about 3if
The challenge
Across Africa, there is broad agreement on the need for significant infrastructure investment. The African Union’s Agenda 2063 envisions “World-Class Infrastructure Criss-Crossing Africa,” and many countries are already investing heavily in new roads, housing, and commercial centres. With two-thirds of the urban area projected for 2050 yet to be built, cities across Africa have a unique opportunity to pursue bold, transformative pathways for urban and national development.
However, there is a disconnect between the vision for Africa’s urban future and the current reality of infrastructure investment. Planning and implementation often focus on narrow goals—addressing a single need with a single solution. At the same time, infrastructure has the potential to address a wide range of development goals, directly or indirectly influencing all 17 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), impacting 72% of the specific targets.
3iF provides a way to ensure infrastructure projects in informal settlements contribute to broader objectives like poverty reduction, public health improvements, economic growth, climate resilience, and greater equity.
Low-income and informal neighbourhoods must be central to any urban development conversation in Africa. In Nairobi, over 60% of the population live in underserved areas that take up just 6% of the city’s land. These areas lack basic municipal services, and residents face constant threats from flooding and fires.
In practice, slum upgrading in Kenya and across East Africa has failed to bring together integrated infrastructure planning with meaningful resident engagement. Both are crucial to creating inclusive development that benefits the most vulnerable residents. This approach also aligns with the requirements of the Constitution of Kenya and the global commitment to the Agenda 2030 goal of making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Currently, significant upgrading processes are either underway or being planned across Kenya. A key focus of the Kenyan government is affordable housing, but the necessary infrastructure to support this housing is still lacking. This presents an important opportunity to bring data, research, and practical experiences from integrated and inclusive infrastructure projects into the professional and political arenas.
3iF for Kenya is a step towards starting a national conversation on urban development, one that is relevant not only for Kenya but also for the wider East African region.The origins of informal settlements in Kenya trace back many decades. Colonial-era policies restricted most Kenyans to rural areas, allowing only registered labourers to live in cities. Those who managed to enter urban areas without registration often had no choice but to settle in squatter communities, building homes on unused land. After independence, the restrictions were lifted, leading to an influx of people moving from rural to urban areas in search of employment and improved quality of life.
The rapid urbanisation that followed independence was not matched by the development of adequate housing. Municipalities struggled to meet the growing demands of urban populations, while poor planning and management compounded these issues. This led to the expansion of informal settlements, deepening social and class divisions and entrenching economic exclusion.
In Nairobi, informal settlements initially grew around worker camps on colonial settler farms, undeveloped land, idle government and private land, and areas allocated for victims of war. Over time, as housing challenges persisted, more informal communities emerged in hazardous areas such as riparian reserves, dump sites, back-filled quarries, and under high-voltage power lines.
By 2014, 56% of Kenya’s urban population lived in informal settlements, up from 34% in 2008. As of 2016, 26% of Kenya’s population lived in urban areas, and this number is expected to rise to 50% by 2050. With an annual growth rate of 5%—one of the highest in the world—the number of urban residents in informal settlements will continue to increase, driven by both the expansion of existing settlements and the rise of new ones.
Informal settlements in Kenya face a range of challenges:-
Lack of formal planning and exclusion from urban governance.
-
Unemployment and limited access to opportunities.
-
Tenure insecurity and substandard housing.
-
Overcrowding and poor infrastructure (or none at all).
As these settlements grow, these issues intensify, creating negative impacts on residents. Overcrowding, coupled with poor nutrition and limited access to sanitation, increases the risk of disease outbreaks. Most informal settlements are located in hazardous areas, such as along rivers, making them vulnerable to flooding and other environmental risks. As climate change worsens, these hazards are expected to become even more severe. Additionally, the lack of opportunities for youth often leads to increased drug abuse, crime, and insecurity.
Despite these challenges, there is significant potential for transformation. Through integrated and inclusive infrastructure planning, frameworks like 3iF offer a pathway towards building resilient, inclusive, and sustainable urban settlements that can meet the needs of all residents.
