Informal backyard rentals through a social sustainability lens – a case study in Oudtshoorn, South Africa

Social sustainability is a significant field of research in post-apartheid South Africa, given the challenges and inequalities faced, evidenced in urban landscapes where millions reside in informal settlements and informal backyard rental accommodation. This article investigates the informal backyard rental phenomenon in South Africa through a social sustainability lens, focusing on a case study in Bridgton and Bongolethu, Oudtshoorn. Qualitative and quantitative research findings unveil several features in support of social sustainability framed by familial connections between landlords and backyard tenants. The article also uncovers certain challenges presented by informal backyard rentals and social sustainability, predominantly related to the quality of structures and certain social concerns. In its totality, the article provides a contextualised perspective on social sustainability in the informal backyard rental sector and provides the planning community and other decision makers with a more nuanced understanding of the complexities and potentials that may underpin it in small town South Africa and beyond.


INTRODUCTION
This article focuses on social sustainability in a relatively under-researched niche of South Africa's housing market (Marais & Cloete, 2014: 50), the informal backyard rental (IBR) sector. Although the IBR sector is expanding rapidly (Lemanski, 2009: 473;Shapurjee et al., 2014: 20), relatively few studies have researched the phenomenon. A dearth of knowledge on the social dynamics that anchor the sector within South Africa's low-income communities has had negligent impacts in the past (Lemanski, 2009: 483;Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 22). Certain pilot interventions localised in metropoles have concentrated on the financial opportunities small-scale letting may afford landlords; interfered in tenant selection processes, and formalised structures and rental agreements (Watson, 2009: 17). These invasive tactics proved unsuccessful, were met with protest, and caused displace ment, partly because certain landlords and tenants were related (Carey, 2009: 2;Lategan, 2017: 352). The bulk of existing research has focused on IBRs in larger cities or metros in pace with the foci of past pilots (Zweig, 2015: 2). As such, "little is known about informal rental conditions in smaller SA towns" (Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 6) where IBRs are also common, but socioeconomic conditions diverge from contexts affecting IBRs in larger cities. This article speaks to these shortcomings by investigating the premise that IBRs in smaller towns may demonstrate a more prolific inclination towards rentals based on social and familial links and less on financial exchanges among unrelated stakeholders than in larger cities. This premise does not deny the existence of familial links in large cities or that some IBRs in smaller towns function on commercial principles.
Research draws on empirical data from a case study of IBRs in the small-to medium-sized town of Oudtshoorn and its Bridgton and Bongolethu Townships. Findings confirm that the majority of landlords and their informal backyard (IB) tenants are related in the case study. The effects of these connections were expounded in a synthesis on IBRs and social sustainability evaluating case study findings according to a conceptual framework based on a literature review.
Results affirmed an IBR sector that supported various principles related to socially sustainable communities based mostly on supportive and amiable landlord-tenant relationships framed by familial connections, and identified detriments related to the physical environment and other social afflictions.
The article's contributions are manifold. It addresses the lacking focus on IBRs in smaller towns; confirms familial links between landlords and tenants as dominant in the small town case study; suggests that findings may be generalised for similar small town contexts and considered as representative for a proportion of the IBR sector in larger cities; substantiates motivations to maintain and support IBRs on grounds of social sustainability; reiterates the importance of nuanced approaches that do not undermine existing landlord-tenant relationships and existing contributions towards more socially sustainable communities, and underscores certain challenges to be addressed in national and local policies.

