Current Urban Planning Framework and Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.5: Urban Planning Solutions and Strategies at the National, City,
and Neighborhood Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 3.1: Arusha: Conformity to 1985 Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3.2: Conformity of Major Land Uses in Mid-2010s with Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 3.3: Mwanza: Conformity to 1992 Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 3.4: Level of Conformity for Economic Land Uses in Core Urban Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 3.5: Arusha: Conformity to Detailed Area Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 3.6: Size and Expansion Comparison of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 3.7: Urban Growth Type and Rate of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma, 2000 to 2015 . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 3.8: Discontiguity Index Results of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma (2000–15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 3.9: Population Density Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 3.10: Changes in Planned and Unplanned Settlement Areas (Arusha, Dodoma, Kigoma)
between 2005 to 2015 (percent of residential land area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 3.11: Presence of Housing on No-Build Areas and Flood-Prone Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
List of Tables
Table 2.1: State of Infrastructure and Services in Selected Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2.2: Characteristics of Formally Planned and Unplanned Settlements
(observed in Dar es Salaam) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2.3: Key Urban Sector Development Policies in Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 2.4: Summary Status of Master Plan Development in the Case Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 2.5: Status and Nature of Master Plan Development in the Case Cities
(since independence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 3.1: Conformity of Major Land Uses with Arusha 1985 Master Plan and Dodoma 1976
Master Plan across Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 3.2: Conformity of Major Land Uses in Mid-2010s with Detailed Plan Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 5.1: Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
List of Boxes
Box 2.1: The Role of Draft GPSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
List of Maps
Map B2.1.1: 1976 versus 2010 Land-Use Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Map 3.1: Typical Land-Use and Land-Cover Conformity Analysis Performed for Case Cities,
Showing Arusha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Map 3.2: Changes from Agricultural Areas to other Land-Cover Classes between 2005 and 2015,
Core Urban Area of Arusha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Map 3.3: Unplanned and Planned Residential Areas for Mwanza Core Urban Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Map 3.4: Example of a Detailed Area Plan in Arusha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
iv ■ Translating Plans to Development
Map 3.5: Growth Analysis 2000–2015 for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Map 3.6: Directional Distribution of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma Over Time (2000–15) . . . . . . . . 41
Map 3.7: Spatial Distribution of Changes from Agricultural Areas to Other Land Use between
2005/06 and 2015/16 (at similar scale) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Map 3.8: Changes in Road Networks in Selected Cities, from Mid-2000s to Mid-2010s . . . . . . . . . . 44
Map 3.9: Changes in Planned and Unplanned Settlement Areas in Arusha from 2005 to 2015 . . . . 46
Map 3.10: Service Network Analysis on Access to Health Facilities, Schools, and Urban Parks,
Example of Kigoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ v
List of Acronyms
DPS detailed planning scheme
EO4SD Earth Observation for Sustainable Development
FAR floor area ratio
GIS geographic information system
GPS general planning scheme
KGGTF Korea Green Growth Trust Fund
LGAs local government authorities
LGRCIS Local Government Revenue Collection Information System
MLHHSD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development
MP master plan
mtaa subward division
NBS National Bureau of Statistics
NLUFP National Land-Use Framework Plan
PO-RALG President’s Office of Regional Administration and Local Governments
pph people per hectare
ROWs right-of-ways
vii
Executive Summary
Translating Plans to Development is a study investigating the impact and effectiveness of urban plan-
ning on city spatial development in seven Tanzania secondary cities: Arusha, Dodoma, Kigoma, Mbeya,
Mtwara, Mwanza, and Tanga. It was conducted in support of the Tanzania Strategic Cities Project.
The study employed a combination of desk research and literature review, site visits, and interviews
in all of the case cities. Spatial metrics and analysis using satellite and remote sensing imagery were
also undertaken. The team’s first wish is to contribute to data and information on secondary cities’
urban growth and developments in Tanzania, which are currently lacking. The study also aims to pro-
vide insights into the key urban planning tools—master plans, general planning schemes, and detailed
planning schemes (DPSs)—that have been used in (or are absent from) these cities, and understand
how these tools influenced the trends, patterns, and modality of urban growth. The detailed city-by-
city information and analyses also serve as useful information for local policy makers and technical
staff to understand how their cities are growing or developing spatially, thereby allowing them to iden-
tify potential problem areas or to inform locational decisions about future intervention or investment
choices. Gathering from the study’s key observations and findings, we further strive to provide some
concrete and action-oriented recommendations to key stakeholders in three main areas: (i) urban plan-
ning and development (plan formulation, plan quality, and key implementation strategies), (ii) devel-
opment controls and enforcement, and (iii) economics and financing. In the process, a rich set of
spatial and qualitative data was collected and created; these are supplied as the background papers
to this study—the “Background Profile of Tanzania Secondary Cities” and “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary
Cities” to inform future research or study.
We observed that early master plans are somewhat successful in providing broad guidance on each
city’s population projections and main structural forms. However, they were implemented only to a
limited extent or proved rather ineffective in concretely guiding development, especially in terms of
major land uses and supporting infrastructure and facilities. For example, actual development in core
urban areas exhibited around 35 to 45 percent of land-use and land-cover conformity to early master
plans, while that in peri-urban areas varies greatly. Further, cities with master plans existing from earlier
decades did not show better conformity compared to cities that adopted master plans later, and over
time, this conformity did not change or improve significantly. However, notably, residential conformity
in core urban areas is generally high (ranging from around 48 percent to 78 percent conformity), while
economic uses (considering mainly of commercial and industrial areas) have relatively lower levels of
conformity—averaging around 17 percent and 25 percent, respectively.
The ineffectiveness of master plans is also reflected in cities experiencing substantial unplanned
growth and lack of infrastructure and services. Further, many cities face increased fragmentation and
1
dispersion, with the urban expansion process strongly aligned with development of major roads, form-
ing ribbon developments or leapfrogged islands. Severe infrastructure and facilities backlogs exist,
and new investments are not growing fast enough to match the pace of urban growth. This is evi-
denced in the fact that less than half of the case cities’ populations have adequate access to health
facilities, schools, and urban parks (defined as within one kilometer distance, or a 20-minute walk). In
addition, the case cities all have sizeable unplanned settlement areas and continue to experience sig-
nificant expansion of these areas (from around 20 percent to 30 percent growth), with little conversion
into planned settlements. The already low service accessibility is, unsurprisingly, worse for unplanned
settlements. Less than 10 percent of serviced areas in all observed settlements are in unplanned areas.
Tanzania’s secondary cities are developing at extremely low density and low floor area ratio (FAR)—
with a median gross population density of around 21 people per hectare (pph) in the case cities at
the ward level, compared to a UN Habitat recommendation of more than 150 pph for viable commu-
nities. The extremely low densities and FAR makes them inefficient and costly to service, and exacer-
bates sprawl and loss of benefits from agglomeration. Notably, guidance on density is not sufficiently
detailed in master plans. Similarly, master plans lack sufficient granular guidance and considerations
for disaster risk management; case cities see sizeable developments on high-risk and flood-prone
areas. On average, an estimated 13 percent of houses in our case cities are within legally defined “no
build” areas, and around 6 percent of houses are in flood-prone areas.
The study also found that certain aspects of master plans themselves were weak and hence ren-
dered implementation implausible. The challenges in the quality of master plans are especially evi-
dent in their need to (i) be more realistic and base the proposed land uses on more robust analysis
and considerations, such as recognizing and planning for unplanned settlements; (ii) provide better
and more detailed guidance on density, urban resilience, and disaster risk management; (iii) consider
urban mobility and public mass transport options; (iv) be more granular or establish mechanisms and
systems to allow the formulation of the next level of plans; (v) plan for realistic sources and amounts
of financing and hence better estimate the time required for implementation; and (vi) better consider
market forces and private sector contributions to implementation.
One critical reason for the lack of effectiveness or implementation of master plans is the disconnect
between (i) economic plans (the three-to-five-year strategic plans, the one-year budgets summarized
in medium-term expenditure frameworks, and work plans coordinated and monitored by each munic-
ipality’s economics department; (ii) urban plans (master plans and detailed planning schemes); and
(iii) sector or infrastructure plans (utilities, roads, water, and electricity). The lack of effective develop-
ment controls, planning review system and mechanisms and ability or resources for enforcement also
contributes greatly to ineffectiveness of plans.
Interestingly, the samples of inner-city area detailed plans used in this study were found to be more
effective in guiding development, demonstrating much better land-use conformity (overall ranging
from almost 50 percent to 94 percent), although their coverage is generally low (only small areas of
the city have detailed plans) and not readily available in city planning offices. This apparent higher
conformity to the DPS could be attributed mainly to its inherent affiliation with the formal planning
process (the adoption of a DPS classifies an area as planned) and/or the less developed or orderly
2 ■ Translating Plans to Development
nature of the areas selected for detailed planning. The more detailed and granular nature of DPSs
also enables municipalities to better enforce actions against nonconforming development. However,
the majority of DPSs are currently being led by the private sector and not developed according to a
strategic sequence or with the goal of serving the wider public; thus, they may not produce optimal
outcomes. The government should play a more active role in collaborating, guiding, and supporting
private-sector-led DPSs.
From the key findings, we recommend innovative yet practical approaches and solutions to enhance
the implementation and effectiveness of urban plans. Fundamentally, the quality of master plans and
the process of their formulation could be improved, while the coverage of DPSs could be increased.
Densification of currently developed areas should be aggressively pursued through infill or regenera-
tion or redevelopment. Further, the development of major roads and key utilities should be intention-
ally used as a strategic tool to lead and induce developments. Vertical and horizontal coordination
could be improved through perhaps (i) setting up a regional or metropolitan administration or zonal
authority or core working groups consisting of planners, key sector experts, and economists or munic-
ipal finance experts; (ii) conducting regular coordination meetings; and (iii) instituting standard pro-
tocols for internal consultations among these departments during the formulation process of various
urban, sector, and economic plans. More can be done to empower local authorities and increase the
reliance on and leverage of ward and subward (or mtaa)-level efforts by devolving some develop-
ment control to them, as they have the keenest on-the-ground knowledge of specific transactions and
developments in their areas.
Some effective short-term measures could include systematically demarcating road networks and
plot boundaries through physical markers, which creates awareness and allows easier enforcement.
Improving communication of information and data among stakeholders and the public is also essen-
tial. For the medium and longer term, there needs to be an honest exploration of establishing sustain-
able financing options for plan implementation and enforcement vis-à-vis the overall municipal fiscal
position and own-source revenue situation for each city. Further, the development of planned neigh-
borhoods could be piloted through more innovative models, such as land pooling or public-private
partnerships, which have proven to be successful in previous instances.
There is much more we wish to explore on this topic, but unfortunately there is always the constraint of
time and resources. Foremost, the spatial analysis could be deepened. For example, we are looking for-
ward to continued support from the Earth Observation for Sustainable Development (EO4SD) Urban
Project to complete the in-depth spatial analysis for Mtwara, Mbeya, Tanga, and Mwanza. The results
can be dissected in a multitude of ways to explore different angles of analysis, which may yield further
insights. Future possible research topics could include creative econometric studies that build on the
extension of current data to tease out causality and weight of factors that may affect the implemen-
tation and effectiveness of plans. Improvements in institutional framework and structure, alignment
of various levels of policies and guidance, as well as financial and fiscal aspects of urban planning are
other potential areas of interests.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 3
1. Background and Study Scope
Rationale for Study
Tanzania is urbanizing rapidly and its cities are the country’s engines for economic growth. The coun-
try’s urban population share increased from 5.7 percent to 29.1 percent from 1967 to 2012, and it is
projected to exceed 50 percent by 2050. Cities already produce more than half of the country’s gross
domestic product and accounted for around 56 percent of its economic growth from 1990 to 2004
(Kessides 2006). They also account for most of the country’s physical, financial, human, academic,
and technological capital. But as for many countries in Africa, more can be done for Tanzania to better
capture the benefits of urbanization in terms of economies of scale and agglomeration.
Cities in Tanzania are largely growing informally, owing much to the lack of strategic and integrated
spatial guidance, as well as ineffective coordination of land uses, infrastructure, services, and jobs.
This is further exacerbated by insufficient enforcement of development control and generally limited
resources in and supply of affordable land and housing. Furthermore, most cities have been develop-
ing without spatial guiding tools such as master plans or detailed local area plans.1 The urbanization
process needs to be better managed to improve cities’ economic efficiencies and livability.
General and detailed planning schemes are intended to guide future development direction and pref-
erences by coordinating land uses, development density, and strategic sector plans and investment
priorities. The purpose of the general planning schemes (GPS) is to guide the physical development of
land by indicating main land-use zones such as for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, rec-
reational, and agricultural use, as well as by coordinating and safeguarding provisions for trunk trans-
portation, utilities, and other network services. Detailed planning schemes (DPSs) are then prepared
following the broader guidance of the GPS, with further defined density, detailed land-use types, and
local infrastructure and services, to coordinate detailed development activities and enable a clear set
of guidance for enforcing development control.
However, most cities in Tanzania have been without a GPS since the country’s independence, and there is
low coverage of DPSs. Many Tanzanian cities have seen extended periods of urban development without
a functioning GPS in place. Tanzania’s current urban form is largely the product of growth in the absence
of plans and enforcement over decades. Even those with existing plans have developed beyond their
purview. The absence of general and detailed plans and the resulting unchecked organic growth is lock-
ing in inefficient land use that will make future service provision more challenging and costly.
There is a renewed focus on development and adoption of urban plans in the past decade, but
there is also a need to understand the impacts of historic and existing plans alongside the reality of
4
implementation on the ground. Tanzania’s Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Devel-
opment (MLHHSD) and the President’s Office of Regional Administration and Local Governments
(PO-RALG) recognize the need to be more responsive and practical in their approach to urban plan-
ning. Particularly in the past decade, there have been renewed efforts to encourage and support com-
pletion of GPSs in all cities, with the collaboration of local government authorities (LGAs). In addition,
DPSs for peri-urban and new areas in various cities, as well as regularization schemes and central
area redevelopment schemes for existing urban areas, seem to increase in number as well. However,
whether these plans are of good quality, sufficiently coordinated and consulted, and could be mean-
ingfully implemented remain in question.
Knowledge on the spatial development impacts of master plans and the reality of implementation
progress on the ground are not well researched or documented in Tanzania, especially for secondary
cities. A better understanding of this will enable more effective policy, planning, and enforcement
efforts moving forward and contribute to regional development around the country.
In this context, the World Bank conducted this study to investigate the impact and effectiveness
of urban planning on city spatial development in Tanzania cities in seven selected secondary cities
(Arusha, Dodoma, Kigoma, Mbeya, Mtwara, Mwanza, and Tanga). The study seeks to enhance the
urban development agenda and inform policies and development strategies of cities in Tanzania by
gaining insights on the urban planning system and development processes and the effectiveness of
master and detailed urban plans. It also aims to enhance the appreciation of practitioners and local
authorities for the importance of urban plans for guiding urban growth and mitigating the potential
problems and higher costs of retrofitting unplanned development. Further, it attempts to assess the
tools available to urban practitioners for the implementation of adopted plans, while informing policy
that might strengthen enforcement mechanisms. Finally, the study is meant to add to the growing
literature in this area, particularly to inform the understanding of secondary cities, for which informa-
tion is lacking.
Scope of Study
The study investigated the spatial development characteristics of Tanzania’s cities with and without
urban plans—that is, GPSs and/or DPSs2—and attempted to assess the impact and effectiveness of
such urban plans. The study was conducted through three phases (figure 1.1): (i) background review
and research, (ii) development of case studies and detailed spatial and temporal analysis of selected
cities, and (iii) consolidation of findings and recommendations.
The study carried out the following main tasks:
■■ Through a combination of site visits and interviews conducted with all case cities, as well as
desk research and literature review:
• Provide background context and qualitative and empirical descriptions of cities, includ-
ing (i) geography and physical characteristics, (ii) demographic and social context,
(iii) economic conditions and financing, (iv) infrastructure and services, (v) environmental
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 5
FIGURE 1.1: Phases of the Study
Phase 1: Background Phase 2: Develop case Phase 3: Consolidate
review and research studies and detailed findings and
spatial and temporal recommendations
analysis
• Determine case cities and • Provide background • Consolidate analysis, key
study area; rapidly profile context and description of findings, and
cities urban development and recommendations as a
• Set up study premise, growth final report
data collection, and • Investigate (i) urban form • Final workshop with client
literature review and city development and and key stakeholders
(ii) effectiveness in the
implementation of urban
plans
conditions, and (vi) urban planning context, related institutions, and political economy,
which exert significant influence on urban growth and development.