-
Nairobi’s informal settlements are as old as the city itself. Ignored and unserved by the colonial administration, these areas were seen as an “eyesore” by the post-independence government, which enforced measures to limit migration to the city and attempted to clear slums. Over the years, approaches to slum upgrading often failed to consider the rich history and complexity of these neighbourhoods, either by razing and replacing entire communities or by neglecting to include residents in decision-making processes.
Today, approximately 70% of Nairobi’s residents—predominantly youth—live in informal settlements, a figure that is 1.5 times the Sub-Saharan average. Notable settlements include Kibera, Kayole-Soweto, Mukuru, Kawangware, Mathare, Kangemi, Korogocho, and Majengo, though many smaller neighbourhoods exist as well. Conditions in these areas vary, but common issues include dense, poor-quality housing, tenure insecurity, and severely inadequate infrastructure. These factors create a high-risk environment that disproportionately affects women, youth, and children.
Yet, these settlements are also hubs of entrepreneurship, innovation, and are crucial to Nairobi’s economy and affordable housing market. With the right investments, informal settlements can help positively shape Nairobi’s future, offering unique models of urban density, environmentally efficient living, and strong connections to culture and community.Challenges and Opportunities:
Analyses of previous informal settlement upgrading projects in Nairobi reveal a common finding: one of the biggest obstacles to success has been the lack of meaningful engagement with residents during planning and implementation. While engaging communities in these processes may not solve all the potential challenges, it is widely recognised that empowering residents through community development and encouraging active participation in decision-making are key factors in the success of upgrading initiatives.
Empowering communities does not just address their immediate needs—it fosters trust, ownership, and long-term sustainability in the development process.
Africa’s urban areas are growing rapidly, with massive infrastructure investments underway. However, informal settlements and low-income neighbourhoods remain underserved, facing complex challenges that require a shift from single-solution approaches to integrated, inclusive development that meets diverse needs and advances social equity.
The opportunity
As East Africa urbanises, informal settlements hold immense potential for sustainable urban futures. The 3iF framework aims to guide inclusive infrastructure investments, bringing together physical, social, and ecological systems to support equitable, resilient, and thriving neighbourhoods for all.
East Africa is the world’s most rapidly urbanising region. As cities expand, informal settlements, and low-income neighbourhoods are at the heart of this urban growth. These areas are often found at the intersection of climate risk, poverty, political contention, and lack of basic infrastructure. Despite these challenges, these neighbourhoods hold immense potential to shape a new, viable urban future.
In Kenya, residents and civil society organisations are already playing a key role in delivering basic services in low-income areas, even as major government infrastructure investments take place across the country. However, while new legislation and planned slum upgrades focus on building infrastructure, the central question remains: How should these systems be planned and designed to create real change for residents?
3iF proposes that infrastructure investments must be inclusive, ensuring that they integrate the needs and voices of all residents. By bringing together physical, social, and ecological systems, these investments can create just, resilient, and viable neighbourhoods and cities.
To drive forward this vision, we have convened a coalition of built environment practitioners, community activists, and researchers to develop the Integrated and Inclusive Infrastructure Framework (3iF) for Kenya. 3iF offers practical guidance for those working in infrastructure and informal settlement upgrading, ensuring that projects are inclusive, integrated, and effective.
The 3iF framework was developed through an extensive co-production process that brought together government, academia, and civil society. This collaboration of leading practitioners, thinkers, and doers in Kenya ensured that the framework is deeply rooted in local contexts and informed by real-world challenges.
This second version of 3iF for Kenya introduces the framework’s core Principles and a collection of practical Tactics to support integrated and inclusive infrastructure in upgrading processes. These Tactics provide a foundation for future iterations and expansions of the framework.
3iF is designed to support:-
Government agencies: Ensuring infrastructure projects align with policy goals and benefit all residents.
-
Built environment professionals: Providing technical and community-focused approaches to designing infrastructure.
-
Students and academics: Encouraging research and teaching that promotes inclusive, resilient urban development.
