Conviviality, Becoming Kin and Gaining Land: Everyday Transactions of Trust and Survival among Peri-Urban Migrants in Zimbabwe

Conviviality, Becoming Kin and Gaining Land: Everyday Transactions of Trust and Survival among Peri-Urban Migrants in Zimbabwe | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Conviviality, Becoming Kin and Gaining Land: Everyday Transactions of Trust and Survival among Peri-Urban Migrants in Zimbabwe Johannes Bhanye This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831334/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Land in Lydiate is not bought or sold in conventional terms. It is earned; through years of care, friendship, and carefully nurtured kin-like ties. It is also easily lost, as trust unravels or allegiances shift. In this precarious balance, migrants are both deeply rooted and perennially at risk. This paper explores how such fragile arrangements - fictive kinship, trust infrastructures, and informal contracts, do not only mediate access to land but actively constitute the governance of urban life on Zimbabwe’s peri-urban edges. The paper recasts what it means to belong, to occupy, and to govern in African cities. Drawing on long-term ethnographic research in the Lydiate informal settlement, the study reveals that migrants do not passively await inclusion into formal land markets. Instead, they actively forge fictive kinship ties, build trust-based relationships, and engage in strategic convivial practices to negotiate land access, secure provisional tenure, and craft alternative forms of urban belonging. Through detailed case studies, the paper shows that land transactions are not governed by state law or formal property regimes, but by social infrastructures of trust, loyalty, and negotiated kinship, often sealed through verbal agreements and everyday performances of relational obligation. The paper extends debates on conviviality and fictive kinship by demonstrating their centrality to urban governance and land access in African cities, beyond traditional framing as mechanisms of multicultural coexistence. It introduces the concept of “trust infrastructures” to describe the informal but highly functional systems that regulate land allocation, tenure security, and conflict resolution in peri-urban margins. Highlighting the agency, creativity, and social labor of migrants, the study challenges dominant narratives that view informality as mere disorder and critiques simplistic calls for tenure formalization as blind to the relational architectures sustaining urban life. The findings call for a fundamental rethinking of urban policy: local authorities must recognize and engage with, rather than criminalize, the relational and adaptive governance systems migrants have built. The paper contributes to scholarship on urban informality, African urbanism, land governance, and migrant agency, while also offering new conceptual tools for understanding how everyday social practices reshape the governance of land and belonging in contemporary urban Africa. Urban informality Land access Peri-urban migration kinship African urbanism governance Zimbabwe Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 1. Introduction We became like brothers,’ said Mr. Kamala, describing the moment a plot of land in a peri-urban Zimbabwean compound passed into his care. There was no contract, no paperwork; just years of shared hardship, laughter over mealie-meal, and the tacit promise of mutual loyalty. In cities growing beyond planning and policies, this simple act of kin-making carries the weight of governance. It is through such everyday rituals that migrants negotiate access to land and weave themselves into the social and spatial order of the city, beyond the reach of the state. While urban planners speak of formalization and tenure regularization, migrants in these peri-urban margins speak another language entirely; one of sahwira friendships, symbolic kinship, labor exchanges, and trust built over time. In contexts where formal governance systems are either absent, weak, or exclusionary, migrants often craft alternative modes of accessing land and livelihoods (Bhanye et al., 2024 ; Geyer et al., 2013 ; Potts, 201; Smit et al., 2017 ). While extensive scholarship explored informal land markets, squatting, and peri-urbanization (Durand-Lasserve & Royston, 2002 ; Rakodi, 1997 ), there has been less attention to the everyday relational practices like, fictive kinship, trust-building, and convivial negotiation, that underpin these transactions. Much of the existing literature tends to prioritize legal frameworks, market-based approaches, or state-centric narratives of land access, leaving the nuanced social dynamics of migrant survival underexplored (Hammar, 2017 ; Marx & Royston, 2007). Yet, in emerging urban margins of African cities, where land titles are often ambiguous and formal property systems poorly entrenched, social relationships themselves become a crucial infrastructure (Mabin et al., 2013 ; Simone, 2004). Migrants, faced with systemic exclusion from formal land markets and citizenship rights, do not merely wait for state recognition or benevolence. Instead, they actively forge trust networks, fictive kin ties, and strategic