• Examine the prevailing planning practice, national and local level institutional elements,
relevant policies and mechanisms, and other factors that may impact the effectiveness of
urban plans.
■■ Employing spatial metrics and analysis and satellite and remote sensing imagery (on both his-
torical and current imagery):
• Investigate the conformity of actual urban spatial structures and spatial development pat-
terns with current and past planning schemes (that is, intended or recommended vis-à-vis
actual urban structure, infrastructure, and land use).
• Characterize actual growth and spatial development patterns (for example, infill develop-
ment, urban expansion or leapfrog development, planned versus unplanned settlements)
and changes in the urban fabric and pattern, land-cover, and land-use dynamics over time.3
• Analyze spatial conditions of service coverage and accessibility and levels of socioeco-
nomic development.
(The detailed methodology and various definitions used in the study are discussed in a background
paper for this study “Detailed Methodology and Other Detailed Spatial Analysis Explored for Tanzania
Secondary Cities.”)
This report consolidates all the analysis and findings from the first two phases and proposes some
lessons learned and policy recommendations to MLHHSD, PO-RALG, LGAs, and other stakeholders. In
addition, a rich set of spatial and qualitative data was collected and created in the process of the study
and these are presented in background papers, the “Background Profile of Tanzania Secondary Cities”
and “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary Cities” to this study to inform any future research or study.
6 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Organization of the Report
After the initial introduction on the background, rationale, and scope of the study, a summary of the
urban development context and policy and institutional context is provided. Section 2, “Development
Context,” is important in that it provides the backdrop and introduces readers to pertinent issues around
urban development (including urbanization trends as well as the state of the economy, employment,
infrastructure, services, and land) as well as policies and institutions that affect the way Tanzania’s
cities are developing spatially and interacting with the plans and policies in place. Section 3 then high-
lights key findings that emerged from the study. This is further grouped in two main areas in Section 4:
(i) an analysis of whether and how urban development conformed to the plans and guidance (GPS and
DPS) and (ii) actual observable spatial development trends and analysis. Finally, Section 4 draws from
the study to derive key takeaways and Section 5 provides action-oriented recommendations.
Endnotes
1. In Tanzania, and throughout this paper, local area plans are referred to as either detailed planning
schemes (DPSs) or town planning schemes; master plans are in some cases referred to as general
planning schemes (GPSs), consistent with Tanzania’s urban planning legislation.
2. DPSs may be short- or long-term physical development schemes for renewal or redevelopment
of any part of the planning area. The purpose of DPSs is to coordinate all development activities,
control the use and development of land, including intensive use of urban land, and, in particular,
inform vertical and compact urban development (Tanzania Urban Planning Act of 2007).
3. Due to resource and time constraints, this detailed growth and spatial development analysis was
performed as a pilot only for three case cities: Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma so as to illustrate the
possibilities of the analysis. It is our hope to scale this up to include all case cities and beyond in
the future.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 7
2. Development Context
Urban Development Context
Urbanization trends and prospects
Tanzania’s urban population is growing rapidly. Between 1988 and 2012, urban areas in Tanzania’s sec-
ondary cities experienced an overall rapid increase in population, with an estimated total of 1.46 million
people added to the seven case cities during the period (figure 2.1). The population growth rates from
2002 to 2012 for these cities ranged from 1.2 percent in Tanga to 4.0 percent in Kigoma-Ujiji (Census
2012), and these trends are expected to continue.
Three different perspectives on urban have been adopted in mainland Tanzania that imply different
urbanization levels: (i) a political-administrative perspective adopted by the PO-RALG focuses on geo-
graphic boundaries of local government authorities and classifies them as cities, municipalities, or
town councils; (ii) a human settlements perspective used by the MLHHSD defines urban areas based
on population size, level of services, economic bases, and financial budget; and (iii) a statistical per-
spective adopted by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) applies the concept of urban to enumera-
tion areas—the smallest statistical unit of analysis on census data. These perspectives do not explicitly
FIGURE 2.1: Census Data Population (1988–2017)
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Arusha city Dodoma Kigoma-Ujiji Mbeya city Mtwara Mwanza city Tanga city
municipality municipality municipality (Ilemela and
Nyamagana
districts)
Municipalities
1988 2002 2012 2017 (projections based on 2012 Population and Housing Census growth rates)
Source: Tanzanian National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), census 2012.
8
account for population density, thereby running the risk of estimating different levels of urbanization
and having weak or ineffective policies and plans (Muzzini and Lindeboom 2008).
Rapid urban growth in Tanzania is mainly attributed to natural population growth and not rural urban
migration. There are three sources of urban growth: statistical changes, whereby changes in the admin-
istrative boundaries or more places being recognized as urban increase urban population; natural
population growth; and rural-urban migration. Considering cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants,
natural urban population growth contributes around 70 percent of total urban growth.
While all Tanzanian cities and towns have growing populations, some are experiencing net out-
migration (yet are still growing due to high natural growth rates). This was the case for three of the
cities included in this study—Dodoma, Mtwara, and Tanga (see figure 2.2). Reasons for out-migration
are difficult to pin-point; however, interviewees generally attributed this trend to weak economic pros-
pects in the concerned cities over the 2002–12 census period which was the basis for this analysis.
FIGURE 2.2: Decomposing Urban Change into Natural Growth and Migration (2002–12)
Tanga (30,853) 55,485
Mwanza 28,241 182,102
Mtwara (9,551) 20,424
Mbeya 21,918 88,275 Net migration
Natural growth
Kigoma 9,241 58,100
Dodoma (19,927) 95,914
Arusha 5,451 88,145
–40% –20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: Adapted from World Bank 2017; computed using NBS censuses 2002 and 2012.
Economy and employment
Despite rapid urbanization, a large share of jobs in cities is concentrated in small-scale (peasant) agri-
culture, which includes subsistence farming and gardening. There is a significant rural population not
fully integrated into urban activities, which translates to a large share of households that still rely on
subsistence agriculture and low productivity jobs. According to the 2012 census data, this averages
around 25 percent in the case cities, and ranges from more than 40 percent in Dodoma to less than
10 percent in Arusha (figure 2.3).
Employment in Tanzania’s secondary cities is largely informal and in the nontradable sector. Beyond
agriculture, workers are engaged in low productivity jobs mainly in services. The majority works in
the informal services sector, producing only locally traded goods and services with limited returns
and economies of scale. Examples of informal services are food stalls, tailoring shops, beauty salons,
automobile repair services, and furniture production, among others. The ability to attract and
establish larger firms and diversify the types of products and services in secondary cities seems
constrained.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 9
FIGURE 2.3: Share of Employed Population by Main Occupation in Case Cities
Farmers
Livestock keepers
Tanga Fishermen
Street vendors and
Mwanza related workers
Crafts and related workers
Mtwara
Service workers, shop and
stall sales workers
Mbeya Plant machine operators,
assemblers, and various
Kigoma elementary occupations
Clerks and small business
Dodoma managers
Professionals and associate
Arusha professionals, technicians
Legislators, administrators,
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% and managers
Others
Source: NBS census 2012.
Household enterprises are growing as a major livelihood source. The household enterprise sector plays
a significant role in the Tanzanian economy. Within the nonagricultural sector, its share in the labor
force increased to over 50 percent for males and 75 percent for females. In 2006, household enter-
prises in urban areas employed a larger share of the labor force than wage employment: 40 percent,
the largest category. These are uniquely placed within the informal sector, where they represent both
conditions of informal employment and informal enterprise (Kweka and Fox 2011).
Infrastructure and services
Key economic growth constraints of secondary cities in Tanzania are the quality and coverage of trans-
port infrastructure. Cities and rural communities are interdependent for exchanges in goods, products,
and services. However, poor transport linkages make exchange and trade costly and limit growth poten-
tial. Low-quality regional roads and deteriorated rail networks create a significant drag on trade logistics
between cities. According to the Partnerships for Growth diagnostic, almost 76 percent of the rural pop-
ulation lives within two kilometers of an all-weather road. However, in some parts of western Tanzania,
residents are more than 10 kilometers from the nearest road, and it takes farmers an average of over two
hours to reach the nearest city with a population of over 100,000. Of the roads that exist, only 5 percent
are paved and more than half of the total network is in fair or poor condition (World Bank 2016).
Access to infrastructure and services, particularly water, electricity, sewerage, and solid waste collec-
tion, are better in urban areas—but vary considerably within and across cities. Service levels in cities
are generally higher than in rural areas. However, nominal access to improved drinking water, electricity,
improved toilet facilities, and solid waste collection varies considerably across cities (table 2.1). Cities
need to grow with compatible expansions of service networks to keep pace with rapid urbanization.
Cities are also not comprehensively planning for and managing their drainage systems, and are unable
to capture, treat, and drain stormwater. Drainage networks in the case cities are essentially nonexistent.
10 ■ Translating Plans to Development
TABLE 2.1: State of Infrastructure and Services in Selected Cities
Access
Access to electricity Access
to improved as primary to improved Access to solid
drinking water source of toilet facilitiesb waste collectionc
Case cities sourcesa (%) lighting (%) (%) (%)
Arusha 94.6 52.1 87.6 60.0
Dodoma 75.6 32.0 53.9 12.6
Kigoma 66.5 39.8 51.1 25.5
Mbeya 95.8 46.3 71.9 28.0
Mtwara 91.5 31.6 49.0 14.8
Mwanza 90.3 42.5 76.5 20.8
Tanga 93.8 49.4 74.4 26.9
National urban 78.0 46.2 71.2 24.7
average
National average 53.6 18.9 32.8 8.3
Source: NBS census 2012.
Note:
a“Improved drinking water sources” refers to piped water on premise, such as piped water into dwelling, piped water
into yard or plot, public taps and standpipes, tube wells and boreholes, protected dug wells, and protected springs.
b“Improved sanitation facilities” include flush or pour to piped sewer system, flush or pour to pit latrine, ventilated
improved pit latrine, pit latrine with washable slab with lid, pit latrine with washable slab without lid, and com-
posting/ecosan toilet.
c“Solid waste collection” refers to both regular and irregular collection of refuse disposal.
Except for Tanga, case cities that participated in a Climate Risk Assessment survey conducted by the
World Bank reported no drainage master plans or primary drainage system. No city surveyed has more
than 40 percent of roads with proper drains. Drains that do exist are typically not well maintained,
leaving them clogged with solid waste and siltation from stormwater runoff. In unplanned areas, most
households depend on on-site sanitation, such as pit latrines and septic tanks, which tend to overflow
when it rains. When uncaptured rain is mixed with untreated sewage and other pollutants, it could
result in highly contaminated floods that damage property, cause traffic paralysis, inhibit access to
businesses and social services, and make communities vulnerable to disease outbreaks during and
after floods (World Bank 2015).
Urban land development
The urban growth pattern in most Tanzanian cities is predominantly monocentric; coupled with inad-
equate transportation and basic service networks and an insufficient mix of jobs, services, and resi-
dential areas, high costs result. Studies (Bertaud 2004) about large cities around the world reveal that
their growth patterns tend to become less monocentric over time; many trip-generating activities have
spread in clusters over a wide area outside the traditional central business district (CBD)—thereby los-
ing the CBD’s primacy and dissolving progressively into a polycentric structure. This, however, is not
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 11
the case in Tanzania. Jobs, main services, and other central functions are still largely concentrated in
CBDs or downtown areas of cities. (Further details on urban forms are discussed in Section 3 under
“Observable Spatial Development Trends and Analysis of Secondary Cities.”)
Informal developments remain the main form of growth for cities, particularly in the urban fringe areas.
Land-use development has emerged sporadically and horizontally in peri-urban areas (Kombe 2005).
These settlement patterns are characterized by low-rise construction, smaller plot sizes, and unplanned
and informal development. Some of the differences between residing in planned and unplanned set-
tlements are observed in communal living, plot boundaries, residential licenses, access to roads, com-
munity spaces, access to water and sanitation, and enforcement of development controls (table 2.2).
(This phenomenon is explored further in Section 3 through spatial analysis.)
TABLE 2.2: Characteristics of Formally Planned and Unplanned Settlements
(observed in Dar es Salaam)
Formally planned Unplanned (informal)
Tenure security Perceived security of tenure
associated with favorable land
policies
Structural Use of permanent and modern
quality building materials (for example,
of housing cement, tiles, baked or burnt bricks,
concrete, stone, and metal sheets)
Communal living Existence of exclusive residential Wide range of social and economic
neighborhoods groups live side by side
Plot boundaries Clearly demarcated and surveyed Not physically demarcated but
(that is, cadastral surveys) known to plot holders and adjoining
neighbors and defined by hedges,
trees, or other artifacts
Residential Relatively easy to obtain through May be obtained only once the area is
licenses right of occupancy and occupancy regularized
under letter of offer
Access to roads Clearly demarcated and in compliance Only obtained through “social
with design standards regulation”; internal circulation is poor
and dependent on nonstandardized
and uncoordinated roads and
footpaths
Community Provided for in the plan Depends on what is stated in the
spaces “social regulation”
Access to water Varies from one settlement to the Varies from one settlement to another
and sanitation other and, when provided, is generally
inadequate to meet demand
Development Enforceable Preparation of planning layouts is
controls cumbersome and difficult to enforce
Source: Derived from Sheuya 2010 and Kironde 1997.
12 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Peri-urban areas are sprawling and poorly connected, resulting in high costs of public infrastructure
and services provision and increasing environmental challenges. Low-rise and low-density development
characterizing peri-urban growths make the provision of infrastructure, including piped water, electricity,
sewerage, and roads, difficult and expensive. It also adds greatly to the costs of providing services such
as education, health, and social assistance. In addition, the unchecked horizontal expansion of built-up
areas has resulted in additional challenges, such as impingements on water resources and pollution
where urban wastes are deposited without treatment, loss of agricultural land, and land speculation.
There is a large gap in the current system for monitoring land development and transactions. Only
5 percent of land in Tanzania is registered (Kironde 2006).1 This is in contrast to 70–100 percent in
Rwanda, 35 percent in Kenya, and 18 percent in Uganda (World Bank 2014). And majority of land
transactions occur without review or approval, leading to unregulated land use and nonadherence to
urban planning and building standards. There are formal procedures, requiring detailed steps, to have
the land surveyed and registered. However, acquiring formal land titles incurs prohibitive costs and a
lengthy approval process.2 In parallel to this, there are alternative informal procedures and systems,
which do not lead to a legal registration of the property but are considered socially legitimate and, in
some cases, offer greater security, especially to informal settlement dwellers.
Urban plan implementation efforts are largely done through a conventional approach of mass land
acquisition and compensation, followed by resale of planned and surveyed plots. All case cities reported
that they have historically relied on this conventional model of delivering planned neighborhoods. This
is not a sustainable model moving forward, since cities acknowledge that they are unable to apply this
method at a scale sufficient to produce an entirely planned city and do not have sufficient funds to
pay the required compensation. In response, several cities have begun to trial innovative alternatives
to this conventional approach. In Mbeya, the planning department cooperates with communities to
jointly develop a detailed planning scheme for the area. It then surveys plots and enters into an agree-
ment with land holders that when plots are sold, 40 percent of the sale proceeds will go directly to
the city government (which oversees the land sale and gives the sign offs necessary for approval and
Certificate of Residential Occupancy documentation from the MLHHSD). Mtwara has piloted a similar
process, but instead splits the parcels themselves, with 60 percent of produced parcels resting with
the original land holders to sell or keep as they see fit, and 40 percent of the produced parcels being
handed over to the municipality to put up for sale. This method was discussed with interviewees in
many cities. Most agreed that it was workable (although not without its challenges) and observed that
private planners have been using this method for some time.
Policy and Institutional Context
Decentralization and local governments
Tanzania has a long and uneven history of local government and administration with significant gains
in decentralization achieved only in recent decades. Local governments in Tanzania were first estab-
lished in 1926 during the British colonial period through the Native Authorities Ordinance. Authorities
operated under a system of indirect rule, and by the 1940s grew to become elected representative
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 13
local bodies. As a result, the Municipalities Ordinance was enacted in 1946 followed by the Local
Government Act in 1953. However, approximately a decade after the country’s independence in 1961,
district and urban authorities were abolished in the early 1970s and replaced by central government
rule. Only in 1982 were local governments reestablished through a series of acts.3 This was a response
to the economic crisis in the late 1970s and 1980s that resulted in the rapid decline of infrastructure
and services in urban areas.