Whether you are developing policy, planning, designing, or implementing infrastructure upgrades, 3iF provides the tools and principles needed to reduce inequality and promote shared prosperity.
We envision 3iF as a dynamic and evolving resource. Over time, more Tactics will be added and the guidance expanded based on feedback and the experiences of those using the framework. All contributions, suggestions, and engagement are very welcome from those who have reviewed or used this resource.
-
Key Concepts
Through the development of this first version of 3iF, the team and external stakeholders have discussed and debated different definitions of infrastructure, inclusivity, and integration in the Kenyan context. Below are working definitions generated through the workshopping process.
INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE
Integrating Disciplines. Bringing together disciplinary expertise from different engineering disciplines, the built environment, governance, landscape architecture, environment, ecology, and social sciences to realise user visions.
Integrating Systems. Joining-up/holistic infrastructure planning, where services, utilities, access, public space, natural assets, and social and economic amenities are considered together - where possible achieving multi-functionality. Connecting participants involved at different points of the life-cycle.
INCLUSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
Including the Excluded. Addressing the needs of neighbourhoods and residents who have been historically excluded from planning, development, and upgrading processes.
Including Users. From inception to operation and beyond, an inclusive infrastructure approach involves civil society, the end users, and utility companies.In Kenya, residents and civil society groups are organising to deliver basic services at the same time as major infrastructure investments take place. Historic approaches to slum upgrading vary, though infrastructure is always a central component. While land tenure and regularisation is not the central focus of this Framework, it needs to be considered carefully alongside infrastructure investment.
A number of different “typologies” of slum upgrading with considerations for infrastructure and possible outcomes are laid out in the adjacent figure.
Studying the successes and failures of the various approaches to slum upgrading in Kenya over the last decades offers several important lessons:
-
While some approaches have incorporated stakeholder consultation and engagement, residents have rarely been given true agency in the decision-making process. This has often led to lack of trust between different actors.
-
The needs of residents have generally been oversimplified. Interventions have focused on housing or infrastructure without consideration for the broader social and economic priorities of low-income communities, resulting in lopsided development.
-
Large-scale efforts have often disenfranchised people on the ground, while small-scale efforts have typically been isolated, and as a result have not led to broader and longer-term impacts.
Incoming legislation and many current and planned “slum upgrades” (such as the Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Project (KISIP), a complement to the national Kenya Slum Upgrading Program) emphasise investment in infrastructure.
Ciriola and Berrisford’s important 2017 study of infrastructure planning and implementation in Nairobi is a reminder of the contested, power-laden, and multi-actor nature of planning and plan implementation across the board. It provides a very strong case for those working with planning in Nairobi (and other African cities) to engage in the realities of "negotiated planning" and the instruments of plan implementation, as opposed to utopian concepts of planning. The experience with recent Special Planning Area processes for slum upgrading is a case in point.
Raze and Replace
Housing densification to provide low-income, social, or market housing. Completely new grids with no connection to existing urban fabric. Complete loss of existing social networks and cohesion, danger of elite capture, natural assets may be lost or paved over, storing up problems in the future with flooding and heat.
Not many examples at a large scale but some housing led slum upgrades exhibit characteristics. This is typical of cities that have imposed grids on more organic urban form (e.g. New York City).
Flyover City
Large infrastructure cuts through, over, above existing settlements with little or no connection to the existing urban fabric.
Missing Link 12 in Kibera has elements of this, though it should be noted that the bypass has created junctions within the settlement. Nairobi Expressway exhibits elements also, especially with its role in Mukuru demolitions.
Housing-led Upgrading
Housing densification to provide low-income, social, or market housing. New grids with some connection to existing urban fabric and infrastructure. Sometimes challenges of losing existing social networks and cohesion, elite capture.
Related examples include the housing and infrastructure investment under the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) Kibera Programme, and the Nairobi Railway Relocation Action Plan.