convivialities that allow them to access, occupy, and sustain claims to land (Bhanye, 2014). These everyday practices challenge prevailing assumptions that informal land transactions are anarchic or lawless; instead, they reveal structured, negotiated, and socially legitimate pathways to land and belonging (Brown, 2015 ; Nyambara, 2014 ). Against this backdrop, this paper poses two central research questions: First, how do peri-urban migrants in Zimbabwe mobilize social relations to access farming and settlement land? Second, how are trust and fictive kinship structured, performed, and maintained within these everyday transactions? In addressing these questions, the paper argues that migrants in peri-urban Zimbabwe survive and establish themselves not through formal tenure systems or state-mediated rights, but through flexible, trust-based, and convivial land transactions. These transactions involve forging new kin-like relations that transcend blood or legal ties, enabling access to farming and settlement spaces otherwise closed off to them. Becoming kin, whether through friendships, shared totems, church affiliations, or neighborhood solidarities, becomes a pragmatic strategy of survival and emplacement. This perspective draws on and extends recent theoretical discussions on conviviality (Gilroy, 2004 ; Wise & Velayutham, 2014 ), fictive kinship (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, 1996 ), and informal governance (Simone, 2004; Watson, 2009 ). It shows that in contexts of institutional fragility and socio-political exclusion, migrants creatively stitch together social fabrics that serve both material and symbolic needs. At the same time, the paper critically engages the limits of such convivialities, highlighting how trust can be fragile, kinship claims contested, and land access precarious. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 elaborates the theoretical framework, grounding the analysis in concepts of conviviality, fictive kinship, informal urbanism, and migrant belonging. Section 3 outlines the methodological approach, detailing the ethnographic fieldwork undertaken in the Lydiate peri-urban settlement. Section 4 presents empirical findings on how migrants access land through both monetary and non-monetary rental arrangements. Section 5 explores the social logics underpinning fictive kin-making, trust, and the informal governance of land transactions. Section 6 situates the findings within broader debates on urban informality, challenging dominant formalization narratives and reflecting on the politics of everyday belonging. Finally, Section 7 concludes by summarizing key insights, highlighting contributions to theory, and offering implications for policy and future research. Through this examination, the paper sheds new light on the relational architectures that enable migrants to carve spaces of belonging and survival in Africa’s rough urban margins. 2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 2.1. Conviviality and Everyday Urbanism The concept of conviviality has become a crucial lens for understanding the ways in which diverse populations coexist, negotiate, and survive within complex urban environments. Paul Gilroy ( 2004 ) popularized the notion in his seminal work After Empire , describing conviviality as the “process of cohabitation and interaction” that emerges among different groups sharing urban space. For Gilroy, conviviality is not merely about harmonious multiculturalism but about the daily, ordinary negotiations of difference that make collective life possible in deeply unequal cities. He emphasizes that conviviality operates in a space beyond official multicultural policies, focusing instead on everyday, improvised practices of getting along, making do, and surviving amidst systemic inequalities. Building on Gilroy’s insights, Wise and Velayutham ( 2014 ) argue that conviviality must be understood as a fragile, strategic, and context-dependent practice. In their comparative study of Singapore and Sydney, they highlight that everyday multicultural interactions often mask underlying tensions, inequalities, and power imbalances. They warn against romanticizing conviviality as inherently stable or egalitarian; rather, conviviality is often tactical, pragmatic, and contingent, providing temporary mechanisms for managing diversity and scarcity without necessarily addressing structural injustices. In highly precarious contexts like informal peri-urban spaces of Africa, conviviality thus emerges less as a celebration of difference and more as a means of survival, negotiated through fragile, interest-driven relations (Johannes et al., 2023 ). This critical reading of conviviality is highly relevant to peri-urban Zimbabwe, where migrants often engage in pragmatic, strategic relations to access scarce resources such as land. In Lydiate, for instance, becoming fictive kin, forging friendships, or affiliating through shared religious practices are not simply expressions of solidarity, but tactical acts of emplacement in environments marked by insecurity and exclusion. Conviviality, in this context, becomes both a social resource and a survival strategy, enabling migrants to create informal claims to land and to secure