Fiscal decision making and administration were transferred to local governments only in the late
1990s. Despite the reinstatement of local government authorities, at the beginning, they were not
empowered to raise their own revenue, and whatever revenue they were able to collect they did
so as agents of the central government. Decentralization-by-devolution reforms aimed at increas-
ing responsibility by local governments were enacted later, under the 1996–2005 Local Government
Reform Program. The decentralization of urban functions—including planning, infrastructure, and
services—was accompanied by formula-based intergovernmental transfers and harmonization of tax
and revenue guidelines across local governments (PO-RALG 2000). The central government also
intended to improve central-local relations by moving from a top-down approach in which the cen-
tral government dictated what municipal councils should do to a partnership between both levels of
government.
Some trends toward recentralization have been observed in recent years and are reducing local gov-
ernments’ overall own-source revenue (OSR) as well as control over local budgets. Intergovernmen-
tal transfers increased from 79 percent of total LGA revenues in 2001/02 to 93 percent in 2006/07
(Sarzin and Raich 2012) and remained at approximately 90 percent over the period 2012 to 2015.
The remaining 10 percent is collected through OSR, local taxes, levies, and fees (Mollel and Tollenaar
2013). In addition, the parallel structure of regional and district commissioners, combined with hiring
and payment of municipal personnel by the central government, suggest a significant amount of cen-
tral control over local government decision making and limitations on local autonomy. Recent policy
changes4 also recentralized the function of property tax administration (in 2016) and billboard taxes
(in 2017) to the Tanzania Revenue Authority and imposed restrictions on other revenue sources,5
while uncertainty remains over the redistribution of such revenue back to local governments. Hence,
local governments’ OSRs are likely to decrease if the trend continues, and local budget accuracy and
predictability will be a challenge, ultimately impacting their ability and accountability to deliver infra-
structure and services.6
Certain responsibility for local functions to deliver infrastructure and services is also being trans-
ferred to the national level. National agencies created recently, such as the Tanzania Rural and Urban
Roads Authority, established in May 2017, took over local governments’ responsibility for the devel-
opment, rehabilitation, maintenance, and road reserve management of the rural and urban roads
network in Tanzania. While the impacts are too early to be observed, there is worry that this may
result in central priorities overriding that of local communities and stakeholders. These trends have
a direct relation to the effectiveness and implementation of physical plans. With an eroding fiscal
autonomy and a diminishing mandate to deliver on infrastructure and services, there is little align-
ment and motivation for or ability by local governments to both plan and implement their general
and detailed plans.
14 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Urban planning policy and regulatory framework
Legislation specific to urban planning has flourished only in the past two decades; it is supported
by broader urban sector development policies. Urban planning legislation constitutes a wide range of
policies and acts to regulate land ownership and physical development (table 2.3). The Urban Planning
Act and Urban Planning and Space Standards Regulations are the overarching policy instruments that
guide future urban growth and development. They are based on the fundamental principles laid out
in the National Land Policy and Human Settlements Development Policy. These policy instruments are
still at a nascent stage and are continuously evolving. For example, the 2015 draft introduced consid-
eration of minimum plot size for housing in unplanned settlement, which were otherwise not found in
the adopted 2011 version (World Bank 2016a).
TABLE 2.3: Key Urban Sector Development Policies in Tanzania
Year Policy Major reforms
1995 National Land Seeks to establish, support, and guarantee a secure land-tenure
Policy system, which will facilitate the sustainable use of resources and
land management. It also seeks to ensure that sensitive areas
(forests, river basins, areas of biodiversity, and national parks)
are not allocated to individuals for development activities.
Land is owned by the president in trust for present and future
generations. Finally, the policy recognizes two main types of
tenure: customary land rights and granted right of occupancy.
1999 Land Act No. 4 Provides the basic law in relation to land other than the village
land, the management of land, settlement of disputes, and related
matters.
2000 National Human Envisions well-organized, efficient, healthy, safe and secure, and
Settlements Policy aesthetic sustainable human settlements. It puts a limit to physical
growth by directing development to satellite towns, discouraging
rural-urban migration, and facilitating the construction and
operation of efficient transport systems in urban areas. It also calls
for more participatory planning and encourages village land-use
planning.
2007 Urban Planning Act Provides for the sustainable development of land in urban areas,
the preservation of basic amenities, and the framework for
development control. Planning authorities (every city, municipal,
and town councils as well as township authorities) are vested with
the power to prepare a general planning scheme, to control the
use and development of land in the interests of proper and orderly
development, as well as to formulate bylaws to regulate zoning in
respect of use and density of development.
2011 Urban Planning and Include standards for residential areas, unplanned settlements,
Space Standards building lines and setbacks, plot coverage and plot ratio, health
Regulations facilities, education facilities, recreation facilities, beach facilities,
golf courses, passive and active recreation, public facilities by
planning levels, public facilities by population size, parking and
road width, and agricultural show grounds.
Source: World Bank 2016a.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 15
Currently, the National Land-use Framework (2013–33) is proposed to be the overarching guiding
document for spatial and land-use planning.7 The National Land-Use Framework Plan (NLUFP) was
developed and updated by the National Land-Use Planning Commission to provide guidance for the
determination of land uses of national concern—particularly protected areas, wetlands, and areas for
agriculture, grazing, urban and rural settlements, and infrastructure. More important, it seeks to depart
from the historical ad hoc planning practice to a more systematic and comprehensive approach by
translating national priorities and development goals into spatial terms and minimizing existing and
potential conflicts that arise from sectoral land uses and activities. In this way, the NLUFP is intended
to serve as a guide for land-use planning and to create compatibility between land uses and land
ownership—at zonal, special areas, regional, district, and village levels (URT 2013).
Even though national level policies and planning guidance exist, the quality and consistency of the pol-
icies and guidance, as well as the alignment of plans themselves to these policies, could be improved.
In addition, the ability of national planning guidance in assisting the direction of development and
managing urbanization are, at best, weak, as evidenced by the various economic, infrastructure, land,
and other challenges discussed earlier. Analysis of the current urban planning framework (figure 2.4)
suggests that there is a missing link—regional or metropolitan plans—required to translate national
planning to the city level. The absence of such zonal, regional, and metropolitan plans compounds
the issues of sprawl and lack of coordination and strategic thinking regarding trunk infrastructure and
development priorities. In addition, there are few inbuilt mechanisms to ensure that services and infra-
structure are developed according to plan.
Current national level planning standards may unintentionally prevent densification and application
of suitable built forms according to specific local context. The 2011 Urban Planning and Space Stan-
dards Regulations is the one in effect currently, although revisions have been in the works. Among
five East African countries reviewed, Tanzania has the highest minimum plot size (300–600 square
meters) for detached housing in high-density residential areas.8 It also limits a maximum plot ratio
of 0.4, sets a maximum plot coverage of 40 percent, and defines setback distances (3.0 meters for
the front, 1.5 meters for the side and rear) for this typology. Similar specifications are provided for
terraced house and multistory and blocks of flats, where even the high-density multistory devel-
opment allows only for a maximum plot ratio of 1.5. It is recommended that such regulation of very
specific development controls be undertaken at a very local and granular level to allow adaptation
to specific city context and localities within each city, instead of as a blanket requirement at the
national level.
Key stakeholders and coordination
The primary responsibility for preparing, enforcing, and monitoring planning schemes rests with the
local authorities. According to the Urban Planning Act, the institutional framework comprised (i) the
Minister of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, who is responsible for approving the
planning schemes and ensuring that the national development vision is incorporated into plans at all
levels of the planning process; (ii) the director of urban planning, who advises the minister on land-use
planning issues and sets guidelines and standards to all planning authorities; and (iii) local planning
authorities, that is, every city council, municipal council, town council, and township authority, who are
16 ■ Translating Plans to Development
FIGURE 2.4: Characteristics of Current Urban Planning Framework and Mechanisms
National legislation regulating urban development
• Land Use Framework (2013–2033): facilitates the rational allocation of land resources and decision
making on resources management while ensuring the sustainability of the natural environment
National level
• Land Act: defines hazard lands including land within 60 meters of a river, defines role of LGAs in land
administration, provides for granted rights of occupancy and derivative rights of occupancy (residential licenses)
• Urban Planning Act: enabling legislation for land use regulations, sets foundation for planning and space
regulations
• Environmental Management Act: protects environmentally sensitive areas and hazard land
• Roads Act: established road rights of way
General planning scheme Interim land-use plan Enforcement mechanisms
(master plan) • Short and medium term • Staff review and signs off on
• Long-term (20-year time frame) general planning scheme, building permit applications
City level
• City-wide not to exceed 10 years • Approval of building permit
• Outlines development vision • Can serve a period applications by Municipal
• Establishes broad land use with no master plan Council committee
framework and investment • Legal measures (stop orders,
priorities court cases)
Detailed Planning Schemes Enforcement mechanisms
• Applies to a smaller geographic area (e.g. ward/mtaa/neighborhood level) Ward level
• Provides specific land use regulations, building height restrictions, • Ward staff and elected officers
allowable densities, etc. sometimes report
Ward/Subward/Neighborhood level
• Includes infrastructure plan, as well as planning scheme action plan unauthorized development
and budget • Ward development committees
(specifically Urban Planning
Detailed schemes Regularization Redevelopment and Environment Standing
for new areas schemes schemes Committees assigned with
• Used in areas that • Used in informally • Urban renewal plans local planning and
are predominantly developed to guide public and monitoring responsibilities)
undeveloped settlements private investment
• Establish local road • Plans to restructure in an already built- Mtaa level
network; designates existing land tenure out area • Mtaa executive officers and
land for infrastructure arrangements to • Establishes revised mtaa chairperson
and community provide space for planning and space sometimes report
facilities community standards and unauthorized development
facilities and basic provides framework
infrastructure for changes in
land use
Source: World Bank 2016.
responsible for preparing, enforcing, and monitoring the progress of the planning schemes. In practice,
however, MLHHSD and PO-RALG frequently play a much more hands-on role in the development of
urban plans.
It is also the local planning authority’s duty to regulate and enforce development controls within its
planning area, and to review or amend detailed planning schemes every five years—but in practice, this
rarely happens.9 In the first place, the coverage of detailed planning schemes is generally low in the case
cities and not well documented in the local planning offices.10 Further, extremely little is being done
on a regular basis to ensure enforcement of development controls.11 The minister has the authority to
intervene when necessary; however, interventions at the ministerial level rarely occur (Lubuva 2006).
Urban management suffers from institutional fragmentation and complex relationships among multi-
ple governing bodies. Both national level and city level agencies are often still involved in the various
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 17
aspects of land and urban management and infrastructure and services provision with overlapping or
unclear regulatory scope and responsibilities, whether it is according to legal mandates or adopted
practice. This creates ambiguity in terms of accountability and complicates the processes for planning,
implementation, monitoring, and enforcement in urban development. A silo mentality between differ-
ent sectors and departments (very often seen among planners, engineers, economists, or environment
and social scientists) also perpetuates the institutional fragmentation, working against a coordinated
approach (World Bank 2016). For example, previous sections have discussed the central government’s
continued role in local fiscal administration; several central-level government agencies or national
parastatals also play crucial roles in services provision (roads, water, electricity, drainage) under the
jurisdiction of the LGAs (Kironde 2009).
Furthermore, investment decisions made by utility agencies are guided largely by financial viability
considerations rather than coordinated planning or development priorities (as indicated in a GPS or
DPS), as there are little incentive and no mechanism for them to do so. A criticism that urban planners
commonly make of utility agencies is that the utilities extend infrastructure into unplanned settle-
ments, even those in hazardous areas. During the field visit interviews conducted for this study, utility
agency representatives were asked about the factors that guide their investments and network expan-
sion decisions. They unanimously reported that such decisions are driven primarily by financial viability
considerations. Utility agencies typically gauge where development is growing, note the prevalence
of requests for service from various areas, and then extend infrastructure to those areas—with very
little coordination or consultation with local governments, and generally without using GPS or DPS as
guiding tools. Except for Dodoma, utility agencies in the case cities do not require building permits or
formal land titles as a prerequisite to service extensions. Further, utility agencies rely heavily on sub-
ward (or mtaa) officials and their knowledge of local land tenure arrangements when placing service
network infrastructure, as cadastral surveys or maps of property boundaries are very limited. Once
services are provided, they grant a sense of legitimacy and permanence to unplanned development.
Practical approaches to urban planning
The government of Tanzania and planning authorities implemented a wide range of solutions and
strategies at the national, city, and neighborhood levels—but these were primarily delivered as proj-
ects that come and go as resources are available, and have not been mainstreamed. The solutions
and strategies (summarized in figure 2.5) were intended to direct future development and curb the
growth of informal settlements. Other planning tools used to facilitate the government directive
include demarcations or nontitle surveying, participatory or bottom-up planning, and land pooling
or readjustment. These approaches are discussed in detail in the background paper to this study—
“Background Profile of Tanzania Secondary Cities.”
18 ■ Translating Plans to Development
FIGURE 2.5: Urban Planning Solutions and Strategies at the National, City, and Neighborhood
Levels
National strategies
Integrated development planning Growth pole centers or central places
Articulated through national frameworks including Adopted in 10 regional centers during the 1960s
the National Five Year Development Plan and and early 1970s to serve as economic poles of
Development Vision 2025 attraction for the neighboring population
City-level strategies (general planning schemes)
Traditional master plans and interim Strategic urban development plans
land-use plans (or environmental planning and management)
In practice during the 1960s through the 1990s Adopted briefly in the 1990s and produced a set
and continued to date: these were focused on a of interrelated development strategies aimed at
more traditional master planning approach—plans enabling public, private, and community
were conceived as broad land-use zoning schemes participation
District, ward, and neighborhood-level strategies
Detailed planning Site and services New area planning Settlement Private-sector-
schemes, central projects (for example, upgrading, led planning
area Provision of land 20,000 Plots regularization A recent
redevelopment parcels in planned Initiative) schemes approach to
plans, and urban neighborhoods with Development of In parallel with the regularizing
renewal schemes a basic in-situ self-sufficient issuance of informal
Enabled land-use infrastructure satellite towns in residential licenses settlements
changes that could network (roads, peri-urban areas to as initial step to
support water, and address land formalization of
densification efforts schools) shortage property rights
in urban core areas
Source: NBS census 2012.
Status of master plan development
There is wide variation in the number of plans adopted, time periods covered and planning strategies
developed for each of the case cities. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 illustrate the status and nature of approved
and draft master plans. A combination of at least one city from each of the following “plan coverage
categories” is included for analysis in this study:
■■ Cities that have most consistently been covered by master plans (had no, or only short, periods
for which no plan existed) include Arusha and Dodoma.
■■ City that was not governed by a master plan for the majority of the 1970s and 1980s, but that
did adopt a plan in the 1990s and 2000s includes Mwanza.
■■ Cities that adopted master plans in the 1970s and 1980s but did not replace (or have not yet
replaced) these in later decades include Mbeya and Tanga.
■■ Cities that have had no master plans since independence include Kigoma and Mtwara.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 19
TABLE 2.4: Summary Status of Master Plan Development in the Case Cities
Approved master plans
City 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Mwanza X X X
Arusha X X *
Dodoma X X *
Mbeya X X *
Tanga X X *
Kigoma-Ujiji * * *
Mtwara * X
Note: X indicates prepared in year; brown highlighting indicates the decade was at least partially covered by a
Master Plan; * indicates plans being drafted.
Overall, many cities in Tanzania see extended periods of urban development without a functioning
plan in place. Even for cities with some earlier GPSs, most of them have developed beyond the purview
of these existing plans. Thus, the current form of Tanzanian cities is largely the product of growth in
the absence of plans and enforcement over decades, locking in an inefficient spatial form and resulting
in the proliferation of unplanned settlements. Cities are now playing catch-up to prepare GPSs. There
are ongoing efforts by MLHHSD and PO-RALG to encourage the completion of GPSs for all Tanzanian
cities, especially in the recent years. MLHHSD and LGAs as planning authorities have also recently
prepared and approved detailed plot subdivision plans for peri-urban and new areas in several cities,
as well as regularization schemes and central area redevelopment schemes for existing urban areas.
While these efforts are encouraging, progress is overall slow with GPSs typically taking a few years to
be prepared and adopted. In several cities, draft plans were prepared but never adopted, although in
some cases these are implemented to some degree nevertheless (refer to Box 2.1).