Coming to terms with social sustainability and socially sustainable communities
This article defines social sustainability based on key elements identified in the literature and in terms of a sustainable community (Bramley et al., 2006;Dempsey et al., 2009). Accordingly, a socially sustainable community may provide a diversity of current and future residents with a just opportunity to access basic services in stable, safe and secure environments conducive to good health where they may live their entire lives and find support in cohesive networks that facilitate civic involvement and political engagement; a shared sense of place, quality of life and wellbeing (Davidson & Wilson, 2009: 5;Glasson & Wood, 2009: 284;Dempsey et al., 2009: 3;Mak & Peacock, 2011: 3;Woodcraft, 2012: 31;Dixon & Woodcraft, 2013: 478;Goosen & Cilliers, 2018: 260). Social sustainability is furthermore related to the interconnected and equally disputed concepts of social cohesion and social capital (Cloete, 2014: 6;Bwalya & Seethal, 2016: 41). This article delineates social cohesion as the extent to which a society is socially just, united in shared interests, circumstances and identity, being functional, providing positive social relationships within a bonded network and environment that allows its members to flourish in solidarity, resulting in social capital (Cortese et al., 2014(Cortese et al., : 2052Bwalya & Seethal 2016: 41;Carrasco & Bilal, 2016: 128;Obremski & Carter, 2019: 171). Social capital is synthesised as a resource produced by participating in social networks and civic institutions, supported by trust that accommodates reciprocal exchanges, mutual support and collective action to achieve communal objectives (Matthews & Besemer, 2015: 189;Carrasco & Bilal, 2016: 128;Opp, 2017: 300). These broad definitions are not all-inclusive or indisputable, but provide guiding features towards an understanding of more socially sustainable communities as point of departure to reflect on South Africa's IBR sector (see Table 2).
From these definitions, links between social sustainability and the physical environment become obvious. Social activity is interrelated with the physical context in which it transpires (Dempsey et al., 2009: 7). Accordingly, social sustainability has provided a focus for planning research, policy and practice, emphasising the social outcomes of aspects such as housing (Dixon & Woodcraft, 2013;Obremski & Carter, 2019). In planning for physical and non-physical attributes potentially conducive to more socially sustainable environments, the elements captured in Table 1 may be considered. A few elements are highlighted. Safety, a basic human need (Opp, 2017: 302) is emphasised. "Safety is the ontological foundation of sustainability in general and social sustainability in particular" (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017: 1), referring to the right to be safe and adopt all measures of adaptation and security to prevent future casualties and physical harm. Where the built environment exhibits poor condition, people may be physiologically affected and their sense of safety disturbed (Dempsey et al., 2009: 10).
The physical environment may impact inter-generational equity, referencing the extent to which future generations will not suffer under the repercussions of the actions of the current generation (Mak & Peacock 2011: 3;Eizenberg & Jabareen 2017: 290) and the prospect of long-term residency, possibly spanning multiple generations. The urban environment can nurture community stability by encouraging lower residential mobility and turnover (Forrest & Kearns, 2001: 2134Dempsey et al., 2009: 9) as influenced by social equity referenced above, rooted in distributive justice and equality of condition in the objective appointment of resources. Social equity is often measured by the level of access provided to adequate housing, education, basic services, social infrastructure, green, cultural and recreational spaces (Dempsey et al., 2009: 5), entrenched in urban planning decisions. Table 1 captures the bulk of these elements.
Social sustainability premised exclusively on the above definition and Table 1 would indicate that it exists only in idyllic places unburdened by poverty, poor service access and poor environmental quality. Positive social activity and social order are more likely to manifest in physical environments of high quality (Dempsey et al., 2009: 5), but social sustainability is not dependant on the quality of the physical environment. The challenges centralised in places of poorer quality may act as catalysts for social cohesion (Dempsey et al., 2009: 5), encouraging communities to analyse and articulate the fulfilment of their rights (Carrasco & Bilal 2016: 128), building social capital, and improving their environments and quality of life.

Challenges to social sustainability in South Africa
In South Africa, attempts to redress colonial and apartheid impacts and promote sustainable development have been restrained by several social challenges. Chief among which is inequality. Inequalities are demonstrated in official indicators such as the Ginicoefficient; physically expressed in the country's human settlements, and reflected in the outcomes of the state's subsidised housing projects which have reinforced inequalities by sourcing peripheral development locations (Croese et al., 2016: 240) often reminiscent of the sites secured for non-White South Africans under apartheid (Turok, 2016: 5), and the small size and poor quality of the units they have provided (Freund, 2010: 287;Lizarralde, 2011: 176). Approximately 2.8 million subsidised homes were delivered by 2016 (Turok, 2016: 5). Yet, millions have remained destitute, living in a growing number of informal settlements (Turok, 2012: 21) or IBRs as alternatives (Lemanski, 2009: 473;Tshangana, 2013: 4).