temporary belonging amidst uncertainty. Complementing these perspectives, AbdouMaliq Simone (2004) offers the powerful notion of “people as infrastructure” to describe the informal systems through which urban residents in African cities support and sustain one another in the absence of formal institutional support. According to Simone, people themselves, through networks of exchange, obligation, and shared labor, become the infrastructure that undergirds urban life. This conceptualization is critical for understanding how peri-urban migrants in Lydiate navigate land access: trust-based social ties, fictive kinship arrangements, and labour-based reciprocity constitute a vital infrastructure through which land is allocated, used, and protected. In the absence of legal titles or municipal governance, social relations substitute for cadastral systems, transforming conviviality into a functional, if precarious, system of land governance. Thus, by integrating Gilroy’s conceptualization of convivial life, Wise and Velayutham’s critique of its fragility, and Simone’s depiction of people as functional infrastructures, this paper situates the Lydiate migrants’ land practices within a broader theorization of everyday urbanism. Migrants’ everyday negotiations of kinship, trust, and access do not merely fill a void left by absent formal institutions; rather, they constitute an alternative mode of urban ordering — relational, flexible, and adaptive — that challenges rigid, Eurocentric models of property, governance, and belonging. Understanding these informal but socially binding land practices through the prism of conviviality and everyday urbanism enables a more nuanced reading of peri-urban Africa, not as a zone of legal failure or chaos, but as a space of creativity, negotiation, and survival. It is within these informal relational webs that new forms of urban life are forged, and where the future of African urbanization must be understood (Pieterse, 2011 ; Simone, 2010 ). Recent scholarship has further enriched the concept of conviviality by situating it within African epistemologies and everyday improvisation. Francis Nyamnjoh ( 2017 , 2025 ), for instance, advocates for a “convivial scholarship” rooted in incompleteness, mobility, and relationality. He critiques rigid, bounded forms of knowledge and instead emphasizes epistemic conviviality — a way of knowing and being that embraces multiplicity, fluidity, and interdependence. Nyamnjoh’s work foregrounds how Africans navigate exclusions not through withdrawal, but by forging inclusive modes of being and knowing, marked by adaptability and improvisation. In contexts like Lydiate, this speaks directly to how migrants build alliances, adapt to precarious urban conditions, and creatively negotiate access to land and belonging. Nyamnjoh’s ( 2017 , 2025 ) conviviality pushes the analytical lens beyond tolerance or cohabitation to a deeper ethical and ontological engagement with interdependence and mutuality — even when marked by asymmetry or fragility. His idea of being “incompletely complete” offers a powerful conceptual tool for understanding the ways peri-urban migrants live with uncertainty, forging relational life-worlds not despite precarity, but through it. In this sense, conviviality is not only a social strategy but an ontological condition — a mode of being-in-common that sustains life in the interstices of formal and informal urban orders. 2.2. Fictive Kinship and Chosen Socialities In contexts of economic precarity, social exclusion, and mobility, kinship is often strategically constructed beyond blood or marital ties. The concept of fictive kinship; relationships that mimic the solidarity, support, and obligations of kinship without biological or legal connection, has long been recognized as a crucial social resource among marginalized populations. Carol Stack’s groundbreaking ethnography, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (1974), remains one of the most influential studies illuminating how constructed kinship networks function as mechanisms for survival, stability, and resource sharing among economically marginalized groups. Drawing on her fieldwork in an African American urban community, Stack demonstrated that survival was made possible through a network of “swap economies”, reciprocity, and mutual obligations structured through fictive kin ties. In Stack’s analysis, relationships such as “play cousins,” “other mothers,” and “brothers” were not simply sentimental or symbolic gestures. Rather, they represented deliberate, pragmatic social contracts that redistributed scarce resources such as housing, childcare, food, and emotional support. These fictive relations operated with as much moral authority and binding commitment as traditional kin ties, challenging the rigid anthropological distinctions between “real” and “constructed” families. Stack’s insights provide a vital foundation for understanding the practices observed among peri-urban migrants in Zimbabwe. In Lydiate, migrants facing exclusion from formal land tenure regimes similarly forge fictive kinship ties; through friendship, shared histories, religious affiliations, or mutual hardship, to access farming plots and settlement land. Calling