20 ■ Translating Plans to Development
TABLE 2.5: Status and Nature of Master Plan Development in the Case Cities (since independence)
Case Available master plans
cities 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Other plans
Arusha 1977–1997 1985–2005 2015–2035 (under 2009 Usa River
The main concern Developed to review) Township Master
is to improve the support the city’s A comprehensive Plan
standard of living urban growth plan that integrates Prepared to offset
by facilitating the trajectory by the strategies the negative
provision of essential ensuring the and proposals impacts of
services, utilities, economic viability developed for the previously unguided
and infrastructure, and capacity of city’s key areas of development in the
and optimizing communication urban development: area by establishing
existing facilities and routes as well as employment, a framework that
provision to meet municipal services housing, public accentuates the
future demand amenities, road and town’s development
mass transport, potential
utilities and green
infrastructure, 2001 Central Area
food security and Redevelopment Plan
resilience, and Aimed to increase
tourism vertical development
to meet the growing
housing demand,
and to promote
greater mixed-use
development
Dodoma 1976–1996 1988–2008 Structure 2010–2030 (draft)
Strong vision to Plan Aimed at hastening
develop Dodoma Strategic plan the Capital Transfer
as the national developed to revise Program through
capital city—the the 1976 master appropriate
administrative, plan in view of the development control
economic, and country’s economic policies, effective
political functions decline by rectifying legal enforcement,
of which would be its previous and a public-
supplemented by a strategies, proposing private partnership
diversified industrial a new town concept system to stimulate
and commercial for its population, the city’s social
base and linear and continuing and economic
urban growth system the relocation of development
for its population government offices
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 21
(continued)
Case Available master plans
cities 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Other plans
Kigoma 1985–1995 Interim 2008–2028 (draft) 2017–2037 (draft) 2002 Central Area
Land-Use Plan Meant to overcome Provides a Redevelopment Plan
(draft) the development framework and Aimed to improve
Implementation changes during spatial development the physical
duration of implementation of strategies to infrastructure of the
10 years, which the 1985 Interim improve access to planning area (that
only presented the Land-Use Plan (It basic infrastructure is, buildings) by
existing conditions was never approved, facilities and security encouraging vertical
of the planning because the plan of land tenure development for
area with no new failed to clearly map future expansion
proposals developed the existing situation 2009 Land-Use Plan
(The plan was of the planning for Special Economic
never formally area—for example, Zone
approved but in the special economic Aimed to assist and
22 ■ Translating Plans to Development
effect it was used to zone was mapped stimulate the growth
guide development as an existing of industries in the
and detailed residential area.) municipality through
neighborhood a broad zoning land-
planning.) use plan
2013–2033
Redevelopment Plan
for Ujij Historical
Town (draft)
Developed
strategies to assist
the municipality
to address the
shortage of land to
accommodate future
expansion (It was
never approved due
to its poor quality—
the existing situation
was not mapped
clearly.)
Case Available master plans
cities 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Other plans
Mbeya 1974–1994 1985–2005 Mbeya 2003 Central Area
A direct product Master Plan Review Redevelopment Plan
of the country’s Proposed new An integral part
Second Five Year strategies of the city’s
Plan—which selected (for example, Strategic Urban
Mbeya as one of cluster model, Development Plan—
the nine growth self-contained the redevelopment
centers outside neighborhoods) scheme is intended
Dar es Salaam to where existing to address the
concentrate urban conditions and deterioration of the
development development trends infrastructure system
were at variance and dilapidation of
with assumptions houses in the central
supported by the area
1974 Master Plan
Mtwara 2008–2027 (draft) 2015–2035 1947–1954 Layout
Never approved (approved) Plan
but aimed to assist Compact city Only approved
in the control approach and high- master plan to date,
and guidance of density mixed-use was prepared in
developmental urban forms to conjunction with
growth arising from achieve Mtwara’s the Port of Mtwara
high levels of rural desire to become (Interviewees cite
to urban migration a “green city” (The this plan as the
(It sought to provide core principles guiding document
growth direction and of this plan are of the city up until
opportunities for resilience, livability, 2001.)
hierarchical service resource efficiency, 2001 Central Area
centers within the inclusivity, and Redevelopment Plan
planning area.) integration.) Developed to ensure
that prime land
urban areas were
used effectively and
efficiently and that
manageable services
and infrastructure
were provided as
well
(continued)
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 23
Case Available master plans
cities 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Other plans
Mwanza 1992–2012 2008–2028 2015–2035 1993 Central Area
Prepared to guide A guide for policy (approved) Redevelopment Plan
and promote the makers on future Envisions Mwanza Intensify use
orderly growth and land use and as a “vibrant” and of central area
efficient utilization infrastructure “picturesque” city by proposing
of land by grouping development by preserving and planning and
compatible land because of rapid enhancing the city’s capacity standards,
uses together and growth, city council’s image, prioritizing circulation system,
developing new low capacity, ad hoc economic efficient land-
neighborhoods land-use changes development, use distribution,
and district centers in the city, changes prioritizing and measures to
(Ilemela, Buswelu, in national policies specific areas for uplift skyline and
and Nyegezi) and strategies, and development, townscape
attainment of “city” minimizing the need
status for acquisition,
24 ■ Translating Plans to Development
and integrating
existing projects and
planning initiatives
Tanga 1975–1995 1985–2005 2016–2035 (draft) 1997 Sustainable
Direct product Aiming at an overall Utilizing the Tanga Programme
of the country’s reduction in density concepts of A product of the
Second Five Year and more compact “core city” and environmental
Plan—which selected growth, as well as “satellite centers planning and
Tanga as one of the improvements in development” to management
nine growth centers the level of services ensure and guide process that sought
by integrating available to future orderly development to address the
different income residents over the in the city and city’s environmental
groups, improving planning period absorb growth from issues through
the distribution the urban core and a participatory
of facilities, peripheries planning approach
and creating 2007 Central Area
self-sufficient Redevelopment Plan
communities Urban renewal
plan seeking to
strategically address
the city’s issues of
dilapidating housing
stock, increasing
traffic density, lack
of traffic signs, and
conflicting land use
in the central area
BOX 2.1: The Role of Draft GPSs
In some cases in Tanzania, draft plans are used to guide urban development despite not being
formally approved and officially adopted. This was the case in Kigoma, where a draft land-use
plan from 1985 was being actively used at the time of the study team’s field visit in April 2017. In
Dodoma, a draft master plan (MP) had been developed and was awaiting approval. Planners in the
former Capital Development Authority office were using a hybrid of proposed land uses from the
1976 MP and the 2010 draft MP. Although their preference was to apply the proposed land uses
from the 2010 draft MP, it was technically difficult due to the conceptual nature of the land-use
map in that plan (it does not follow the actual road network and does not accurately reflect exist-
ing land uses). The proposed land-use map in the 1976 MP was far more detailed and realistic, and
thus a more practical tool for planners, despite the fact that it was outdated.
MAP B2.1.1: 1976 versus 2010 Land-Use Maps
a. Proposed stage 1 land uses, Dodoma MP 1976 b. Proposed land uses, draft Dodoma MP 2010
Endnotes
1. This was the most recent and available figure that was found at the time of this report. However,
it is to be noted that, since then, further efforts and different approaches have been employed to
increase the delivery of formal land, such as through the Plots Development Revolving Fund from
MLHHSD, or projects undertaken by the National Housing Corporation, local authorities, and the
private sector.
2. Registering a property takes an average of 68 days, ranking Tanzania consistently among the low-
est quartile of countries on this Doing Business indicator; some suggest even longer periods, up
to years, for other land transactions, such as transferring and registering a property; for valuation,
planning, surveying, and titling procedures; and for land allocation for urban purposes.
3. The laws enacted in this period included (i) The Local Government (District Authorities), Act 1982
(Act No. 7 of 1982); (ii) The Local Government (Urban Authorities), Act 1982 (Act No. 8 of 1982);
(iii) The Local Government Finance Act, 1982 (Act No. 9 of 1982); (iv) The Local Government Ser-
vice Act, 1982 (Act No. 10 of 1982); and (v) The Urban Authorities Rating Act, 1983 (Act No. 2 of
1983). These laws were subsequently amended in 1992, 1993, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 25
4. The Finance Acts of 2016 and 2017 that amend the Tanzania Revenue Authority Act (CAP 399)
and the Urban Authorities (Rating) Act (CAP 289) provided the definitive legislative power that
authorizes the TRA to assume responsibility for the administration of local government property
rates. These legislative changes give TRA collection not only responsibility for property rates but
full administrative control. The functions of valuation, identifying rateable properties, billing, and
enforcement have also been transferred to TRA.
5. For example, the central government reduced the rate of the guest house levy from 20 percent to
10 percent; the maximum permitted service levy is 0.3 percent; the legally established 30 percent
collections attributed to land rent (which is already criticized for being undercollected) would be
retained (at least in part) by the central government.
6. The importance of linking who decides on revenues with who decides on expenditures (for account-
ability and to improve the level of services) has been emphasized in the literature (see, for example,
Bird and Slack 2017). International experience tells us that the most responsible and accountable
local governments are those that raise their own revenues and set their own tax rates (Bird 2011).
7. The legal basis of this plan are sections 19, 29, 34, 45 and 46 of the Land-Use Planning Act 2007,
which stipulate the preparation, approval, and implementation of the National Land-Use Frame-
work Plan.
8. The review included five countries—Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania—with Ethiopia
including a minimum plot range of between 75 and 300 m2.
9. Recent changes in the way municipal accounts are structured are reported to have made it more
difficult to set aside and access the finances necessary to achieve planning priorities. In the past,
planning departments generally had a designated account; however, a mandate from the central
government has required that LGAs limit the number of accounts to just six, which resulted in the
cancellation of the accounts previously designated for the planning departments alone. Heads and
staff of planning departments report that all revenue that would previously have been earmarked
for urban planning budgets now flows into their city’s general fund, and that it is often immediately
used for whatever the pressing priority is at the time it arrives.
10. The percentage of land area covered by detailed planning schemes varies substantially from city to
city; however, planning staff in the majority of cities self-reported less than 50 percent coverage.
11. In practice, monitoring and enforcement of urban plans is handled by the municipal level of gov-
ernment. All cities pointed to insufficient numbers of staff and limited budgets as key barriers to
effectively controlling development. Both municipal staff and officials at the ward and mtaa levels
observed that devolution of responsibilities related to development control would greatly improve
performance; however, concerted efforts to actually do this were limited. Currently, municipali-
ties rely on occasional field visits by planning staff, or on more regular rounds made by a limited
number of building inspectors. For example, in Kigoma there were just two building inspectors for
the whole city, and planners reported that they have limited qualifications and there is no quality
control over their work. Dodoma, again, is a notable exception. Here, both city-level (Dodoma
Municipality and Capital Development Authority) staff and ward or mtaa officials observed that
within planned neighborhoods, very limited illegal development occurs, as stop orders are quickly
issued and are closely followed. Dodoma had divided the surveyed areas of the city into four build-
ing-inspection zones, each of which had one building inspector and two land rangers conducting
regular patrols. In other cities, planning staff sometimes have strong relationships with the officers
of certain wards or mtaa and they will report in an ad hoc way on illegal development activities,
which the municipality will then follow up on with stop orders.
26 ■ Translating Plans to Development
3. Key Findings
Land-Use and Land-Cover Conformity to Master Plans
and Detailed Area Plans
The level of land-use and land-cover conformity is used as one of the proxies to evaluate the degree
of impact and effectiveness of master plans and detailed plans, since one main function of plans is to
coordinate land-use developments spatially. Spatial analysis was conducted to compare major land
uses from digitized master plans, with land cover deduced from satellite images to arrive at the levels
of conformity.1 This is further examined in terms of major land-use categories: urban parks, residential,
institutional, industrial, forest and shrubs, commercial, arterial and collector roads, and agriculture. Dif-
ferentiation was also made between core urban area and peri-urban area, as these exhibit vastly differ-
ent characteristics and shed light on different types of strategies or policies required. (See map 3.1 and
figure 3.1 for the example of Arusha, which demonstrates a typical land-use and land-cover conformity
analysis performed for case cities. Detailed analysis for all seven case cities are provided in the back-
ground paper, “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary Cities” for this study.
MAP 3.1: Typical Land-Use and Land-Cover Conformity Analysis Performed for Case Cities,
Showing Arusha
a. 1985 master plan b. 2015 actual land use c. Diversion from proposed land uses
Source: Satellite image, European Space Agency, World Bank and Ardhi team interpreted land cover using open
source satellites and Local Government Revenue Collection Information System.
27
FIGURE 3.1: Arusha: Conformity to 1985 Master Plan
a. Core urban area
Urban parks
Residential
1985 MP major land uses
Institutional
Industrial
Forest and shrubs
Commercial
Arterial and collector roads
Agriculture
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Actual 2015 land cover
Residential, 0–10% Institutional Natural areas
Residential, 10%–30% Commercial Parks, open space, recreational
Residential, 30%–50% Industrial Forest, shrubs, and woodlands
Residential, 50%–80% Transportation Others
Residential, 80%–100% Agriculture
b. Peri-urban area
1985 MP major land uses
Forest and shrubs
Arterial and collector roads
Agriculture
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Actual 2015 land cover
Residential, 0–10% Agriculture
Residential, 10%–30% Natural areas
Transportation Forest, shrubs, and woodlands
Source: Compiled from EO4SD operations report (for this study).
The level of land-use and land-cover conformity is only one of many pieces of the puzzle as to whether
master and detailed plans are effective. It must be noted that while the ability of plans to guide
development could be reflected to some extent as the realized land uses, the level of conformity is
also determined critically by, inter alia, (i) the planning and implementation time horizon of the plan,
(ii) actual speed of development, (iii) the quality of plans themselves (discussed in later sections),
(iv) level of granularity of the plans, and (v) ability of the system and processes to allow timely adjust-
ments or amendments to plans to reflect changing needs or situations on the ground. Hence, beyond
28 ■ Translating Plans to Development
land-use conformity, we also examined other spatial development trends and characteristics in Sec-
tion 3’s “Observable Spatial Development Trends and Analysis of Secondary Cities” to further shed
light on the effectiveness of plans.
Land-use and land-cover conformity to master plans
Actual development in core urban areas exhibited around 35–45 percent of land-use and land-cover
conformity to early master plan proposals. Results from the spatial analysis comparing major land uses
from previous master plans, with land cover deduced from satellite images (circa 2015), show gener-
ally low levels of conformity in the case cities (figure 3.2). For core urban areas, the results are fairly
consistent—with around 35–45 percent of land-use conformity in all five cities.
However, in peri-urban areas, the rate of conformity varies greatly. Three of the cities cluster around
25 percent (which is significantly lower than in core urban areas), while it is higher in Mbeya (44.5 per-
cent) and extremely low in Tanga (less than 3 percent). (The reasons for these exceptions in Mbeya and
Tanga were better revealed when we dove deep into the conformity by land-use types, as discussed
in later paragraphs.)
Cities with master plans existing from earlier decades did not show better conformity than cities that
adopted master plans late. For example, Mwanza adopted its first GPS in the early 1990s, but overall its
levels of conformity are similar to the other cities which had GPS since the 1970s. However, this could
be due to a “late comer advantage,” in which the master plans prepared were reflecting on-the-ground
conditions in the 1990s.
Conformity to master plan land uses did not change or improve significantly over the years. For exam-
ple, in Arusha and Dodoma, where conformity with land cover from satellite images was compared
FIGURE 3.2: Conformity of Major Land Uses in Mid-2010s with Master Plans
Arusha
50%
40%
30%
20%
Tanga Dodoma
10%
0%
Percentage of major land uses in
master plan realized (core urban
area)
Percentage of major land uses in
master plan realized (peri-urban
Mwanza Mbeya area)
Source: Based on study calculations and EO4SD operations report for this study.
Note: For Kigoma and Mtwara, as there have been no master plans since independence, comparison on land-use
conformity could not be performed.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 29
across two time periods (2005 and 2015 for the former, and 2006 and 2016 for the latter), very small
changes were registered, whether in the core urban area or peri-urban area. The only exception is in
the core urban area of Arusha, which seemed to have developed more in accordance to the master
plan in the 2005 to 2015 period, seeing an improvement in conformity raising from 34.70 percent to
43.40 percent (table 3.1). This is mainly attributed to the conversion of agricultural areas to other uses,
especially to residential (map 3.2).