Street and Infrastructure Led Upgrading
Upgrading streets and street based infrastructure and utilities (power, water, sewerage, drainage, lighting), within the existing urban fabric, enabling streetside business, public and commercial transportation access, formalising services, complementing, decentralised systems, coupled with land tenure regularisation.
Examples in Kenya include the first phase of the Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP). The National Youth Service (“NYS”) –
Kibera Slum Upgrade Initiative also used a street-led infrastructure approach.The Self-Help City
Limited municipal infrastructure or maintenance, residents and civil society groups provide social and cultural services (schools, clinics, places of worship) with limited government oversight, basic services (water, power, waste, lighting) provided through heterogenous and formal/informal infrastructures. Insecure or contested land tenure, unregulated private landlords. Limited natural assets and polluted waterways.
Many informal neighbourhoods in Kenya today are in a similar state.
-
We believe that the informal side of urbanisation creates an opportunity. Informal settlements can offer unique models of urban density, environmentally-efficient living, and thriving connection to culture and community. We should take the view of slums not as catchments of waste and poverty, but rather as spaces of renewal, entrepreneurship, and activism - as well as critical components in the reshaping of cities.
A growing number of urban thinkers and doers also suggest that slums can best serve citizens and nations if treated not as outlaw places to be eradicated, but as emergent communities to be supported through incremental, in-situ, slum upgrading processes. The “multiple sites of governance” in sub-Saharan cities could be advantageous to experimentation and innovation in service delivery.
An Example of alternative development is the approach of ‘Urban Tinkering’, defined as:
“A mode of operation, encompassing policy, planning and management processes, that seeks to transform the use of existing and design of new urban systems in ways that diversify their functions, anticipate new uses and enhance adaptability, to better meet the social, economic and ecological needs of cities under conditions of deep uncertainty about the future.”
Also see ‘Planning Our Towns: A Toolkit For Inclusive Urban Development In Kenya’ 2019
The hybrid (formal and informal) service delivery systems that undergird African cities can unlock a transition to infrastructure systems that are progressively inclusive and sustainable. On the other hand, the highly variable institutional capacity can limit or constrain the pathway for innovative practices. Resident and civil society action may build local resilience to the impacts of climate change, while disregarding or in some cases worsening larger-scale resilience. Hence there is a strong call for community action to be oriented towards collaboration with local governments, rather than independently attempting to fill the gap created by inaction.
The 3iF approach considers the pros and cons of different upgrading models and looks at modalities for melding "bottom-up" systems of resident-managed infrastructures with "top-down" government upgrading infrastructure projects.
Land tenure and land regularisation are fundamental to successful upgrading and infrastructure development and need to be considered carefully alongside infrastructure investment.
Critics of upgrading efforts in Kenya have long pointed to the inadequacy of budgets assigned to planning and design in infrastructure projects. Significant projects bolstered by political support are launched with a promise to begin implementation in 2 weeks, foreclosing any chance of consideration, data collection, assessment, integration, or inclusivity. As a result, these initiatives frequently falter at implementation and fail to deliver adequate, cost-efficient infrastructure.
It is well understood in design and planning that the ability to influence value, scope, and cost of a project declines over time. In other words, the highest impact decisions are those at the early stages of a project, and the cost of changing a design increases over time.
The "MacLeamy Curve" on the adjacent page illustrates why it is so important to move the centre of ‘design effort’ earlier in the process.
Infrastructure projects in Kenya require robust, iterative planning and design processes. Moreover, these considerations must be made at the earliest stages of the process to save cost and to increase broad and positive impact.
Infrastructure directly or indirectly influences the attainment of many development goals. Within 3iF, we consider linkages between investment in infrastructure and upgrading and pathways to sustainable development, with reference to the global Sustainable Development Goals and the Africa Agenda 2063.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are 17 interlinked and integrated global goals for sustainable development action. They were designed and adopted by the United Nations in 2015 to monitor progress for human wellbeing, environmental protection, and partnerships. Infrastructure influences the attainment of all 17 SDGs, and is closely linked to the achievement of the New Urban Agenda (adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador, on 20 October 2016).