someone a “brother,” “uncle,” or “sister” not only reconfigures affective relationships but produces new entitlements and obligations around critical resources like land. These constructed kin relations, much like Stack’s observations, become part of a pragmatic moral economy that structures survival in harsh urban margins. Extending Stack’s work into the domain of migration and transnational mobility, Mary Bouquet ( 1996 ) in her study on migrant families in Britain emphasizes how fictive kinship emerges as an adaptive strategy for negotiating both practical and emotional needs in unfamiliar environments. Bouquet shows that for many migrants, formal nuclear family structures are often insufficient or disrupted by displacement, economic instability, or legal precarity. In response, migrants select, forge, and cultivate kin-like relationships with friends, neighbors, co-workers, or religious associates who can provide support networks essential for housing, employment, emotional stability, and social belonging. This theoretical lens is particularly pertinent in the case of Lydiate, where migrants, many of whom are descendants of foreign farm laborers, find themselves disconnected from formal land rights frameworks and often from broader national citizenship narratives (Moyo, 2011 ; Nyamnjoh, 2017 ). In such contexts, becoming kin is not a mere symbolic act but a survival strategy: it enables migrants to broker access to land, to forge claims to place, and to embed themselves within the fragmented social landscapes of peri-urban Zimbabwe. Critically, however, as both Stack and Bouquet suggest, fictive kinship is not always uniformly stable or egalitarian. The construction of kin can be strategic, hierarchical, and fragile. In Lydiate, as this paper will later demonstrate, the durability of land access through fictive kinship often depends on the maintenance of good relations, mutual benefit, and the avoidance of conflict. When trust fractures, due to disputes, changing circumstances, or opportunistic behavior, the supposed kinship ties may dissolve, leaving migrants vulnerable to dispossession. Thus, fictive kinship, while enabling survival, also embodies inherent risks, contestations, and asymmetries of power. 2.3. Informal Urban Land Access and Trust Urbanization in Africa has often proceeded not through formal planning and legal land titling but through a complex, dynamic interplay of informal processes, improvisation, and negotiated access. In many contexts, trust becomes a primary mechanism through which urban residents navigate resource scarcity, tenure insecurity, and fragmented governance systems. James Ferguson ( 1999 ), in his seminal ethnography Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on the Zambian Copperbelt , offers critical insights into how urban Africans construct expectations, social relations, and material survival in contexts where formal economic systems and state infrastructures have been hollowed out. Ferguson shows that informal urban life is not characterized by mere lawlessness or chaos; rather, it is structured by social norms of trust, reciprocity, and improvised moral economies that allow people to manage uncertainty and precarity. For Ferguson, trust is the “glue” that holds together informal systems of survival when formal institutions fail to deliver stability. In the Copperbelt towns he studied, everyday survival hinged on informal networks of assistance, kinship, and neighborhood solidarities rather than formal employment or state welfare. This argument is critical for understanding peri-urban Zimbabwean contexts like Lydiate, where migrants similarly depend on trust-based relationships, rather than formal land titles or legal rental agreements, to secure farming and settlement land. The informal transactions that migrants engage in are not “irrational” or “illegal” in the everyday sense; they are governed by norms of reliability, social reputation, and mutual recognition that substitute for absent formal guarantees. Expanding on this theme, Thebe and Rakotje ( 2013 ) work on informal land markets in peri-urban Lesotho provides further empirical evidence for how trust underpins informal land access systems in African urban margins. In their study, Thebe and Rakotje ( 2013 ) found that verbal contracts and personal trust between parties were the predominant mechanisms for land transactions, even in cases involving significant transfers of money or property rights. Buyers and sellers relied on reputation, social proximity, and community recognition rather than written contracts or formal state registration. In many cases, the fear of social sanction or exclusion from community networks acted as a stronger deterrent to breach of contract than any legal threat. However, scholars caution against romanticizing trust-based informal systems. While trust facilitates survival in the absence of formal institutions, it also introduces new vulnerabilities. Disputes, misunderstandings, opportunism, or shifts in social relations can rapidly destabilize informal agreements. In peri-urban Zimbabwe, as in other African urban spaces, trust must be constantly produced, performed, and reaffirmed through everyday acts of loyalty, reciprocity, and social embeddedness (Cleaver, 2005 ; Meagher, 2010 ). 