The access, safety and security provided by backyard locations
Backyard tenants often prefer the more central locations and access provided by older townships (Morange, 2002: 10;Bank, 2007: 206;Watson, 2009: 5).
Many are also drawn to backyard accommodation in such localities to escape the violence and hazards correlated with peripheral informal settlements (Morange, 2002: 10;Zweig, 2015: 5). Backyard dwellings  Opp (2017) in the 'safer' core provide security (Gilbert et al., 1997: 139) and some stability via an increased number of vigilant residents potentially reducing chances of theft and intrusion (Carey, 2009: 11;Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013: 661). For tenants, the proximity and connection to established landlords may reinforce a sense of moral and physical security (Morange, 2002:11) under landlord protection (Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013: 661). Yet, backyard tenants may be comforted by a false sense of security, as crime is an omnipresent threat in South Africa (Klaaren, 2015: 552). Some argue that the structural informality of IBRs make dwellings more vulnerable to home burglaries and attacks (Meth, 2013: 547). Besides locational advantages, safety and stability perceptions, IB tenancy have been significantly motivated by the probability of access to basic services.

Connections between landlords and backyard tenants: Family, friends or strangers?
Landlords and their backyard tenants are either family members or unrelated stakeholders. Certain studies localised in larger cities have shown the majority of IB tenants to be paying renters unrelated to landlords (Morange, 2002: 13;Bank, 2007: 209;Lemanski, 2009: 476). Generalisations on landlord-tenant relationships based on business arrangements between unrelated acquaintances centred on experience in larger cities have framed many of the assumptions and pilot interventions of the past. Yet, IBRs emerged during apartheid when landlords, as tenants of the state themselves, accommodated extended family members and friends in backyards (Morange, 2002: 6;Lemanski, 2009: 473). The practice has endured in places. Tenants and landlords seem to be related more frequently in Coloured than African communities (Morange, 2002: 13;Lemanski, 2009: 474). Related tenants likely remunerate landlords in kind and not cash (Lemanski, 2009: 473;Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013: 661), or contribute to service charges (Carey, 2009: 18).