The African Agenda 2063 is “Africa’s blueprint and master plan for transforming Africa into the global powerhouse of the future”. It is a “strategic framework that aims to deliver on its goal for inclusive and sustainable development” and “a concrete manifestation of the pan-African drive for unity, self-determination, freedom, progress and collective prosperity”. The agenda consists of 20 goals clustered into 7 Aspirations for sustainable development and inclusive growth across Africa. The Agenda was developed by the African Union in 2013. One of the twenty goals is “World class infrastructure criss - crosses Africa”.
Framing projects within these goals can help define impact, identify gaps, demonstrate commitment to best practices, monitor projects, and communicate the value of projects to different stakeholders. Considerations on how the goals might be useful at different stages is given below.
-
Design: The goals can be useful for having a wider perspective of direct and indirect areas of intervention. They can also be useful for creating an implementation plan. Integrating measures for achieving goals can also help effectively monitor outcomes in the short and the long run.
-
Implementation: The goals can be useful for training, capacity building, and developing tools that address critical challenges.
-
Monitoring: The goals can be useful for setting indicators of progress on local, national, and global scales.
-
Evaluation: The goals can be used to evaluate how programmes and strategies could be improved.
To facilitate usage of both the SDGs and AA2063 Goals , we developed a methodology for understanding linkages between the frameworks. .The adjacent matrix gives an overview of where the linkages between the goals are strong. Further guidance is given within the Tactic section.
-
Applying 3IF
3iF provides principles and tactics that can be used in different stages of infrastructure development, with a particular focus on informal settlements.
If you are a county leader, administrator, engineer, physical or development planner, or work in urban planning in any way, and your work concerns informal settlements or low income communities, then 3iF is for you.
3iF is applicable to all stages of infrastructure projects, and its principles are relevant at regional, city, settlement, and neighbourhood scales. We use three infrastructure life-cycle groupings to differentiate where specific tactics might be applied:
Governance & Policy
.png)
Implementation & Use
Planning &
DesignThis website will be updated periodically.
As government bodies and other partners make considerable investments in infrastructure across Kenya, we position 3iF as a set of principles and tactics to support sustainable infrastructure development in the nation’s cities. This first version of 3iF is specifically focused on infrastructure-led upgrading of informal settlements in Kenya, though we expect that the principles and tactics demonstrated in 3iF can also be applied to urban development processes in other settings.
We hope that the research and guidance presented in 3iF builds momentum, action, and buy-in at the government level. 3iF is accompanied by “real-world” test cases, as well as trainings and seminars for built environment professionals through the Architectural Association of Kenya.
We have developed a network of partners to incorporate 3iF principles and tactics into infrastructure projects. Through 3iF, we aim to spark a broader discussion of sustainable infrastructure in Kenya, while incorporating the perspectives of other professional institutions, such as the Institution of Engineers of Kenya, the Kenya Green Building Council, and the Joint Building and Construction Council (JBCC).
We see 3iF as a way to ensure infrastructure investment in low-income neighbourhoods can accomplish a wider set of objectives, including poverty alleviation, public health, economic growth, climate resilience, and expanded equity.During the development of 3iF we held multiple workshops with stakeholders from the built environment, different levels of government, and civil society.
Outcomes of 3iF identified in our workshops include:
-
A different system for doing things. Re-engineering what is considered as part of informal systems and assimilating them into formal systems. E.g. roadside vendors or hawkers.
-
Accessible and coordinated processes (time, methods)
-
Balanced thriving of society and a regenerative nature
-
Different systems (like?) for different scales – within a circular economy
-
Enabling investments from multiple sources or sectors (like PPPs?)