2.4. Mobility, Belonging, and Citizenship Contemporary African urbanization is deeply entangled with patterns of mobility, displacement, and precarious citizenship (Bhanye, 2023 ). Migrants who move across spaces — rural to urban, across borders, or across peri-urban frontiers — often confront profound challenges in securing legal recognition, accessing resources, and establishing a sense of belonging (Daimon, 2015 ). Yet, as scholars have shown, migrants are not passive victims of displacement; they actively forge everyday practices through which they claim space, negotiate belonging, and enact alternative forms of citizenship outside the formal apparatus of the state (Bhanye, 2023 ; Mushonga, 2024 ). Francis Nyamnjoh ( 2017 ), conceptualizes African mobility as inherently incomplete, negotiated, and provisional. According to Nyamnjoh, African migrants, whether internal or cross-border, rarely experience citizenship as a fixed legal status or a stable, state-sanctioned identity. Instead, migrants continuously engage in “practices of belonging”, forging connections, networks, and forms of mutual recognition that enable them to survive and situate themselves within new environments. Nyamnjoh emphasizes that formal citizenship is often inaccessible, fragile, or exclusionary, particularly for marginalized groups such as former farm workers, border-crossers, or urban squatters. Thus, belonging becomes an everyday achievement, negotiated through conviviality, labor, religion, kinship, and claims to space (Chekero, 2023 ; Mushonga, 2024 ). Importantly, Nyamnjoh also cautions against simplistic readings of informality as merely resistance or victimhood. He highlights that migrants’ practices are both adaptive and complicit, at once negotiating inclusion while also operating within, and sometimes reinforcing, hierarchical and exclusionary social orders. In Lydiate, for instance, gaining land access through fictive kinship often involves deference to indigenous landowners’ authority and social hierarchies, demonstrating the ambiguous and negotiated nature of everyday citizenship practices. Complementing Nyamnjoh’s theorization, Amanda Hammar ( 2017 ) provides an empirical and historically grounded analysis of urban displacement and resettlement in Zimbabwe, particularly in the aftermath of state-led land reform and political violence. In her study of displaced urban and peri-urban populations, Hammar ( 2017 ) shows that forced displacement does not simply erase belonging; rather, displaced people actively engage in rebuilding social networks, claiming space, and reconstituting forms of home and community. She highlights how displaced groups in peri-urban Zimbabwe navigate fractured landscapes of legality, politics, and livelihoods, crafting fragile, situated practices of emplacement in contexts of profound uncertainty. Hammar’s ( 2017 ) analysis is particularly useful for understanding how migrants in peri-urban spaces like Lydiate negotiate the aftermath of Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme and broader processes of economic and political displacement. Many migrants, often descendants of foreign farm laborers or internal migrants marginalized from formal land redistribution, find themselves doubly excluded: first, from the formal land market, and second, from full political citizenship narratives tied to indigeneity and “land ownership” (Bhanye, 2024 ; Daimon, 2015 ) In response, they deploy everyday tactics of survival and belonging, including informal land rentals, caretaking relationships, and the construction of fictive kinship networks. This theoretical framing pushes us to expand the conceptualization of citizenship and belonging beyond legalistic frameworks. It demonstrates that migrants in Africa’s urban margins perform citizenship not primarily through state documents or legal rights, but through daily acts of negotiation, emplacement, and relational belonging. Belonging is less about formal status and more about situated practices of making life possible, however precarious, contested, and incomplete these may be. 2.5 Conceptual Framework: Relational Infrastructures of Survival and Belonging Figure 1 presents the Relational Infrastructures of Survival and Belonging conceptual framework guiding this study. At its core is the notion of migrant agency —the everyday survival strategies employed by peri-urban migrants to navigate structural exclusion and legal invisibility in contexts such as Lydiate. This agency is expressed relationally, as migrants mobilize trust infrastructures and convivial/fictive kinship ties to create embedded social capital. These relational forms are not merely cultural by-products but function as pragmatic tools for negotiating belonging, forging access to resources, and circumventing the absence of formal land rights. As shown in the diagram, these two social processes feed directly into the emergence of informal governance mechanisms , which operate outside the state but are often more immediate, flexible, and contextually grounded than formal governance systems. These mechanisms include verbal rental agreements, caretaking arrangements, and labor exchanges—all