TABLE 3.1: Conformity of Major Land Uses with Arusha 1985 Master Plan and Dodoma 1976 Master
Plan across Time
Case cities Major land uses in master plan realized (%)
Arusha City 2005 land cover 2015 land cover
Core urban area 34.7% 43.4%
Peri-urban area 19.7% 19.8%
Dodoma Municipality 2006 land cover 2016 land cover
Core urban area 36.3% 34.6%
Peri-urban area 28.3% 27.2%
Source: Compiled from EO4SD operations report (for this study).
MAP 3.2: Changes from Agricultural Areas to other Land-Cover Classes between 2005 and 2015,
Core Urban Area of Arusha
Core city
Larger urban zone
Primary & secondary road
Agricultural area to residential
Agricultural area to industrial,
commericial, public or military area
Agricultural area to forest
Source: EO4SD operations report for Arusha (for this study).
30 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Further analysis was conducted for each type of land use and land cover to assess the different chal-
lenges for each land-use category. Main highlights from these are discussed as follows for the core
urban areas:
1. Residential conformity is generally high (ranging from around 48 percent to 78 percent confor-
mity). Of those with lower conformity, such as in Arusha and Tanga, a sizeable area of designated
residential areas is occupied by agriculture use (30.2 percent and 19.9 percent, respectively).
Further of interest, Mwanza’s 1992 master plan included specific land-use categories for both
planned and unplanned residential areas, which is a good first step in recognizing the existence
of unplanned areas. In reality, while the planned and unplanned residential areas are not exactly
where they are specified (and there are large areas of unplanned settlements in areas that are
not designated for residential according to the master plan), there is substantial conformity
as a residential category overall. Also notably, more than 20 percent of the designated “Haz-
ard land and hills” area is occupied by unplanned settlements, and more than 15 percent by
planned settlements. This likely reflects both encroachment (for the unplanned area) as well as
lack of enforcement (for the planned area). See map 3.3 and figure 3.3.
MAP 3.3: Unplanned and Planned Residential Areas for Mwanza Core Urban Area
a. Mwanza general land-use plan, 1992–2012 b. Actual land-cover plan, 2014
Source: Satellite image; interpreted land cover using open source satellites and LGRCIS.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 31
FIGURE 3.3: Mwanza: Conformity to 1992 Master Plan
Core urban area
Residential, unplanned
Residential, planned
1992 major land uses
Institutional
Industrial
Hazard land and hills
Commercial
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Actual 2014 land cover
Residential, planned Industrial
Residential, unplanned Parks, open space, recreational
Institutional Others
Commercial
Source: Satellite image; interpreted land cover using open source satellites and LGRCIS.
2. Economic uses (consisting mainly of commercial and industrial areas) have relatively lower lev-
els of conformity (averaging around 17 percent and 25 percent, respectively) than residential
and most other uses. Further, conformity for commercial uses is overall lower than those for
industrial uses (except in Mbeya). Of the five cities, Arusha and Dodoma also do much worse
than Mbeya, Mwanza, or Tanga in terms of conformity, with Arusha having a conformity of less
than 10 percent for both commercial and industrial uses (see figure 3.4). In this case, the 1985
master plan envisioned very polycentric development for Arusha, with multiple commercial
nodes distributed somewhat evenly across the core urban area. However, in reality, commercial
activities are very concentrated in the existing downtown area and only a few small pockets
of commercial spaces are beginning to emerge outside of the downtown. This could be due
to multiple reasons, such as insufficient economic activities and lack of efficient connections
to sustain sizable commercial centers outside of the downtown area. Further, Arusha’s 1985
master plan also called for huge swaths of industrial areas (as compared to other cities). Such
provisions may be unrealistic to begin with, and the largest chunks conceived to be located
near the eastern and western edge are yet to be realized.
3. Consistent with secondary cities’ primary economic activities, agriculture remains the dominant
land use in both core urban areas (as seen for Arusha, Dodoma, Mbeya and Tanga) and peri-
urban areas. However, different approaches were adopted in the master plans with respect to
the intentions for agriculture development. For example, in Arusha, a significant area (3,741.58
hectares) was allocated for agriculture in the core urban area in the 1985 master plan (and con-
formity of this was very high at 73.7 percent); this is similarly observed for Mbeya and Dodoma.
However, in Tanga, the master plan did not allocate for agriculture use at all in both the core
urban area and peri-urban area. This is one main reason for Tanga’s extremely low level of
conformity (3 percent) in the peri-urban area, as mentioned earlier, because in reality, around
32 ■ Translating Plans to Development
FIGURE 3.4: Level of Conformity for Economic Land Uses in Core Urban Area
2,500 45
Allocated area in master plan (hectares)
40
2,000 35
30
Conformity (%)
1,500
25
20
1,000
15
500 10
5
0 0
Arusha Dodoma Mbeya Mwanza Tanga
Commercial total area in MP 211.54 416.43 92.51 275.17 129.2
Industrial total area in MP 1,981.65 412.93 217.79 166.60 504.3
Commercial % conformed 5.1% 6.4% 38.9% 23.3% 13.8%
Industrial % conformed 9.7% 17.2% 30.5% 41.3% 29.1%
Source: Compiled from EO4SD Operations Report (for this study).
58 percent of the peri-urban area remains in agricultural use. (This points to the issue of realism
and quality of master plans.)
Land-use and land-cover conformity to detailed plans
Sampled detailed plans overall have better conformity than master plans, ranging from almost 50 per-
cent to 94 percent. For each city (except for Mtwara),2 one detailed planning scheme in the downtown
area was selected for analysis (see example of Arusha in map 3.4 and figure 3.5, and detailed analysis
for other case cities in the background paper “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary Cities” for this study). Based
on these sample detailed planning schemes examined, actual land-use and land-cover conformity at
the neighborhood level are much higher than in the cases of master plans (table 3.2). In most cases,
TABLE 3.2: Conformity of Major Land Uses in Mid-2010s with Detailed Plan Samples
Year of
actual
land uses Major land uses
Detailed plans Wards approximately covered compared realized (%)
Arusha (1997) Ngarenaro, Levolosi, Kaloleni 2015 86.7
Dodoma (2006) Ipagala, Tambukareli, Makole 2016 87.6
Kigoma (2003) Kigoma 2014 59.9
Mbeya (1997) Sisimba, Mbalizi Road, Forest, Nzovwe, Iyela 2014 76.6
Mwanza (2003) Mirongo, Nyamagana, Pamba 2014 49.4
Tanga (2005) Makorora 2014 94.0
Source: Satellite imagery and various detailed plans; study-interpreted land cover using open source
satellites and LGRCIS.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 33
MAP 3.4: Example of a Detailed Area Plan in Arusha
a. 1997 detailed area plan b. 2015 actual land use c. Diversion from proposed land uses
Source: Satellite image, European Space Agency, World Bank and Ardhi team interpreted land cover using open
source satellites and Local Government Revenue Collection Information System.
FIGURE 3.5: Arusha: Conformity to Detailed Area Plan
hare of land-use categories in
a. S Conformity sample taken from Ngarenaro,
b.
Arusha 1997 detailed area plan Levolosi, Kaloleni wards
1.6% 6.3%
Open space and recreational
1997 detailed plan
major land uses
Institutional
46.0% Residential
40.7%
Commercial
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Open space and recreational
Actual 2015 land uses
Commercial
Residential
Open space and recreational
Institutional
Commercial
Residential
Institutional
the actual development of the neighborhood followed the structure of the detailed plans closely, as
well as the location of major allocated land uses. The least level of conformity is seen frequently in the
commercial areas, open spaces, and vacant land. In reality, commercial areas are greater in number and
spread more evenly across the planning area than was stipulated in detailed plans.
However, the coverage of detailed plans is low and not well documented in LGA planning offices. The
percentage of land area covered by detailed planning schemes varies substantially from city to city.
However, planning staff in most cities self-reported less than 50 percent coverage. Further, from our
34 ■ Translating Plans to Development
interviews and visits to cities’ planning offices, there is rarely an up-to-date and comprehensive record
of all the DPSs for the city. This poses challenges in the enforcement of the DPSs as well as the devel-
opment of new ones (to coordinate coverage, alignment of infrastructure, and so forth). Dodoma, how-
ever, is a notable exception. City staff attribute their relative planning success to the fact that so many
DPSs exist in Dodoma. New schemes are not developed in isolation but instead connect to neighbor-
ing schemes (which connect in a similar fashion to the way pieces in a puzzle interlock).
Observable Spatial Development Trends
and Analysis of Secondary Cities
Beyond comparing the conformity of land use and land cover for each city, overall spatial development
trends were observed for the case cities to shed light on the way they are developing over the years.
Specifically, detailed spatial analysis for three of the case cities was performed to look at trends in
urban size and expansion and the patterns of growth (such as whether growth takes place in the form
of infill, extension or leapfrogging, or the level of fragmentation, and compactness and dispersion), as
well as, direction of growth. In addition, aspects on development density, access to infrastructure and
services and a special focus on urban parks provision and urban resilience were analyzed for all the
case cities. At various instances, the reasons behind these growth patterns and service provision levels
were discussed. This section provides useful information for local policy makers and technical staff
to understand how their cities are growing and vis-à-vis the service provision levels spatially, thereby
allowing them to identify potential problem areas or to inform decisions about future intervention or
investment choices.
Trends of urban size and expansion, fragmentation,
and compactness and dispersion
including
In-depth spatial analysis was performed for three case cities—Arusha, Dodoma and Kigoma—
their rates of growth and expansion, as well as patterns and mode of growth. The three cities are
inherently different, demonstrating a spectrum of population sizes and areas, location and geographic
attributes, as well as institutional capacity and governance. Spatially, all three cities have been grow-
ing but at different rates (figure 3.6, bars, right axis) and extents (lines, left axis). Arusha, the biggest
city in terms of build-out, shows the highest growth rates, while Kigoma, the smallest city, exhibits the
lowest growth rates. Dodoma lies in between. Dodoma accelerated its growth from 2005 to 2010, but
apart from that exception, all three expansion processes run more or less linearly. Overall, the size of
the urban footprint has grown steadily since the year 2000 for all three cities. In Arusha and Dodoma’s
case, the urban footprints have roughly doubled since then, while Kigoma’s urban footprint grew by
nearly 80 percent. The amount of land that was converted to urban area (proxied by impermeable sur-
face observed from satellite imagery) during the 15 years sums up to 73 square kilometers in Arusha,
35 in Dodoma, and 15 in Kigoma.
Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma exhibit varying degrees of edge and infill growth versus leapfrog growth
(figure 3.7 and map 3.5). The expansion analysis described in this study divides each city’s growth
into two main categories—edge expansion (including infill) and leapfrog expansion. Leapfrog growth
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 35
FIGURE 3.6: Size and Expansion Comparison of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma
140 60
130.39
Urban footprint area (km2)
120 50
Total growth rate (%)
100 104.31
40
80 80.07 65.46
56.90 55.90 30
60
40.16
20
40 30.89 27.86
23.09 33.94
20 10
18.50
0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015
Growth rate Arusha Growth rate Dodoma Growth rate Kigoma
Size Arusha Size Dodoma Size Kigoma
Source: EO4SD urban metrics final report (for this study).
often triggers urban fragmentation and poses various problems (such as costly infrastructure provi-
sion), while infill growth (and depending on specific cases—edge growth) generally promotes a more
compact city shape. The patterns and range vary across the three cities and between 2000 to 2015.
Overall, Arusha and Kigoma have a higher edge and infill growth rate (around 30 percent) in this
period, while Dodoma has a much smaller corresponding one, except for a surge in 2005–10 (which
corresponds with its growth rate changes). Nevertheless, inside the core area of Dodoma, densifica-
tion and compaction are observed. For Arusha, significant edge growth can be observed in the central
area, which is a more desirable type of growth. However, many new patches of edge growth are also
occurring far away from the city center, expanding from settlements in the outskirts, which already
existed before 2000; these may not be desirable, as they promote a more sprawling form.
FIGURE 3.7: Urban Growth Type and Rate of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma, 2000 to 2015
60
50
Growth rate (%)
40
30
20
10
0
2000–2005
2005–2010
2010–2015
2000–2005
2005–2010
2010–2015
2000–2005
2005–2010
2010–2015
Arusha Dodoma Kigoma
Sample cities and over different time periods
Leapfrog growth Edge and infill growth
Source: Compiled from EO4SD operations report (for this study).
36 ■ Translating Plans to Development
MAP 3.5: Growth Analysis 2000–2015 for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma
a. Arusha 2000–2015 Pronounced scattering
Linear strip
Leapfrog Islands Developments
Urban extent in 2000
Suburbanization process is
Infill and edge growth mainly guided by major
Leapfrog growth transport infrastructure
b. Dodoma 2000–2015
The process of
suburbanization is
In the core area, guided by the
densification and accessibility of
compaction can be regions. Suburbs
observed are commonly
aligned to major
road
infrastructure.
They develop in
the form of linear
strips or ribbon
developments.
More than 90% of all
leapfrog developments
Urban extent in 2000 are residential,
characterized mostly by
Infill and edge growth
low building densities
Leapfrog growth
(continued)
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 37
MAP 3.5: Continued.
c. Kigoma 2000–2015
Nearly all developments
in the urban core area
are edge or infill growth.
The development
of new settlement
as well as the
densification of
existing
settlements are
guided by the
connectivity to the
city center.
Urban extent in 2000
Infill and edge growth
Leapfrog growth
Source: EO4SD operations report for Arusha, Dodma, and Kigoma (for this study).
While Dodoma has a comparatively much more significant leapfrog growth rate overall (ranging from
15.2 to 20.5 percent) than Arusha or Kigoma (ranging from 4.5 to 7.2 percent for Arusha and 2.9 to
3.1 percent for Kigoma), it does not experience a strong scattering type of sprawl, but rather individ-
ual growing ‘islands’ in the outskirts. This could be attributed to the relatively large peri-urban area
of Dodoma, and most of these leapfrog “islands” may be considered individual villages. (More than
90 percent of all Dodoma leapfrog developments are residential—characterized mostly by low building
densities.) This categorization is not necessarily negative in this case. In Arusha, the leapfrog islands
could be due to other reasons. For example, the westernmost island observed is due to the setting up
of a textile factory. As for Kigoma, leapfrogging was not very pronounced during the 15-year period
except in some outlying settlements in the north.
In all three cities, the urban expansion process is strongly aligned with development of major roads,
forming linear strips or ribbon developments. For example, in Arusha, linear strips are forming toward
the east and southeast—especially along Arusha-Himo Road. Similarly, in Dodoma and Kigoma, set-
tlements are developing in the form of linear strips along major roads, and the spatial analysis clearly
shows that the process of urban expansion is guided by the reachability (or connectivity) of outer
regions to the main city. This is one of the most common phenomena in rapidly growing secondary
cities of developing countries around the world.
38 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Arusha and Kigoma are facing challenges of fragmentation, while Dodoma shows trends of consolida-
tion. Fragmentation is a key attribute of urban sprawl. Fragmented urban footprints are characterized
by unused or vacant land interpenetrating the city, resulting in a more scattered and/or leapfrogged
form. The discontiguity index measures the relative size difference between discontinuous urban clus-
ters, weighted by the size of each cluster, thereby measuring the cities’ fragmentation. The discon-
tiguity indexes for Dodoma and Kigoma for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 are illustrated in
figure 3.8. Arusha overall faces a fragmentation challenge; it has comparatively high values of discon-
tiguity (observed as the construction of low-density residential subdivisions in isolated locations such
as satellite towns),3 and the pace of this has increased from 2000 to 2015. In contrast, Dodoma’s dis-
contiguity index shows a decreasing trend of fragmentation or a consolidation, which means that infills
or densification processes are taking place. In fact, when Dodoma was experiencing a high growth rate
FIGURE 3.8: Discontiguity Index Results of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma (2000–15)
Dodoma is experiencing Arusha sees strong fragmentation
consolidation over the period. Its process since 2010 with high
discontiguity index dropped values, and increasing speed.
significantly when the city Large amount of new low-density
experienced strong growth rates developments in the northeast is
of nearly 50% during 2005–2010. contributing to this trend.
500 50
400 40
300 30
200 20
Relative discontiguity change (%)
100 10
Discontiguity index
0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015
–100 –10
In Kigoma, the overall
–200 discontiguity is very low, –20
but saw a jump in the last
10 years. The increase
–300 during the recent years –30
results mainly from linear
strip developments in the
–400 north of the city. –40
–500 –50
Years
Relative change Arusha Relative change Dodoma Relative change Kigoma
Arusha Dodoma Kigoma
Source: EO4SD urban form metrics report for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma (for this study).