-
Getting more thorough budgets (ie good budgeting will mean you get more for your money)
-
Healthier, safer and happier citizens
-
Improved health, safety, well-being, economic and social opportunity for all
-
Leverage on co-funding and strategic partnerships
-
Making sure the right people involved
-
More productive and self-reliant citizens
-
Public stewardship of nature, infrastructure, and public realm
-
Publics stewardship of nature infrastructure and public realm
-
Quality services for those historically and currently disenfranchised
-
Reduced ecological and carbon footprint
-
Reliability and maintenance of systems and services
-
Renewed social cohesion and social contract – civic engagement
-
A different system for doing things. Re-engineering what is considered as part of informal systems and assimilating them into formal systems. E.g. roadside vendors or hawkers.
-
Accessible and coordinated processes (time, methods)
-
Balanced thriving of society and a regenerative nature
-
Different systems (like?) for different scales – within a circular economy
-
Enabling investments from multiple sources or sectors (like PPPs?)
-
Getting more thorough budgets (ie good budgeting will mean you get more for your money)
-
Healthier, safer and happier citizens
-
Improved health, safety, well-being, economic and social opportunity for all
-
Leverage on co-funding and strategic partnerships
-
Making sure the right people involved
-
More productive and self-reliant citizens
-
Public stewardship of nature, infrastructure, and public realm
-
Publics stewardship of nature infrastructure and public realm
-
Quality services for those historically and currently disenfranchised
-
Reduced ecological and carbon footprint
-
Reliability and maintenance of systems and services
-
Renewed social cohesion and social contract – civic engagement
-
The National Housing Policy for Kenya (Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2016) recognises that many urban residents in Kenya live in informal settlements, usually in hazardous locations including riparian land, railway reserves, road reserves, and dumping sites. The policy calls for urgent interventions to improve the living standards of residents in slums and informal settlements, leveraging planning interventions that emphasise a holistic/integrated approach based on local knowledge. Further, the policy urges county governments to prioritise provision of infrastructure and social amenities in low-income areas, in addition to boosting the Slum Upgrading and Low-cost Housing and Infrastructure Fund to fund housing-related infrastructure.
The National Slum Upgrading and Prevention Policy has among its objectives to encourage, facilitate, and secure community participation in slum/informal settlement upgrading, redevelopment, and rehabilitation. The policy also advocates for: the safety of residents through planning and design; informal settlements to be included as part of planning areas; community participation and incremental slum upgrading; negotiated minimum standards in slum upgrading;community-led integrated zonal planning for services provision; and promotion of local disaster response systems.
The County Government Act 2012 identifies county planning as one of the county government’s functions. It establishes county governance structures, including the assembly and the executive, which are central to decision making in the planning process, including planning for infrastructure and services. The Act outlines principles for public participation, public communication, access to information, and requirements for county government to set up mechanisms and platforms for public participation.
The Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011 provides the criteria for classification of urban areas, as well as structures for their governance and management. This Act further provides for formulation of integrated development plans (IDPs) for urban areas.
Recognizing the complexity and uniqueness of challenges presented by informal settlements, and their potential to catalyse sustainable development if transformed, section 52 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act 2019 gives county governments authority to declare them Special Planning Areas (SPAs). Based on experiences in the Huruma and Mukuru informal settlements, the SPA provides opportunities for multistakeholder and multidisciplinary collaboration, strengthened participation and involvement of residents in upgrading processes, and use of strategies and minimum planning and design standards that respond to local circumstances while minimising displacement of residents. Section 52, sub-section 5 of the Act requires the county government to develop and publish regulations that enable public participation during declaration of a SPA.
The Environmental Management and Coordination Act of 1999 entitles everyone in Kenya to a clean and healthy environment. Article 42 of the Act also makes provision for the protection of rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and gives the Minister the authority to declare river banks, lake shore, and wetland protected areas, while giving consideration to the interest of communities’ residents there. The Act establishes the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
A few of the key policies are summarised below:
Constitution of Kenya 2010: Article 10 (2) recognizes sustainable development, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, human rights, human dignity, non-discrimination and protection of marginalised groups as among the national values and principles of governance. In article 184, the Constitution also states that national legislation shall provide for participation of residents in governance of urban areas and cities. Access to clean and safe water in adequate quantities, as well as access to adequate housing and reasonable standards of sanitation is everyone’s right as per article 43.