socially legitimated and anchored in relational trust and social obligation. From these informal governance structures arise land access pathways , through which migrants gain access to farming or residential land. However, the outcomes of these pathways— provisional tenure , social belonging , and persistent precarity —are ambivalent. While these arrangements facilitate temporary emplacement and livelihood generation, they remain fragile, conditional, and deeply contingent on the ongoing performance of loyalty, trust, and kinship. Critically, the framework highlights a feedback loop: the outcomes of these land arrangements—particularly experiences of dispossession, insecurity, or deepened belonging—inform subsequent rounds of adaptation and reinvention by migrants. This dynamic process demonstrates the temporal and fluid nature of urban survival in marginal spaces, where migrants continuously recalibrate their social strategies in response to shifting social, economic, and political conditions. In sum, the conceptual framework captures the co-production of space, governance, and belonging in peri-urban Africa through everyday relational labor. 3. Methodology 3.1. Research Setting: Lydiate, Zimbabwe This study was conducted in Lydiate, a peri-urban settlement located near Norton Town in Zimbabwe’s Mashonaland West Province (Fig. 2 ). Lydiate is one of the many informal, marginalized spaces that emerged and evolved in the wake of Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), launched in 2000. The FTLRP dramatically reshaped rural and peri-urban landscapes, displacing thousands of commercial farm workers, many of whom were of Malawian, Mozambican, and Zambian descent, while reallocating land to politically connected Zimbabwean citizens (Moyo, 2011 ; Scoones et al., 2010 ). As a result, former farm workers and rural migrants, excluded from formal land redistribution processes, were often forced to establish themselves in informal settlements such as Lydiate. Lydiate occupies legal and territorial liminality, situated on the margins of formally demarcated agro-residential plots and farms, yet beyond the structured urban planning frameworks of nearby Norton town (Bhanye et al., 2025 ). The settlement lacks formal land tenure systems, adequate infrastructure, and recognition from local authorities, rendering its residents particularly vulnerable to eviction, marginalization, and exclusion. Demographically, Lydiate is characterized by a predominantly migrant-origin population, with many residents tracing their lineage to cross-border labor migrations from Malawi during the colonial period. The community exhibits a high degree of socio-economic precarity, with livelihoods centered on petty farming, informal trading, artisanal activities, and occasional wage labor on neighboring farms. These characteristics make Lydiate a fertile site for investigating how migrants without formal land rights craft everyday practices of survival, trust, and belonging. Figure 2 is an aerial view of Lydiate squatter settlement in Zimbabwe, illustrating its location within a peri-urban landscape of mixed land uses. The image shows the proximity of Lydiate to agro-residential private plots, farms allocated under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, a tobacco grading shade, Mutitipi Primary School, and the Zvimba–Murombedzi Road connecting the area to Norton and Harare. The image highlights the entanglement of informal settlements with formal agricultural and infrastructural landscapes, reflecting the contested and hybrid nature of land access in Zimbabwe’s peri-urban zones 3.2. Ethnographic Methods This paper draws on a qualitative ethnographic methodology, designed to uncover the relational and everyday practices that conventional survey or documentary methods would likely miss. Ethnography, with its emphasis on long-term immersion, participant observation, and deep relational engagement, was particularly suited to examining the subtle, often hidden processes of fictive kinship formation, informal land transactions, and trust-building among migrants (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011 ; O’Reilly, 2012 ). Fieldwork in Lydiate was conducted over an extended period, allowing for repeated interactions, participation in daily community activities, and the development of trust relationships with residents. Participant observation involved attending community meetings, church gatherings, social events, and informal trading spaces where land-related negotiations and social ties were often discussed. 