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 39
of nearly 50 percent during 2005–10, its discontiguity dropped by almost 50 percent. Finally, Kigoma’s
absolute discontiguity numbers are the lowest among the three, although they are showing signs of
increasing in the past 10 years.
While the fragmentation metric targets the number and size of discontinuous patches, the dispersion
metric describes the average distances between such separated parts of a city and is another import-
ant indicator for sprawl. Compactness and sprawl can be interpreted as the two extremes on a scale
that describe urban form and development patterns. The dispersion metric provides information about
urban compactness and can be visualized in an abstracted manner with standard deviational ellipses.
The resulting maps (see map 3.6) support this metric by illustrating the spatial characteristics of each
city and their changes over time: centralizing tendency, dispersion, and directional trend.
More pronounced dispersions are observed for Arusha and Kigoma. In Arusha, the standard deviations
of distances between new residences and the city’s core are growing, which indicates a dispersion
or decompaction of the overall shape. Due to Mount Meru as a natural obstacle in the north, the set-
tlements have not expanded in this direction, while new buildings in the east contribute to an overall
elongation of the city’s shape in the eastern direction. Dodoma’s newly developed settlements overall
have resulted in very little changes in the standard distances. There are also no significant modifica-
tions of eccentricity observable, and spatial extension proceeded more or less similarly in all directions.
Growth mostly took place at the edges of already existing development. Since Dodoma’s buildable
land is not really restricted by natural obstacles, the city exhibits a circle-like shape. Kigoma, which
is bordered by Lake Tanganyika to the south and west, is experiencing a notable change in its ellipse
rotation. Its leapfrogging development elongated the overall shape into the northeast and triggered
increasing dispersion rates in this direction, while the northwest-southeast extent remains more or less
unchanged. Nonetheless, overall dispersion is relatively low and the direction of expansion is natural,
considering the geographical constraint of the waterfront to the city’s west and south.
Development density
Overall, Tanzania’s secondary cities are developing at very low density—and low floor area ratios
(FARs)—which are inefficient and costly for servicing. The median gross population density for the
case cities studied (at the ward level) is around 21.15 people per hectare (pph),4 with the highest
observed in Madukani ward in Dodoma of around 209 pph and lowest in another Dodoma ward of
around 0.5 pph. UN Habitat advises that high density communities should exceed 150 pph to be via-
ble (figure 3.9).5 In the case cities, only Dodoma’s central area and Arusha’s inner-city neighborhood
achieved this density requirement. Further, the FAR, which reflects building density, is also extremely
low,6 ranging from 0 to a maximum of 0.71 in Iyela ward in Mbeya, with most wards hovering around
0.1–0.2 FAR. (More details about population and building densities for each case city are found in the
background paper “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary Cities” for this study.)
The current extremely low development densities create high costs for infrastructure and service pro-
vision; there is abundant room for densification to rein in sprawl and encourage more livable cities.
Reinforced by our earlier findings on the rapid growth in cities’ urban footprint, patterns of leapfrog
growth, and trends of increasing fragmentation and dispersion, this current low development density
40 ■ Translating Plans to Development
MAP 3.6: Directional Distribution of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma Over Time (2000–15)
a. Arusha
b. Dodoma
c. Kigoma
Source: EO4SD urban form metrics report for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma (for this study).
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 41
FIGURE 3.9: Population Density Comparison
600 554
Density (people per hectare)
500
400 357
294
300 UN
209 207 recommended
200 density
104 110
100 62 51 Median of
0.5 21 15 case cities
0
Dodoma-ZuZu
Dodoma—Madukani
Median of case cities
Dar es Salaam-Goba
Dar es Salaam-Ubungo
Dar es Salaam-Manzese
Boston
New York City
Malmo
Singapore
Curitiba
Barcelona
Case cities Dar es Salaam International
Source: Compiled for study from various sources.
is highly unsustainable. This highlights the critical importance of increasing development density, espe-
cially through infill development (such as inner-city densification, regeneration, or redevelopment).
The benefits go beyond economies of scale and the associated savings on infrastructure and services.
Densification through infill development could also reduce environmental burdens such as encroach-
ment into ecologically sensitive lands. It could also enhance social interaction, improve access to jobs,
and create a more livable city overall.
The very low development densities in our case cities are partially due to continued high prevalence
of agriculture use. However, this appears to be changing quickly. Case cities experienced an overall
increase in the conversion of agricultural land to other land-use classes, particularly in the urban core
areas over a 10-year period, but mostly due to an increase in residential uses. A spatial change analy-
sis was performed in both urban core and peri-urban areas for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma, which
identifies the change of agricultural area to (i) residential; (ii) industry, commercial, public, or military
area; and (iii) plantations and forest (map 3.7). In the case of Arusha, agricultural conversion was
mainly caused by residential extension (88.41 percent) and reforestation (6.23 percent). This was
true particularly in the southwestern part of the city, where large agricultural areas were replaced
by urban settlements. Similarly, Dodoma’s agricultural areas were mostly converted to residential,
especially in the northwest and southeast. The case is slightly different in Kigoma, where agricultural
conversion largely took place in the peri-urban area because of natural or artificial reforestation (or
perhaps abandonment of farms). This conversion type (in green in map 3.7) is seen pervasively in
the northern part. Within the core urban area, however, agriculture uses were again mostly converted
to residential areas and had mainly taken place along the main roads and are scattered throughout
the city.
42 ■ Translating Plans to Development
MAP 3.7: Spatial Distribution of Changes from Agricultural Areas to Other Land Use between
2005/06 and 2015/16 (at similar scale)
a. Dodoma
b. Arusha c. Kigoma
Core city
Larger urban zone
Primary & secondary road
Agricultural area to residential
Agricultural area to industrial,
commercial, public or military area
Agricultural area to forest
Source: EO4SD urban form metrics report for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma (for this study).
Connectivity and urban mobility
Critical road infrastructure, especially arterial and collector roads, have hardly increased or densified
from the mid-2000s to mid-2010s in the case cities and do not keep pace with urban growth and
expansion. Taking the example of Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma, it is observed that there were min-
imal changes and increases in arterial or collector roads, while some densification in local roads has
occurred (map 3.8).
The average distance from residential areas to industrial sites, central business districts, and second-
order commercial centers is approximately six kilometers in the case cities, much longer than common
standards in other cities around the world. Average commuting distances from residences to jobs
(institutional, commercial, and industrial areas) were spatially analyzed in the case cities. The results
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 43
MAP 3.8: Changes in Road Networks in Selected Cities, from Mid-2000s to Mid-2010s
a. 2005 Arusha b. 2015 Arusha
c. 2006 Dodoma d. 2016 Dodoma
e. 2006 Kigoma f. 2016 Kigoma
Source: EO4SD operations report for Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma (for this study).
44 ■ Translating Plans to Development
are, on average, greater than current standards in other countries, which is around four kilometers (see
Peng 1977; Boussauw, Neutens, and Witlox 2010). Further, on the average, according to spatial analysis
performed for this study, only about 20 percent of residential developments are within one kilometer
to a commercial center in our case cities.7
Planned and unplanned settlements and their access
to infrastructure and services
The case cities all have sizeable unplanned settlement areas, and they exhibited similar trends but
varying degrees in their expansion or conversion. For example, a close examination of the changes
of planned and unplanned settlements in three case cities—Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma—between
2005 and 2015 showed that all have significant expansion of unplanned areas (the largest being in
Arusha, at around 30 percent, to around 25 percent in Dodoma and 18 percent in Kigoma). In addition,
there is observable expansion in planned settlements, but only significantly so in Dodoma (around
13 percent). Interestingly, some conversion (or upgrading) of unplanned to planned areas has taken
place as well, and this is sizeable foremost in Kigoma (around 10 percent) as well as in Dodoma (around
5 percent). The spatial location of these trends is useful to inform each city’s decision for service provi-
sion or upgrading actions (see figure 3.10 and map 3.9 and in the background paper “Atlas of Tanzania
Secondary Cities” for this study).
FIGURE 3.10: Changes in Planned and Unplanned Settlement Areas (Arusha, Dodoma, Kigoma)
between 2005 to 2015 (percent of residential land area)
Unplanned
settlement
area Arusha Dodoma Kigoma
(no change)
Unplanned
60% settlement area 51.86% 26.96% 27.54%
(no change)
50%
Expansion of
Unplanned to Expansion of
40% unplanned 31.35% 25.44% 18.63%
planned unplanned settlement area
settlement 30% settlement Decrease of
area 20% area unplanned 0.27% 0.33% 0.88%
10% settlement area
0% Planned settlement
11.46% 28.48% 40.11%
area (no change)
Decrease of Decrease of
planned unplanned Expansion of
settlement settlement planned settlement 3.93% 13.52% 2.88%
area area area
Decrease of
Expansion of Planned planned settlement 0.32% 0.13% 0%
area
planned settlement
settlement area Unplanned to
area (no change) planned settlement 0.81% 5.16% 9.97%
area
Arusha Dodoma Kigoma Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: EO4SD operations report (for this study).
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 45
MAP 3.9: Changes in Planned and Unplanned Settlement Areas in Arusha from 2005 to 2015
0.28% 0.32% 0.81%
3.96%
31.53%
52.17%
11.53%
No change in unplanned settlement area
No change in planned settlement area
Expansion of unplanned settlement area
Expansion of planned settlement area
Decrease of unplanned settlement area
Decrease of planned settlement area
Unplanned to planned settlement area
70
60
Area (km2)
Changes in settlement types
No change in unplanned settlement area
50
No change in planned settlement area 40
Expansion of unplanned settlement area
Expansion of planned settlement area 30
Decrease of unplanned settlement area
Decrease of planned settlement area
20
Unplanned to planned settlement area 10
Overview map 0
Core urban area 2005 2015
Peri-urban area
Unplanned settlement area
Planned settlement area
Source: EO4SD Arusha operations report (for this study).
Overall, less than half of the case cities’ populations have adequate access to health facilities, schools
and urban parks; this already low service accessibility is, unsurprisingly, worse for unplanned set-
tlements. For the case cities in general, less than half of cities’ populations are within one kilometer
(approximately equivalent to 20 minutes walking distance)8 of a health facility, school, and urban park.
Apart from Arusha, access to these services are higher in planned and nonresidential settlements.
Less than 10 percent of serviced areas in all observed settlements are in unplanned areas. Such service
accessibility conditions are related to a city’s population density, size, and connectivity overall and to
the nearest city center or downtown where most of the facilities are located. The analysis provided
here has significant planning and provision implications to help improve the support for the needs
of residents, particularly in the unplanned areas, and for the marginalized and most vulnerable. (See
the example of Kigoma in map 3.10). Detailed service accessibility data and maps are provided in the
background paper “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary Cities” for this study.
Urban resilience
Tanzanian cities are increasingly vulnerable to disasters and climate-related hazards. Government sta-
tistics reveal that urban areas have witnessed widespread flooding in recent decades. Dar es Salaam
and Mwanza (the two largest cities in the country) are especially impacted by river floods. Arusha,
Mbeya, and Mwanza, which have more rugged terrain and steep slopes, are affected by landslides,
although to a lesser extent. Coastal municipalities including Tanga and Kigoma are potentially vul-
nerable to sea level rise and coastal flooding (World Bank 2016). With future conditions expected to
become increasingly variable,9 climate impacts will likely exacerbate floods and droughts and increase
the occurrences of diseases like cholera, which could present an undue social and economic burden on
46 ■ Translating Plans to Development
MAP 3.10: Service Network Analysis on Access to Health Facilities, Schools, and Urban Parks,
Example of Kigoma
a. Access to health facilities b. Access to schools c. Access to urban parks
Source: Study interpretation based on EO4SD data, NBS census 2012, satellite imagery, and LGRCIS.
cities and households. The ability of cities to adapt, mitigate, and learn from acute shocks and chronic
stresses resulting from climate change is therefore critical.
Case cities see substantial development on legally defined “no-build” and flood-prone areas. National
legislation through the Land Act prohibits development within 60 meters of rivers, hazard lands, and
other sensitive areas.10 Subsidiary legislation to the Tanzania Roads Act of 2007 designates right-of-
ways of up to 30 meters (but not less than 12.5 meters), depending on a road’s classification. However,
development on these no-build and flood-prone areas such as river valleys and wetlands is widespread
in Tanzania—on average, an estimated 13 percent of houses in the case cities are within legally defined
no-build areas, and around 6 percent of houses are located in flood-prone areas (figure 3.11). Typically,
these residents are driven by land and development costs. Proximity to jobs is also a significant con-
sideration, as the only cheap and vacant land close to city centers are found in hazard-prone areas.
Enforcement has been insufficient or ineffective to either prevent encroachment into hazard-prone
areas or to ensure that developments occur according to adopted master plans. The analysis suggests
the importance of physically demarcating no-build zones and the need to adopt stronger enforcement
mechanisms to prevent encroachment from occurring in the first place. Municipalities reported hav-
ing bylaws to prevent unplanned settlements, as well as enforcement mechanisms including building
inspection and penalties for violating land-use laws, and building codes, among others. However, the
study notes significant constraints in enforcing these plans and regulations effectively. Nearly all cities
reported political interference as a major issue in enforcing informal settlements and encroachment on
hazard lands (World Bank 2016).
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 47
FIGURE 3.11: Presence of Housing on No-Build Areas and Flood-Prone Areas
30
25
Percent of houses
20
15 Proportion of houses
existing in legally
10 defined “no-build”
areas
5 Proportion of houses
existing in flood-prone
areas (within 60 meters
0
Arusha Dodoma Kigoma Mbeya Mtwara Mwanza Tanga of valleys and wetlands)
Cities
Source: Study calculations and interpretations based on various data, satellite imagery, and LGRCIS.
Note: The legally defined standards for no-build areas are (i) arterial roads using right-of-way of 60 meters,
(ii) collector roads using right-of-way of 30 meters, (iii) railway by buffering 60 meters, and (iv) rivers by buffering
60 meters. Figure calculations do not consider areas with rugged terrain and steep slopes, which may underesti-
mate data.
Increasing the share of public green spaces or using green infrastructure solutions will assist in reduc-
ing flooding vulnerability. As seen earlier, there is overall a low provision of and low access to green
open spaces in the case cities.11 Green open spaces provide many environmental and physical bene-
fits in cities: formal and informal sport, leisure and recreational activities, and preservation of natural
environments—which are necessary to provide healthy habitats for humans, wildlife, and plants, espe-
cially in densely built areas. Further, such green spaces combined with green infrastructure solutions
(such as swales, rain gardens, and retention ponds) would assist in addressing flooding vulnerability. To
illustrate, retention ponds are naturally low-lying areas that can flood during extreme storm events and
function as public green spaces during non-storm events. These lessen peak water flows during floods,
thereby reducing the risk of inundation and potential consequences to surrounding and downstream
communities, as well as potential resulting resettlement (World Bank 2016).
Endnotes
1. The spatial analysis was performed to varying depth for different groups of cities due to constraints
on resources. For Arusha, Dodoma, and Kigoma, two different time periods (2005/06 for Arusha
and 2015/16 for Dodoma and Kigoma) of land cover were developed from satellite images, while
for the other cities (Mbeya, Mwanza, and Mtwara), only the 2015 period was developed. While com-
paring the derived land-cover types with master plan land-use categories, we focused on doing
so for eight major land-use categories: urban parks, residential, institutional, industrial, forest and
shrubs, commercial, arterial and collector roads, and agriculture. Other land-use categories were
omitted either because they are relatively insignificant (for example, cemeteries) or greatly distort
the analysis (for example, water bodies). For the conformity analysis, boundaries from the master
plans were used as the limiting outer boundary (although satellite images covering a larger area
were typically examined). Differentiation was also made between core urban area and peri-urban
area. Further, for Kigoma and Mtwara, as there have been no master plans since independence,
comparison on land-use conformity could not be performed. However, later sections will compare
48 ■ Translating Plans to Development
the various urban development characteristics (for example, prevalence of informality, access to
services and amenities etc) across all seven cities. For detailed methodology, please refer to the
background paper, “Detailed Methodology and Other Detailed Spatial Analysis Explored for Tan-
zania Secondary Cities” for this study.