Methodology
The empirical research was based on a 2015 survey of 103 properties surrounding the Bridgton Pavilion, a landmark and centre of community life around which a high number of IB structures could be identified on aerial photos (see Figure 1). The Bridgton/Bongolethu survey included only properties with IBR components, with willing landlord and backyard respondents. Separate questionnaires were provided to the heads of landlord and backyard tenant households, respectively. Respondent properties were selected via convenience sampling as a non-probability sampling technique where members of the target population meet practical criteria, for example geographical proximity, easy accessibility, availability, or willingness to participate (Dörnyei, 2007).
Convenience sampling is useful when randomisation is impossible (Explorable.com, 2009). In the Bridgton/Bongolethu case, no records existed that document the presence of IBR structures from which a sample could be randomly selected.
Aerial photos showing IB structures did not provide clarity on their use for rental, commercial or storage purposes and potentially provided outdated information, as IBRs may be constructed, demolished and moved continuously. Aerial photos did, however, provide an indication of areas where informal backyarding was prominent and concentrated. Surveys were conducted assisted by chaperones who were available for limited periods. These chaperones, familiar with, and trusted by the community as police reservists, acted as guides and facilitators. There was no self-selection of respondents. It is doubtful that a random sample would have delivered drastically different results, except in feasibly reducing the number of respondents, as there was no way of identifying which households accommodated backyarders and would be available and willing to participate at the times chaperones would also be available, from which to generate a random sample. Respondents were advised on research objectives and general instructions. Informed consent was described in terms of respondents' voluntary participation and confidentiality guaranteed.
Questionnaires probed spatial, economic and social issues, with social issues reported on, in this instance. Survey questions were drafted in collaboration with the North-West University's Statistical Consultancy Services who also captured and analysed data using IBM SPSS. As a convenience sample instead of a random sample was used, p-values may be reported, but not interpreted. Furthermore, the article drew on semi-structured interviews conducted with local officials and other relevant stakeholders, cited with pseudonyms, who provided insight on matters less forthcoming in literature and existing statistics. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for ease of reference.  landlords (Gilbert et al., 1997: 139;Bank 2007: 213;Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 31;Gunter, 2014: 99) and male tenants (Zweig, 2015: 5). Figure 2 captures mean ages for females and males in the total population and for landlords and IB tenants.  In the case study, IBRs were thus dominated by single female landlords who are close to retirement age or have already retired and continue to be breadwinners and caregivers. IB landlordism is common among the elderly, because rental contributions may make homes viable for many who would otherwise have to relocate from their historical neighbourhoods to more affordable, often lower quality housing (Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 41). IBRs offer the opportunity to lodge extended family members, often as older or married children (Zweig, 2015: 5), thus presenting opportunities to unite families (Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 31), foster multigenerational living (Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013: 661), and aging in a fixed location (Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 19) with social support from backyard relatives. In Bridgton/Bongolethu, IB tenants participated in community life, belonged to civic institutions and attended local schools where they were not stigmatised or ostracised, thereby embedding themselves in the community and building extended support networks that entrench social belonging. Such links underpin a number of the characteristics that support social sustainability, as low residential turnover, enhanced social networks; civic engagement, and quality of life and wellbeing identified in the literature review.

The nature of landlord-tenant links
In 80.8% of the backyard households, all members were related to landlords. In 12.5% of cases, only certain members shared familial connections with landlords. In 6.7% of cases, no such association was reported; 45.8% of the backyard respondents claimed to be backyarders primarily to maintain familial ties. This confirms the tendency for Coloured landlords and tenants to be related, following Morange (2002: 13), Carey (2009: 18) and Lemanski (2009: 473). Lemanski (2009: 479) theorised that, in Cape Town, many landlords as previous shack dwellers sympathised with the destitute, providing rentals as a moral imperative described by Gilbert et al. (1997: 141) as the antithesis of "classic landlord behaviour".
Results revealed that 93.1% of the landlords provided IBRs motivated by compassion and moral obligation, whereas 2% cited financial motivations, thereby reaffirming low cash rents. The 55.8% of tenants who contributed rent, paid a mean of R253.43 monthly. Tenants who did not pay cash rents contributed towards water and electricity costs (27.3%), home maintenance (9.9%), or domestic help to landlords (4.1%). Cramer's V test for the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship, in terms of familial connection, and motivation for engaging in IBRs, yielded an effect size of 0.415 (p=0), as a strong medium effect and practical visible significant association. Financial motivations were strongest where landlords and tenants were not related at all, yet compassion/social motivations dominated, regardless of the nature of the landlord-tenant connection. As nearly all landlords and tenants were related, cash rents were very low and landlords motivated by social obligations, a case could be made to define their relationship not as a rental arrangement, but merely as the manner in which extended family members are accommodated in informal extensions.
However, findings support inclusion under the informal rental umbrella, as the majority of backyard dwellings housed autonomous households almost unilaterally expected to contribute monetary or non-monetary assistance. Thus, it is suggested that the term IBR be widely applied to include related tenants and landlords, even when their arrangements are not premised solely on traditional rental terms, as supported by Rubin & Gardner (2013). In the case study, these informal rental arrangements contributed towards self-reliant, organic communities that demonstrate harmony and co-operation, places of sharing (Lategan & Cilliers 2013: 309), in which important social safety nets and social capital were manifested (Rubin & Gardner, 2013: 31) that arguably contributed to an increased sense of security for landlords and tenants. These supportive networks are tried in times of conflict.