Kenya’s Vision 2030, which aims to create a globally competitive and prosperous country that affords all citizens a high quality of life. Infrastructure forms one of the foundations anchoring the economic, social and political pillars of the vision, and aspires for improved interconnectivity through a network of roads, railway, water and sanitation facilities, and the prioritisation of investments in infrastructure.
Kenya’s National Urban Development Policy (NUDP) is a flagship project of Kenya Vision 2030, with an overall objective of providing a framework for equitable, sustainable urban development in Kenya. This framework aims to support the realisation of the broader development goals presented in the Constitution and Kenya Vision 2030.
The National Spatial Plan (NSP) supports the aspirations of the Kenya Vision 2030 and creation of livable and functional human settlements in urban and rural areas. The NSP proposes various measures for improved access to infrastructure and services in informal settlements. The policy further proposes building on the KISIP initiative to provide basic infrastructure and services to improve the quality of life among residents of informal settlements.
Making 3iF
3iF has been developed through an extensive co-production process with government, academia, and civil society organised by a group of leading practitioners, thinkers, and doers in this space in Kenya.
The core ideas and definitions for 3iF were hashed out by the core team and external stakeholders in a series of online workshops in late 2020 and early 2021.As well as civil society orgs (such as Hakijamii and the Katiba Institute), private sector (e.g. Arup, Dalberg), development organisations (e.g. UN-Habitat), and academia and think-tanks (e.g. Institute for Transportation and Development, University of Manchester) multiple government agencies were also engaged in the development of 3iF in 2021 (including Nairobi Metropolitan Services, Kenya Urban Roads Authority, Nairobi City County Government, Kenya Power and Lighting Company and Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works).
3iF has been developed through an extensive co-production process with government, academia, and civil society organised by a group of leading practitioners, thinkers, and doers in this space in Kenya.
The core ideas and definitions for 3iF were hashed out by the core team and external stakeholders in a series of online workshops in late 2020 and early 2021.As well as civil society orgs (such as Hakijamii and the Katiba Institute), private sector (e.g. Arup, Dalberg), development organisations (e.g. UN-Habitat), and academia and think-tanks (e.g. Institute for Transportation and Development, University of Manchester) multiple government agencies were also engaged in the development of 3iF in 2021 (including Nairobi Metropolitan Services, Kenya Urban Roads Authority, Nairobi City County Government, Kenya Power and Lighting Company and Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works).
3iF Team
Credits
Kounkuey Design Initiative
Jack Campbell Clause - Lead Author
Regina Opondo - Lead Author
Joe Mulligan- Lead Author
Linn (LA)
Loë Guthmann - Author
Pryia (A)
Sabrina Ohler - Author
Kezia Ojal - Author
Shirley Chebet - Author
Pascal Mukanga - Author
Allan Ouko - Research
Franklin Kirimi - Research
Bosibori Barake - Research
Gloria Tanui - Research & Design
Architectural Association of Kenya (AAK)
George Arrabu - Author
Florence
Jacob Mwangi - Research
James Odongo - Author
IEK
Muguru Wairimu - Author
Grace Kagondu - Author
Akiba Mashinani Trust (AMT)
Jane Weru - Research
Patrick Njoroge - Research
Maureen Musya - Research
Arup East Africa
Vera Bukachi - Lead Author
Caroline Ray - Author
Eleanor Earl - Author
University College London - Engineering for International Development Centre
Priti Parikh - Research
Margarita Garfias-Royo - Author & Research
Loan Diep - Research
Advisory Board
Planner Rose Muema - Partner, Impaque Consultants Ltd, Makueni County Municipal Board, KDI Kenya Board Member
Professor Mark Pelling - King's College London, Department of Geography
Dr. Joanes Atela - Director, African Centre for Technology Studies and Africa Research Impact Network
Graphics
Gloria Tanui (Lead Designer),
Jack Campbell Clause,
Diana Machoka
The Royal Academy of Engineering
Catriona MacArthur, Senior Manager, Africa Programmes