2. For Mtwara, no formally adopted detailed plan was made available for analysis.
3. This type of scattering development is characterized by few buildings, occupying large parcels.
4. Calculated based on 2012 census data.
5. Internationally, most urban built-up areas have average population densities ranging between 70
and 90 pph. This is lower in U.S. cities, with 20–25 pph, and higher in Chinese and Indian cities,
with more than 140 pph. Other studies suggest similar figures, such as the lower range of urban
population density should be at least 40–50 dwelling units per hectare, approximately, or 160–
200 pph assuming average household size to be four (Gordon and Richardson 1997).
6. Data derived from LGRCIS core data and ward map 2014.
7. Percentage in terms of number of houses. Commercial centers were identified by looking at the
aggregated building with primary use having commercial and institutional use with a presence of
major or collector roads.
8. The analysis assumes that typical walking speed is five kilometers per hour.
9. More details are found in the World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal, http://sdwebx
.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm.
10. This Land Act was adopted in 1999. The appropriateness and realism of this guidance being applied
uniformly across the board is debatable, especially in denser urban areas.
11. Land-use categories defined in this study includes open space, urban parks, forest and shrubs,
recreation, wetlands, natural areas and/or reserves, and cemeteries.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 49
4. Key Takeaways
Early master plans are somewhat successful in providing broad guidance on each city’s population
projections and main structural forms. Many of the early master plans provided rather accurate and
realistic population projections, which formed the foundation for estimates in land use, employment,
and infrastructure needs in these plans. Further, the development of arterial and collector roads (where
realized) were overall similar to the layout prescribed in the master plans, which provide a foundational
structural form for the cities.
However, master plans were only implemented to a limited extent (or conversely, master plans were
rather ineffective in guiding development), especially in terms of major land uses and supporting infra-
structure and facilities. As discussed earlier, actual development in core urban areas exhibited around
35–45 percent of land-use and land-cover conformity to early master plan proposals, while development
in peri-urban areas varies greatly. Further, cities with master plans existing from earlier decades did not
show better conformity as compared to cities that adopted master plans later, and over time, this con-
formity did not change or improve significantly. However, notably, residential conformity in core urban
areas is generally high (ranging from around 48 percent to 78 percent) while economic uses (consisting
mainly of commercial and industrial areas) have relatively lower levels of conformity—averaging around
17 percent and 25 percent, respectively. At the same time, agricultural use remains a dominant function
even in core urban areas, despite much earlier aspirations and this not being the most productive land
use for urban core areas. Infrastructure and facilities provision are both much lacking and not growing
fast enough—less than half of the case cities’ populations have adequate access to health facilities,
schools, and urban parks (within one kilometer distance or a 20-minutes walk).
The ineffectiveness of master plans is also reflected in cities experiencing substantial unplanned growth,
many facing increased fragmentation and dispersion; at the same time, the urban expansion process is
strongly aligned with development of major roads, forming ribbon developments or leapfrogged islands.
The case cities all have sizeable unplanned settlement areas and continue to experience significant expan-
sion of these areas (from around 20 to 30 percent growth) and with little conversion into planned set-
tlements. The already low service accessibility is, unsurprisingly, worse for unplanned settlements. This
challenge is exacerbated by the spatial growth pattern of these cities—especially observed in Arusha and
Kigoma, where there are increased fragmentation and dispersion (an interesting exception being Dodoma).
Further, spatial analysis clearly shows that the process of urban expansion is guided by the development of
major roads—providing reachability (or connectivity) of outer regions to the main city centers.
Tanzania’s secondary cities are developing at extremely low density and low floor area ratio (FAR), which
renders servicing inefficient and costly as well as exacerbates sprawl and loss of benefits from agglom-
eration; guidance on density is not adequately provided in master plans. As discussed earlier, the median
50
gross population density for the case cities studied is around 21.15 people per hectare (pph),1 which is
extremely low for an urban context where the UN Habitat recommended density is around 150 pph.
Notably, master plans generally do not provide guidance on density or FARs at the block or even neigh-
borhood level,2 and this is left to detailed plans (which, as we noted, have very low coverage).
Similarly, master plans lack granular guidance and considerations for disaster risk management, and case
cities see sizeable developments in high-risk and flood-prone areas. On average, an estimated 13 percent
of houses in our case cities are within legally defined “no-build” areas, and around 6 percent of houses
are in flood-prone areas. While national-level guidance on the definition of no-build zones exist, the old
master plans typically did not have analysis or explicit guidance and spatial specifications in this area.
While the majority of the case cities have established right-of-ways (ROWs), they are not well enforced
and are subject to encroachment. While these ROWs are recorded in plans (usually paper based)
or in laws (for example, the Roads Act of 2007), they are rarely demarcated on the ground, making
awareness and enforcement of no-build regulations challenging. During the field visits, the study team
found that, aside from Dodoma, the cities with the seemingly best-established road networks (Kigoma
2016; Mtwara 2016) were also those that have not had a formal master plan since the country’s inde-
pendence. Planning staff in these cities noted that, in the past, demarcation-only methods of planning
were applied, in which road networks and plot boundaries were established and physically marked
throughout the majority of the city.
The study also found that certain aspects of master plans themselves were weak, hence rendering the
implementation implausible; master plan quality could be improved. Examples of challenges faced
include the following:
1. Lack of appropriate data or failure to use available data
2. The need to be more realistic and base the proposed land uses on more robust analysis and
considerations, for example:
a. There is typically an overemphasis on residential provision (average of 70 percent versus
standard of 40 to 50 percent), while productive functions (commercial and industrial) are
underplayed (or with huge variations of provision across master plans).
b. Further emphasis needs to be placed on economic uses. For example, industrial land is some-
times underprovided for, or the provided locations are not necessarily appropriate; this is also
the case for commercial centers. Similarly, the needs of ports and associated industries (includ-
ing surrounding land uses and connective infrastructure) are many times not considered.
c. There is a need to recognize and identify unplanned areas in master plans and provide
corresponding appropriate planning guidance and regulations; some master plans do not
even acknowledge the prevalence of unplanned areas.
d. There is inadequate consideration of major infrastructure besides roads—such as water
treatment plants or power stations and their associated buffer areas.
3. The need to provide better guidance on density, especially to encourage urban regeneration
and more appropriate density coupled with efficient servicing
4. Lack of guidance on urban resilience and disaster risk management issues (for example, most
master plans did not consider high-risk zones or demarcate no-build areas)
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 51
5. Critical need to consider urban mobility and public mass transport options, which have mostly
been absent
6. The need for proposed land-use maps to be more granular or mechanisms and systems need to
be established to allow the formulation of the next level of plans (for example, detailed plans)
7. Unrealistic sources and amounts of financing available and hence large underestimation of time
required for implementation, and insufficient consideration of market forces and private sector
contributions to implementation
8. Disconnect between various levels of guidance and development or planning standards—from
national-level policy to city-level master plan and neighborhood detailed plans
9. The need for stakeholder consultations to happen earlier in the process—during existing situa-
tion analysis stage and before a draft is developed
One critical reason for the lack of effectiveness or implementation of master plans is due to poor align-
ment of these spatial plans with budgeting and investment planning decisions, and lack of coordination
and agreement among key agencies and parties. One of the most common and prevalent problems iden-
tified in this study is the disconnect between economic plans (the three- to five-year strategic plans, one-
year budgets summarized in medium-term expenditure frameworks, and work plans coordinated and
monitored by each municipality’s economics department) and urban plans (master plans and detailed
planning schemes). Master plans often place the responsibility of implementation on each city’s five-year
development plan (and other sector plans) and rely on these to integrate with the guidance laid out in
the master plan. However, when such economic plans are formulated, more often they do not refer to the
master plans. Hence, in reality, there is often a major disconnect, especially a spatial and economic one,
between the master plan and the budgeting and investment decisions for implementation. The master
plans were not able to directly inform cities’ strategic plans and capital budget programs.
Other commonly noted constraints in the implementation of master plans as noted by local officials
and municipal planners include (i) limited human resources and skills for enforcement, (ii) insufficient
data and sharing of knowledge,3 (iii) competing interests and political intervention, (iv) limited green-
fields available for development, and (v) lack of alignment with government priorities. However, it
is important to note that there is a common misconception and a prevalent expectation of planners
having the ability to plan and implement in a command economy. Another damaging misconception
is that planning can happen only where planners or local authorities first acquire land, resettle existing
users, survey, and then sell surveyed parcels. Poor coordination among planning authorities, private
developers, and parastatals (such as the water and electric utilities) also exacerbate this issue.
The lack of effective development controls, planning review systems and mechanisms, and resources
for enforcement contributes greatly to ineffectiveness of plans. Enforcement has been insufficient
or ineffective to ensure that developments occur according to adopted master plans. Municipalities
reported having bylaws to prevent unplanned settlements, as well as enforcement mechanisms, includ-
ing building inspection and penalties for violating land-use laws, and building codes, among others.
However, the study notes significant constraints in enforcing these plans and regulations effectively.
Nearly all cities also reported political interference as a major issue in enforcement. Overall governance
and institutional failures in enforcing law affect the enforcement of physical planning proposals.
52 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Detailed plans were found to be more effective in guiding development (demonstrating much better
land-use conformity, ranging from almost 50 percent to 94 percent), although their coverage is gener-
ally low and not well documented. The percentage of land area covered by detailed planning schemes
(DPSs) varies substantially from city to city; however, planning staff in the majority of case cities
self-reported less than 50 percent coverage. Further, from our interviews and visits to cities’ planning
offices, there is rarely an up-to-date and comprehensive record of all the DPSs for the city. This poses
challenges in the enforcement of the DPSs as well as the development of new ones (to coordinate
coverage, alignment of infrastructure, and so forth).
The apparent higher conformity to detailed plans could be attributed to a variety of reasons. First, the
adoption of a DPS classifies an area as planned. This inherently affiliates such areas’ developments with
the formal planning process, often resulting in regularization of unplanned informal developments. The
more detailed and granular nature of the detailed plans also enables municipalities to enforce various
mechanisms in planned areas (unplanned areas are without a DPS and are typically not regulated by
municipal councils). In addition, there is greater ownership and willingness in the community to come
together in these areas perhaps because the majority of DPSs are being led by the private sector, as
was revealed during some of the field visits and interviews conducted with private landowners.
Government should play a more active role in collaborating, guiding, and supporting private-sector-led
DPSs. Private-sector-led DPSs, in themselves, are neither good nor bad; it can be argued that, at the
moment, the private sector is almost entirely driving the agenda of where DPS should be developed
and what land uses they contain. While private sector demand for planning is an asset, urban plans
should be equally driven by strategic interest and public priorities, which would be guided by a shared
vision for the city. Hence, it is critical for the government to acknowledge the growing role of the
private sector and provide guidance and support, where necessary, to make the urban land market
process effective and efficient by mainstreaming emerging best practices led by the private sector.
This includes planning without acquisition of land by local authorities and owners contributing land for
planning and surveying costs and infrastructure provision.
Endnotes
1. Calculated based on 2012 census data.
2. The density provisions in early master plans tend to be broad-stroked and general, recommending a
density figure for “residential areas” or “central areas.” For example, the 1976 Dodoma plan mentions
“Recommended average net residential density of 152 persons/hectare” and the 1974 Mbeya plan
states, “The proposed gross density in all new residential areas, except Sites and Services projects, is
100 people per hectare” and “The population density in central areas for mixed commercial/residential
use should be 150 people per ha or more (consequently, multi-storey structures are required).”
3. The degree to which electricity, water, sewer, drainage, and road networks are mapped—either dig-
itally in AutoCAD/geographic information system (GIS) or on paper—varies from city to city. This is
also true for urban plans: while more recent master plans typically have associated GIS shapefiles
designating proposed land uses, older master plans and detailed planning schemes are generally
not digitized. (Dodoma’s detailed planning schemes are digitized on AutoCAD, however.) Where
electronic shapefiles do exist, they tend not to be shared with other agencies unless they were
requested as inputs for preparing recent master plans. Otherwise, they would be requested on a
“friendly” basis by or from lower level staff as opposed to via official channels.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 53
5. Recommendations
Innovative approaches and practical solutions to urban planning, development controls and enforce-
ment, economics and financing, and coordination need to be adopted at the city level. Based on the
study’s key findings and takeaways, recommendations on specific actions are provided to various lev-
els of government and key stakeholders in three main areas:
1. Urban planning and development (plan formulation, quality, and key implementation strategies)
2. Development controls and enforcement
3. Economics and financing
Each recommendation includes an indication of whether they are likely to be implementable in the
short to medium or long term. They are summarized in table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1: Summary of Recommendations
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
Urban
planning (plan
1 Improve the quality
of master plan and
•
Note specific areas of
weaknesses observed in
formulation, the process of their the Key Takeaways section,
quality, and key formulation. and mainstream specific
implementation countermeasures for each.
strategies) 2 Expand the
coverage of
•
Use practical and
contextual solutions.
detailed plans
for better
•
Consider formulating
scaled-down GPSs for
implementation smaller cities or an interim
and enforcement, land-use plan developed
supported by local at the ward level as a step
governments. between the GPS and DPS.
• Municipal councils should
be playing a leading role
in the development of
DPS—even if they do this in
partnership with the private
sector.
54
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
3 Densify currently
developed areas
•
Given current extreme low
density, there is large scope
aggressively available for densification
through infill or to optimize infrastructure
regeneration and and services, rein in sprawl,
redevelopment. and encourage more livable
cities.
• Couple with appropriate
densification of
infrastructure and services,
noting areas that are
currently lacking.
• Regeneration and
redevelopment efforts
should carefully consider
social and environmental
impacts, especially on
existing communities.
• Focus on appropriate
upgrading of unplanned
settlements.
• Review national-level
planning standards, which
may unintentionally
prevent densification; allow
application of appropriate
density and suitable built
forms to be determined at
the local level according to
specific local context.
4 Ramp up
development
•
Development of major
roads could be a tool
of major roads, and perhaps a shortcut
but carefully and in leading and signaling
strategically. the desired development
direction.
• However, this needs to
be carefully balanced
with regeneration and
densification efforts (see
above).
• This further needs to be
integrated and coordinated
with the other land uses
and necessary services.
(continued)
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 55
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
5 Use provision
of utilities as a
•
Similar to the function of
major roads, utilities and
strategic tool to services are a useful tool to
lead and induce lead and signal the desired
development. development direction.
• Develop structure to allow
cascading levels of utility
plans and provision—from
GPS to DPS.
• Further detailed analysis is
required (and see below on
economics and financing of
utilities).
6 Explore viability
of a regional or
•
Further detailed analysis is
required.
metropolitan
administration or
•
However, generally there is
a missing link that translates
zonal authority. national-level planning to
the city level.
• Potentially, having a
regional or metropolitan
administration or zonal
authority could play a
significant role in guiding
development at sub-
national levels. This is
critical for integrative
thinking and improved
coordination across cities.
7 Improve capacity,
in terms of staff
•
There is an overall critical
shortage in the number
strengths and skills. of skilled planners and
enforcers in all case cities.
• A critical minimum of staff
(in number and capacity)
is required for day-to-day
effective urban planning
functions, management,
development control, and
enforcement.
• While cities may continue
to rely on external
consultants for the
formulation of plans,
necessary training, skills
development, and capacity
need to be developed to
enable plan implementation
and enforcement.
56 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
Development
controls and
8 Empower local
authorities
•
Increase reliance on and
leverage of ward and
enforcement and establish subward or mtaa-level
a realistic and efforts by devolving some
coherent system development control to
and mechanisms lower levels of government.
of development (This is particularly useful at
control and the subward level, as mtaa
enforcement. leaders can follow land
transactions closely and
are well informed of any
construction preparations in
their area.)
• Provide copies of GPS and
DPS in every ward and
mtaa office.
9 Emphasize
responsibility and
•
Develop channels to
systematically inform
accountability of developers of available
relevant planning guidelines (land uses
and enforcement if planned and road/
authorities. infrastructure right-
of-ways) in respective
jurisdiction.
10 Physically
demarcate right-of-
•
Systematically establish
physical markers to
ways and high-risk, demarcate road networks
no-build zones. and plot boundaries, to
create awareness and allow
easier enforcement.
11 Strengthen data
collection, sharing,
•
Explore setting up a joint
mapping platform to
and management— consolidate various sector
both for maps and plans (electricity,
formulation of GPSs water, sewer, drainage, and
and DPSs as well road networks) with land-
as for enforcement use and other master plan
and development layers.
control. • Possibly build on the
existing LGRCIS, through
collecting, uploading, and
maintaining more robust
data.