Evaluating the relationship between landlords and their tenants
Evaluating the landlord-tenant relationship in terms of conflict showed that 86.4% of the landlords reported that landlord-tenant conflict was never an issue (or so rarely that it could not be recounted); only 7.8% reported conflict once a month, whilst 5.8% reported conflict more than once a month. A substantial 75.8% of IB tenants reported that landlordtenant conflict has never been an issue (or so rarely that it could not be recounted); 10% reported conflict at least once monthly; 7.5% registered conflict more than once a month, whilst 6.7% conveyed landlord-tenant conflict occurring almost daily.

Conflict resolution and rental terms
Data revealed that 66% of the landlords had never sought mediation from RHTs to resolve landlord-tenant conflict, whilst 14.6% were unaware of the existence of RHTs or other formal channels. For backyard tenants, 87.5% had never approached an RHT, although some had approached other mediators. Anecdotally, the majority of the respondents seemed to confuse tribunals with unofficial mediators such as religious leaders, implying that the number of respondents who had not used tribunals may be much higher.
Results reflected that Oudtshoorn provided no local RHT. Serious cases were generally referred to George, a town located 59km away (Gold, 2015). No formal representative body such as a backyard dwellers association or similar advocacy group could be identified in Oudtshoorn to lobby on behalf of IBR stakeholders or intervene in disagreements -speaking to a lack of political engagement as an important denominator in sustainable communities identified earlier.
The local housing department sometimes acted as mediator, providing rental agreement templates to capture rental terms in writing. Respondents rarely entered a rental agreement with a written contract. In addition, 4.2% of the rental agreements were formalised on paper; 82.5% were negotiated orally, whilst 13.3% did not discuss rental terms beforehand. The prevalence of oral and the absence of agreements may reflect the dominance of familial bonds and subsequent complacency and trust that rendered a negotiated agreement obsolete.
Notwithstanding the general absence of rental agreements, data revealed that backyard tenants had occupied IBRs for a mean of six and a half years, reflecting relative tenure security. Where agreements had been negotiated, the terms and frequency of inclusion are captured in Figure 6.
Power dynamics in the negotiation of these terms varied from case to case, but landlords and backyard tenants were generally in full agreement and support of conditions included. Figure 6 illustrates that terms of rental remuneration, followed by conditions of service access took precedence in rental agreement negotiations.
An aggregate 93.33% of backyard respondents claimed access to electricity, sanitation, piped water and refuse removal accessed via landlords, indicating relative equality of condition in service access between landlords and IB tenants and distributive justice in the appointment of resources. Thus, benefiting many more impoverished citizens from the formal services provided to previous housing beneficiaries -advancing social justice.
Rules on tenant behaviour and eviction procedures were included in less than half of the negotiated agreements, resulting in ambiguous conditions conducive to disagreement and conflict (see Figure 5). Conflict was commonly attributed to poor communication between landlords and tenants (Captain, 2013) and the effects of several social ails.

Alcohol and substance abuse, crime and safety
Alcohol and substance abuse is common in Bridgton/Bongolethu for residents of formal dwellings and IBRs. In general, alcohol and substance abuse may be emblematic of life in poverty or ascribed to a socially imbedded predisposition (Hendricks et al., 2015: 100;Zweig 2015: 7;Lesch & Adams, 2016: 167). Given the homogeneous profile of respondents, dominance of familial connections and comparable household incomes proven, the article posits that there may be a marginal difference in levels of alcohol and substance abuse among landlords and backyard tenants. Backyarders are not necessarily more prone to such vices, due to their housing conditions (Captain, 2013). However, challenges related to alcohol and substance abuse may be concentrated where many impoverished individuals congregate, as facilitated by the increased population densities introduced by IB infill in the case study (Cameron, 2015;Lategan & Cilliers 2016: 20). Furthermore, IB structures are regularly occupied by illegal alcohol vendors who contribute to the problem-drinking crisis (Lesch & Adams, 2016: 169). No such vendors were identified in the sample. Following Figure 5, alcohol and substance abuse were cited as a foremost cause of landlord-tenant conflict. For an East London case study, Bank (2007: 17) suggested that a culture of drinking in a yard is often determined by the landlord.
Where alcohol and substance abuse are present, the proximity in which stakeholders live in IBRs often incites and increases tension ( Figure 5), exacerbating the probability of violent and nonviolent crimes (Captain, 2013). Of all backyard tenants, 76.7% reported feeling secure in their backyard dwellings pertaining to their own and the safety of their possessions. Such opinions are significant, considering that 43.7% also rated crime as a daily concern. For landlords, the figure was 31.4%. A Phi test for backyard tenants' perceptions of feeling safe in their dwellings and respondents claiming crime as daily concern provided an effect size of -0.230 (p=0.012), as a small inverse effect, with those feeling safe in their backyard lodgings slightly more inclined to report crime not being a daily concern and vice versa. A Phi test for alcohol and substance abuse as source of conflict among backyard tenants and crime as an issue of daily concern presented an effect size of 0.320 (P=0.096), as a practical visible significant association or medium effect. Thus, where alcohol and substance abuse were problematic, backyard tenants tended to report crime as a daily concern.
Alcohol and substance abuse may hold additional penalties for safety and security. Elsewhere, backyard dwellings have been described as hidden (Parnell & Hart, 1999: 367;Turok, 2012: 22), leaving vulnerable tenants such as women and children to face several injustices (Bank, 2007: 226). In the case study, alcohol and substance abuse has been linked to child sexual abuse, as inhibitions are lowered and abusers are provided with abundant opportunities (Captain, 2013), as multiple tenants of both sexes and all ages cohabit in cramped dwellings (Meth, 2013: 547) with limited privacy. IBRs presented a mean of 1.87 (s=1.053) rooms per structure, commonly divided only by curtains or furniture. Backyarders are further vulnerable to electric shocks and fire-related injury or death (Wire, 2015).

Fire threats and other backyard hazards
Results showed that 80.8% of the backyard respondents had access to electricity and 77.5% were serviced by informal connections. As a result, electric fires commonly occur. Fires were also attributed to candles, gas stoves, impromptu heating devices and cigarettes, aggravated by a lack of knowledge on responsible fire ignition and extinction and negligence under the influence of drugs and alcohol (Case, 2015;Wire, 2015). Fossil fuels being inexpensive alternatives to electricity present indoor air pollution, fire and poisoning risks, in which children are again vulnerable. IBRs fuel fires when constructed from highly flammable materials (Meth, 2013: 546;Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013: 662). The use of timber in 97.5% and cardboard in 16.7% of the IB structures in the case study posed significant risks. 8.3% of the IB respondents had experienced house fires in the past.
Oudtshoorn experiences approximately 60 house fires in formal and informal dwellings annually, of which approximately 68% are ascribed to IBRs (Case, 2015). Mix of residents of different ages -intergenerational equity.
Homogeneous racial and language profile.
No international migrants encountered; foreign migrants reported as IB tenants elsewhere in Bridgton/Bongolethu.

Fair opportunity to access basic services
High levels of service access for tenants.
Access dependent on obliging landlord-tenant relationship.
Limited conflict related to service access.
IBRs disseminate benefits of service access and formal neighbourhoods -distributive justice.
Shared service access -equality of condition.
No discrimination against IB tenants in terms of service access.

Stable, safe and secure environments
Most of the tenants regard residences as safe and secure.
Stable environment -tenure security.
More residents per yard -safety and security.

Conducive to good health
Poor quality structures pose health threats.

Highly flammable structures.
Hazardous informal electricity access.
Health dependent on service access and quality.
Potential for sexual and physical abuse.
Feasible increase in alcohol/substance abusers per yard/area.
Live out their entire lives Many homeowners are pensioners and long-term residents supported by tenants.
Evictions threats not considered.

Support in cohesive networks
Familial bonds and long-term residency provide support.

Limited conflict.
Rentals motivated by compassion and social obligation.