(continued)
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 57
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
Economics and
financing
12 Strengthen links
among urban plans,
•
Institute mainstream
protocols for the
sector plans, and development of economic
economic plans. plans (capital investment
plans, budgeting plans,
medium-term expenditure
frameworks, and so forth)
that refer and establish
links with GPSs and DPSs;
where not followed,
appropriate considerations
and justifications should be
provided.
• Develop and share
standard material,
simplified summary and
key maps from GPSs and
DPSs and build in regular
education and awareness
raising sessions for all
key departments of city
government, especially
the economic and financial
ones.
• Establish regular
coordination meetings,
as required when issues
emerge, between economic
branches, sector units, and
urban planning units.
• Establish protocols for
internal consultations
during the formulation
process of various urban,
sector, and economic plans.
• Establish core working
group or secretariat
consisting of planners,
key sector experts, and
economists or municipal
finance experts from the
city council for better
coordination.
58 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
13 Explore establishing
sustainable
•
Further detailed analysis is
required.
financing
options for plan
•
However, overall
enhancement in own-source
implementation and revenue and first estimating
enforcement. costs for implementation,
as well as development
control and enforcement,
followed by dedicating
and safeguarding of funds
for these purposes in the
regular budget, would be
helpful.
14 Pilot innovations in
developing planned
•
Explore alternatives to the
conventional approach
neighborhoods. of mass land acquisition,
compensation, and resale.
• Alternative models such
as different forms of land
pooling or public-private
partnerships have seen
successful implementations
(for example, in Mbeya
and Mtwara) and could be
further supported, refined,
adopted, or scaled up.
15 Reconcile national-
level policies
•
Further detailed analysis is
required.
with local fiscal
situations.
•
However, as a first step,
dialogues and channels
between national and local
governments need to be
established to discuss the
local fiscal situation for
cities’ development vis-
à-vis local government
budgets and mandates,
mindful of the various
recentralization policies of
previous local government
revenue sources.
(continued)
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 59
Potential time frame
Areas of Key Short Medium Long
recommendation recommendations Elaboration term term term
16 Align incentives
of utility agencies
•
Further detailed analysis is
required.
with development
priorities rather
•
However, currently
utility agencies provide
than have them services largely based on
guided only by financial viability and in
financial viability. the absence of sufficient
or comprehensive and
objective information.
• Strategies and mechanisms
to align such service
provision with development
intentions and perhaps
user fees or other financial
means should be explored.
60 ■ Translating Plans to Development
References and Bibliography
Agwanda, A., and H. Amani. 2014. “Population Growth, Structure and Momentum in Tanzania.” Eco-
nomic and Social Research Foundation.
Arusha City Council. 2016. “Draft Arusha Master Plan 2015–2035.” Dodoma: Ministry of Lands, Hous-
ing and Human Settlements Development.
Bahl, R. W., J. F. Linn, and D. L. Wetzel. 2013. Governing and Financing Metropolitan Areas in the
Developing World. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Bertaud, A. 2004. The Spatial Organization of Cities: Deliberate Outcome or Unforeseen Conse-
quence? Background paper to World Development Report 2004. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Bird, R. M. 2011. “Subnational Taxation in Developing Countries: A Review of the Literature.” Journal
of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific.
Bird, R. M., and Slack, E. 2017. “Financing Infrastructure: Who Should Pay?” Rotman School of Man-
agement Working Paper No. 3083743.
Boussauw, K., Neutens, T., and Witlox, F. 2010. “Spatial variations of the minimum home-to-work dis-
tance in the north of Belgium.” Transportation Research Board 89th Annual meeting compendium
of papers.
Capital Development Authority. 1976. National Capital Master Plan Dodoma, Tanzania. Dodoma: Min-
istry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.
———. 1988. Strategic Plan for the Development of the National Capital Dodoma, Tanzania. Dodoma:
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.
———. 2010. Dodoma National Capital City Master Plan 2010. Dodoma: Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Human Settlements Development.
Cooksey, B., and I. S. Kikula. 2005. “When Bottom-Up Meets Top-Down: The Limits of Local Par-
ticipation in Local Government Planning in Tanzania.” Special Paper No. 17. Research on Poverty
Alleviation.
Drummond, P., V. J. Thakoor, and S. Yu. 2014. “Africa Rising: Harnessing the Demographic Dividend.”
IMF Working Paper WP/14/143. International Monetary Fund.
European Space Agency. 2018a. EO4SD-Urban Project: Arusha City Report. GAF AG and Partners.
No. 3.0.
———. 2018b. EO4SD-Urban Project: Dodoma City Report. GAF AG and Partners. No. 3.0.
———. 2018c. EO4SD-Urban Project: Kigoma City Report. GAF AG and Partners. No. 3.0.
———. 2018d. EO4SD-Urban Project: Spatial Analytics. GAF AG and Partners. No. 1.0.
Fjeldstad, O. H., L. Katera, and E. Ngalewa. 2010. “Planning in Local Government Authorities in Tan-
zania: Bottom-Up Meets Top-Down.” Brief No. 18. Research on Poverty Alleviation.
Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. 1997. “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” Journal of the
American Planning Association.
61
Gould, P. R. 1970. “Tanzania 1920–63: The Spatial Impress of the Modernization Process.” World Pol-
itics 22(2): 149–70.
Halla, F., and B. Majani. 1999. “The Environmental Planning and Management Process and the Conflict
over Outputs in Dar-es-Salaam.” Habitat International 23(3): 339–50.
Hambati, H. 2011. “Population Increase and Vulnerability to Disasters in the Informal Settlements of
Mwanza City, Tanzania.” Vol 18, No 1-2. University of Dar es Salaam Journals.
Hossain, S., W. Scholz, and S. Baumgart. 2015. Translation of urban planning models: Planning princi-
ples, procedural elements and institutional settings. Habitat International 48 (2015) 140–48.
Huang, C-Y. 2016. “Enabling Structure: Role of Public Sector and Institutions.” Background paper for
“Africa’s Cities: Opening Doors to the World” World Bank. Washington DC.
———. 2017. “Comparative Analysis of National-Level Residential Planning Parameter Guidelines for
Five Sub-Saharan African Countries.” Paper presented at 2017 World Bank Land and Poverty Con-
ference, Washington, DC.
Huang, C-Y., Namangaya, A., Lugakingira, M. W., and Cantada, I. D. 2018. “Background Profile of Tan-
zania Secondary Cities.” Background paper for this study. World Bank. Washington DC.
———. 2018. “Atlas of Tanzania Secondary Cities.” Background paper for this study. World Bank.
Washington DC.
———. 2018. “Detailed Methodology and Other Detailed Spatial Analysis Explored for Tanzania Sec-
ondary Cities.” Background paper for this study. World Bank. Washington DC.
Kalabamu, F. T. 1992. “Tanzania: Developing Urban Residential Land.” Journal of Urban Affairs 14(1),
61–78.
Kessides, Christine. 2006. “The Urban Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for Economic
Growth and Poverty Reduction.” Working paper, Transport and Urban Development Department,
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kiduanga, J. 2014. “Managing Land for Developing Dodoma, the Capital City of Tanzania: Critical
Analysis of the Role of Dodoma Municipal Council and Capital Development Authority.” Journal of
Sustainable Development 7(5): 140.
Kigadye, F. S. 2012. “Adaptive Re-Use of Historic Building and Community Development: The Case
of Mikindani Old Boma-Tanzania.” ICOMOS 17th General Assembly, 2011-11-27/2011-12-02, Paris,
France.
Kigoma-Ujiji Municipal Council. 2016. “Draft Kigoma-Ujiji Master Plan 2017–2037.” Dodoma: Ministry
of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.
Kiondo, M., and L. Mosha. 2016. “Analysing the Dynamics of City Morphology with an Overview of
Mbeya City in Tanzana, Tanzania.” Online Journal of Social Sciences Research 5(1–5).
Kironde, J. L. 1997. “Land Policy Options for Urban Tanzania.” Land Use Policy 14(2): 99–117.
———. 2006. “The Regulatory Framework, Unplanned Development, and Urban Poverty: Findings
from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.” Land Use Policy 23(4): 460–72.
———. 2009. “Improving Land Sector Governance in Africa: The Case of Tanzania.” In Workshop on
Land Governance in Support of the MDGs. World Bank, Washington DC.
Kombe, W. J. 2005. “Land Use Dynamics In Peri-Urban Areas and Their Implications on the Urban
Growth and Form: The Case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.” Habitat International 29(1): 113–35.
62 ■ Translating Plans to Development
Kombe, W. J., and V. Kreibich. 2000. “Reconciling Informal and Formal Land Management: An Agenda
for Improving Tenure Security and Urban Governance in Poor Countries.” Habitat International
24(2): 231–40.
———. 2001. “Informal Land Management in Tanzania and the Misconception about Its Illegality.” In
ESF/N-Aerus Annual Workshop. “Coping with Informality and Illegality in Human Settlements in
Developing Countries.”
Kweka, J., and L. Fox. 2011. “The Household Enterprise Sector in Tanzania: Why It Matters and Who
Cares.” Policy Research Working Paper 5882. World Bank, Washington DC.
Kyessi, A., and S. Tumpale. 2013. “Formalizing Property Rights in Informal Settlements and Its Impli-
cations on Poverty Reduction: The Case of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.” Presented at the “Annual
World Bank Conference of Land and Poverty,” Washington, DC.
Lall, S., Henderson, J. V., and Venables, A. J. 2017. Africa’s cities: opening doors to the world. African
Regional Studies Program. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lindsay, J. M. 2012. “Compulsory Acquisition of Land and Compensation in Infrastructure Projects.”
PPP Insight 1(3): 1–10.
Lubuva, J. M. 2006. “Appropriate Institutional Framework for Plan Preparation and Implementation
in Tanzania.” Presented at 2006 Annual Conference of Town Planners in Tanzania. 21–22 February
2006, Mbeya, Tanzania.
Lugoe, F. 2008. Assessment of Main Urban Land Use Issues in Tanzania. Report Prepared for World
Bank Urban Team AFTU1 on Tanzania Local Government Support Project. Washington, DC: http://
www.dilaps.or.tz/Downloads.html.
———. 2015. “The Performance of the Land Reform Sub-Component under the Private Sector Com-
petitiveness Project Supported by the World Bank In Tanzania: Final Draft Report.” World Bank,
Dar-es-Salaam.
Lupala, J., and P. Chiwanga. 2014. “Urban Expansion and Compulsory Land Acquisition in Dodoma
National Capital, Tanzania.” Journal of Land Administration in Eastern Africa Vol 2 Issue 2.
Magigi, W. 2010. “Understanding urban planning approaches in Tanzania: A historical transition anal-
ysis for urban sustainability.” in The Struggle over Land in Africa: Conflicts, Politics and Change.
South Africa: The Human Sciences Research Council Press.
Majale, C., G. Spaargaren, and P. Oosterveer. 2010. “Governance and Non-State Actors in Municipal
Solid Waste Management.” In Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmen-
tal Change. 8–9 October 2010. Berlin.
Massoi, L., and A. S. Norman. 2010. “Dynamics of Land for Urban Housing in Tanzania.” Journal of
Public Administration and Policy Research 2(5): 74.
Mbeya City Council. 1975. Mbeya Master Plan 1974–1994. Dodoma: Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Human Settlements Development.
———. 1984. Mbeya Master Plan Review. Dodoma: Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements
Development.
———. 2003. Mbeya Central Area Redevelopment Plan. Dodoma: Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Human Settlements Development.
Mbungu, W. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in the Lake Rukwa Basin. Mbeya, Tanza-
nia: Lake Rukwa Basin Water Board.
McCluskey, W., and Doherty, P. 2016. “A Review of the Local Government Revenue Collection Infor-
mation System and Own Source Revenues in TSCP Cities.” Washington, DC: World Bank.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 63
MLHHSD (Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development). 2007. Guidelines for
the preparation of General Planning Schemes and Detailed Schemes for New Areas, Urban Renewal
and Regularization. Dodoma: MLHHSD.
Mollel, H. A., and A. Tollenaar. 2013. “Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning
Decisions” International Journal of Public Administration 36(5), 344–53.
Mosha, A. C. 2004. The Planning of the New Capital of Tanzania: Dodoma, an Unfulfilled Dream.
Gaborone: University of Botswana.
Mtwara-Mikindani Municipal Council. 2016. Mtwara City Master Plan 2015–2035. Dodoma: President’s
Office-Regional Administration and Local Government.
Muzzini, E., and W. Lindeboom. 2008. The Urban Transition in Tanzania. Building the Empirical Base
for Policy Dialogue. Washington, DC. World Bank.
Mwanza City Council. 2016. “Draft Mwanza Master Plan 2015–2035.” Dodoma: Ministry of Lands,
Housing and Human Settlements Development.
Namangaya, A. 2014. “Urban Spatial Planning and Local Economic Development: Comparative
Assessment of Practice in Tanzania Cities.” Vol. 4, No. 6. International Journal of Business, Human-
ities and Technology.
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics). 2009. Annual Survey of Industrial Production. Dar-es-Salaam:
NSB.
———. 2014. Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile Report: Tanzania Mainland. Dar-es-
Salaam: NSB.
Noel, S. 2012. The Economics of Climate Change in Tanzania: Water Resources. Stockholm Environ-
ment Institute SEI-Africa Centre, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar-es-Salaam.
Owens, K. E. 2014. “Negotiating the City: Urban Development in Tanzania.” Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Peng, Z. 1977. “The Jobs-Housing Balance and Urban Commuting.” Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1215–1235.
Urban Studies. Sage Publications.
PO-RALG (President’s Office of Regional Administration and Local Governments). 2000. History of
Local Government in Tanzania. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2010. The Preparation of Urban Development and Management Policy (UDMP), Thematic Issue
Context Papers, vol. 1. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2016a. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Arusha City, Arusha City Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2016b. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Dodoma Municipality, Dodoma Municipal Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2016c. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Kigoma Municipality, Kigoma Municipal Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2016d. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Mbeya, Mbeya City Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2016e. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Mtwara Municipality, Mtwara-Mikindani Municipal Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
———. 2016f. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Mwanza City, Mwanza City Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
64 ■ Translating Plans to Development
———. 2016g. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Proposed Additional Investment
Sub-Projects in Tanga City, Tanga City Council. Dodoma: PO-RALG.
Sarzin, Z., and U. Raich. 2012. Financing the Urban Expansion in Tanzania. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Scholz, Wolfgang et al. 2015. “Colonial Planning Concept and Post-Colonial Realities.” In Urban Plan-
ning in Sub-Saharan Africa: Colonial and Post-Colonial Planning Cultures. Edited by Carlos Nunes
Silva. London: Routledge.
Sheuya, S. A. 2010. Informal settlements and finance in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Nairobi UN-Habitat.
Tanga City Council. 2015. “Draft Tanga City Master Plan 2016–2035.” Dodoma: Ministry of Local Gov-
ernment and Regional Administration.
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). 2010. Taking Advantage of the Demographic Bonus in
Vietnam: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Options. Saigon: UNFPA Vietnam Country Office.
URT (United Republic of Tanzania). 2013. National Land Use Framework Plan, 2013–2033. Dodoma:
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.
———. 2014. Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile Report: Tanzania Mainland. Dar-es-
Salaam: National Bureau of Statistics.
———. 2016a. National Five Year Development Plan 2016/17–2020/21. Dodoma: Ministry of Finance
and Planning.
———. 2016b. Arusha Region Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: National
Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
———. 2016c. Dodoma Region Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: NBS.
———. 2016d. Kigoma Region Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: NBS.
———. 2016e. Mbeya Region Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: NBS.
———. 2016f. Mtwara Region Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: NBS.
———. 2016g. Mwanza City Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: NBS.
———. 2016h. Tanga Region Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Dar-es-Salaam: NBS.
Venugopal, V., and S. Yilmaz. 2010. “Decentralization in Tanzania: An Assessment of Local Govern-
ment Discretion and Accountability.” Public Administration and Development 30(3): 215–31.
Wenban-Smith, H. 2014. “Population Growth, Internal Migration and Urbanization in Tanzania,
1967–2012: A Census-Based Regional Analysis.” Working paper 1, London School of Economics,
University of Oxford, and UK Aid.
World Bank. 2002. Upgrading Low Income Urban Settlements: Country Assessment Report, Tanza-
nia. Washington, DC: World Bank.
———. 2014. “Country Economic Memorandum. Tanzania: Productive Jobs Wanted (Vol. 2): Final
report” Washington, DC: World Bank.
———. 2015. Climate Risk Assessment survey.
———. 2016. “Tanzania Urbanization Review.” Draft, July 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Impact and Effectiveness of Urban Planning in Tanzania Secondary Cities ■ 65