Promote civic and political engagement
No backyard dwellers' associations/other representative bodies identified.
IB tenants attend local churches/schools/community events.
Unity in challenging circumstances -social cohesion.
Shared sense of place IBRs as integral components of neighbourhood/community identity.

Quality of life and wellbeing
Arguably improved quality of life/wellbeing compared to informal settlements.
Informal backyarders accepted as community members -sense of social belonging.
Lack of privacy/space in yard.
Rental income/other contributions; affordable rental accommodation.
IB renters attend civic institutions -partaking in public life.
Locations in established communities provide access to facilities in proximity.
Safety/security augmented through eyes on the yard.
Structural inefficiencies; potentially cumbersome service access -uncomfortable.
Family connections strengthened/expanded.
Low conflict, positive relationships.
Increased population densities, alcohol/substance abuse, electrocution, fire and infection risks pose health concerns.
The resultant fatalities average approximately eight persons per annum in Oudtshoorn, with many more treated for burns and smoke inhalation (Case, 2015). Blazes may ultimately result in widespread damage in Bridgton/Bongolethu, given the location of structures behind main homes that may allow fires to develop to an advanced stage before they are noticed (Case, 2015), echoing warnings by Zweig (2015: 6) for a Vredendal study. Fires may spread rapidly, given the dense proximity of structures.

Health impacts and IBRs
Articulating the connection between health and IBRs in the case study proved challenging. Patients who visited local clinics and the District Hospital did not disclose residential circumstances. Consequently, distinctions between landlord and tenant patients could not be drawn from records (Douwse, 2013).
Regarding perception, results indicated that 61.2% of the landlords and 50.8% of the IB renters believed that backyard tenants are ill more often than members of landlord households. Anecdotally, respondents seemed to regard the word 'ill' as referring only to serious and terminal conditions. Wire (2015) confirmed that Oudtshoorn's low-income groups tend to downplay 'trivial' illnesses such as colds and flu, evidenced in the low number of such cases treated by local healthcare facilities. These illnesses worsen before the patients seek medical assistance.
IBRs may have health impacts for both trivial and more serious illnesses. For example, damp and draughty conditions impact on respiratory ailments such as TB (Douwse, 2013 IBRs provide support to make homeownership feasible.

IBRs well-established and integrated in community.
IBRs often provide only accommodation option -scaffolding functionality of other aspects of daily life.
Positive social relationships Amiable/low-conflict landlord-tenant relationships.
Within a bonded network Strong familial/kinship bonds -extended network.
Long-term residents -networks imbedded within community.
To flourish in solidarity IB tenants and most of the landlords remain disadvantaged -survive, rather than flourish.
Sense of solidarity reinforced by similar levels of income.
Many IBR units identified and growth in Rose Valley -thriving sector.

Social capital
Participating in social networks and civic institutions Strong social networks based on familial bonds produce social capital.
Trust that accommodates reciprocal exchanges, mutual support and collective action Trust -lack of written/oral agreements.
Conflict mostly resolved internally.
Achieve communal objectives United/ supportive relationships, shared survival goals.
Attractive public realm Poor quality environment -aesthetic qualities marred by IB dwellings.
Adequate housing Contested term, IB tenants enjoy tenure security, shelter and basic service access.
Most of the IB structures physically inadequate.
Accessibility to services/ facilities/green space/ employment Potential backyard greenery occupied by IBRs.

Sustainable urban design
No provision for IBRs in township layout.

Neighbourhoods
Sense of neighbourhood.

Enclosure
Courtyard arrangements.
Increased security by addition of tenants.
Mixed tenure Ownership and rentals.
Appropriate density Increased densities.
Sustainable transport networks More centrally located -marginally shorter distances to travel.

Mixed land use
No commercial/small-scale industrial IB structures encountered -opportunities presented.
Source: Own construction, 2019 not watertight. Contagious diseases may further be spread by the proximity in which backyarders live, potentially aggravated by the lack of internal walls (Zandrews, 2013;Wire, 2015).
When illness affects backyard tenants and they seek medical assistance, healthcare practitioners have testified to sympathetic bonds between landlords and tenants in Oudtshoorn, even when unrelated, evidenced when foreign migrant tenants fall ill and landlords accompany them as interpreters (Wire, 2015).

SYNTHESIS
To reflect on the theory-practice application of social sustainability and IBRs, key elements of social sustainability, socially sustainable communities and related concepts defined in the literature review were considered in relation to the case study. Table 2 dissects each definition and links each phrase/ term directly to the Bridgton/ Bongolethu case before categorising each example as either contributing to, or detracting from the social sustainability concepts provided.

CONCLUSION
This article considered several aspects of social sustainability and tangential issues such as social cohesion and social capital in the IBR sector through the lens of the Bridgton/Bongolethu case study. The literature review underscored the complexity and multifaceted nature of social sustainability and socially sustainable communities, stressing that the ideal of sustainability may be an everchanging mark never to be fully achieved. As such, misunderstood and under-researched practices that may already enhance sustainability prospects, must be investigated and supported and negative features addressed. In focusing on Bridgton/ Bongolethu, this article addressed the deficit in research focused on the informal rental contexts of smaller towns and the prospects they hold in terms of social sustainability.
Although this study did not track the growth in IBRs in Bridgton/ Bongolethu, the substantial number of IB units observed and the newly established Rose Valley extension indicate a flourishing housing subsector. IBRs continue to thrive as landlords and tenants support the sector in unity, each fulfilling important roles of support in an impoverished community. Whereas other studies have noted that familial connections between landlords and tenants do exist to varying degrees, especially in larger cities and metropolitan areas, this article shows that familial links between landlords and tenants are a leading feature of the sector in the case study. It is feasible to suggest that many IBR markets in smaller towns across South Africa may present similar connections and that familial ties should be considered as representing at least a proportion of IBR relationships in larger cities. The significance of familial connections is demonstrated when case study findings are considered within the framework provided in the preceding synthesis.
The framework evaluation demonstrated that IBRs in Bridgton/ Bongolethu support many of the social sustainability indicators captured. Without repeating Table 2, the most significant of these are identified as the close ties established between landlords and their backyard tenants; mutually supportive and relatively conflictfree landlord-tenant relationships; mixed and secure tenure; feelings of safety; excellent access to basic services; rentals provided motivated by compassion or social obligation; low residential turnover and multigenerational bonds, and IB tenants being accepted and included in the community. These deeply rooted connections enshrine a sense of solidarity, shape cohesive social networks, build social capital, improve quality of life and sense of wellbeing, thus enhancing resilience. Whilst positive attributes have been identified in the IBR market elsewhere, even where familial bonds were not dominant, familial connections embed such features more widely and deeply within the community based on relationships of reciprocal trust.
Investigating IBRs through a social sustainability lens and recognising the impacts and scope of familial connections is significant when intervention strategies are contemplated. The case study affirmed the need to support IBRs, oppose eradication objectives and consider national and local interventions from a strong social and not necessarily economic perspective as previously attempted. There is thus, a call for sensitive strategies that account for connections that surpass the traditional roles ascribed to landlords and tenants in conventional formal rental arrangements. Intrusive and disruptive interference must be avoided in favour of nuanced approaches that facilitate the functioning of certain IBR markets as social/family-based institutions and not market-led enterprises.
The Bridgton/Bongolethu case study also highlighted negative attributes ( Table 2) that detract from quality of life, a sense of wellbeing and a more socially sustainable community: the quality of informal structures posed health risks; informal electricity connections and fire and electrocution hazards; use of fossil fuels, and certain social concerns, including alcohol and substance abuse, women and child abuse. These negatives may require targeted, context-appropriate interventions at community level to mitigate risks and improve living conditions. Providing a range of detailed recommendations falls beyond the scope of this article, but results should offer guidance towards supportive interventions that capitalise on existing contributions and address challenges towards more socially sustainable communities.