20 formal semi-structured interviews (Table 1 ) were conducted with a purposive sample of migrants, indigenous landowners, caretakers, and local leaders, complemented by numerous informal conversations and life histories. Table 1 Profile of Key Study Participants Participant Name Gender Age (Years) Notes on Participation Mr. Phiri Male 43 Rented farming land through friendship and totemic ties. Mr. Kamala Male 56 Accessed farming land via long-term friendship. James Zembe Male 44 Secured farming land through friendship with a caretaker. Samson Chigora Male 32 Rented farming land via convivial ties with a caretaker. Mr. Paul Banda Male 65 Caretaker for absentee landowner; farming beneficiary. Luckson Banda Male 33 Collaborated with father Paul Banda in caretaking. Mr. Trymore Baloyi Male 40 Caretaker for absentee agro-residential plot owner. Leticia Kalaulau Female 49 Provided labor for land access at Mrs. Gapara’s greenhouse. Mr. Thomas Kachire Male 51 Provided labor to A2 farmer (Mr. Jena) for land access. Jairos Kachire Male 34 Assisted father in labor-based land access. Magret Sumayile Female 30 Accessed farming land through fictive kinship (housemaid connection). Luckson Machakwa Male 27 Caretaker of absentee homestead; access to settlement land. Thomas Dhairesi Male 43 Caretaker of absentee homestead (Mr. Kalembe). Gilbert Dhairesi Male 54 Caretaker of absentee homestead (Mr. Kalembe). Mr. Mollen Jaji Male 53 Lost rental access after breakdown of trust. Mrs. Dzimbiri Female 40 Lost farming land access after refusal to renew rental. Mr. Gumedhe Male 27 Initially rented settlement, later negotiated full ownership. Mrs. Gumedhe Female 26 Initially rented settlement, later negotiated full ownership. Mrs Marais Female 32 Rented farming land through friendship. Mrs Muzondo Female 34 Provided labor for land access. Building trust was absolutely critical for uncovering the hidden world of informal land rentals, fictive kinship arrangements, and clandestine caretaking deals. As noted by Scheper-Hughes ( 1995 ), in precarious contexts, participants are often reluctant to disclose information that might expose them to legal, political, or social risks. Many Lydiate residents initially hesitated to discuss land transactions, particularly where rentals were concealed under the guise of kinship or friendship. Through sustained engagement, transparency about research intentions, and the gradual building of rapport, participants became more willing to share their experiences, strategies, and vulnerabilities. 3.3. Positionality and Ethics As a researcher engaging with marginalized communities, it was essential to critically reflect on positionality, ethical obligations, and the politics of representation (Rose, 1997 ). Coming from a background familiar with Zimbabwean rural and peri-urban dynamics, I occupied a position of partial insider-outsider: familiar enough to understand local languages, histories, and cultural references, yet still perceived as an outsider associated with academia and formal institutions. This positionality had complex effects on fieldwork. On one hand, familiarity with local social codes and migration histories helped facilitate access. On the other hand, my perceived association with formal institutions (the University of Zimbabwe) sometimes raised suspicions about the potential consequences of disclosing informal or illegal activities. To navigate this, I emphasized confidentiality, non-judgmental listening, and informed consent throughout the research process. Managing disclosures about hidden rental arrangements required particular ethical sensitivity. Participants were assured that no personal identifiers would be recorded, and pseudonyms were used in all documentation. In line with ethical guidelines on researching hidden populations, extra care was taken to anonymize sensitive information, especially where disclosures involved illegal land occupation, secret rental transactions, or precarious caretaking agreements. Moreover, the research design incorporated reflexivity, the continuous interrogation of how my presence, identity, and interactions might shape the narratives offered by participants. Recognizing the relational nature of knowledge production was essential to responsibly interpreting the everyday strategies that migrants deploy to survive in insecure urban margins. 3.4. Limitations Despite the depth of ethnographic engagement, the study is not without limitations. First, access to information was constrained by the fluidity of trust. While some participants were open and forthcoming, others remained guarded or selectively disclosed information depending on the perceived risks. Informal economies are built as much on discretion and secrecy as on trust and exchange. Second, the hidden nature of informal land arrangements posed challenges in verifying claims or reconstructing the full genealogy of land access. Many agreements were verbal, undocumented, and based on private social understandings, making systematic triangulation difficult. Finally, the temporal limits of the study must be acknowledged. Trust-based relations, fictive kin ties, and land access arrangements are fluid and evolving; what appeared stable during the research period may shift rapidly under changing economic, social, or political conditions (Cleaver, 2005 ; Meagher, 2010 ). Recognizing these limitations does not diminish the value of the findings but rather situates them within the complex, contested, and dynamic realities of peri-urban migrant life in Zimbabwe. The study thus offers a situated, relational snapshot of how trust, kinship, and land intersect in the margins of urban Africa. 4. Findings: Everyday Transactions and Forms of Land Access The findings from Lydiate reveal a layered and deeply relational economy of land access, where formal tenure systems are largely absent and migrants must navigate complex social terrains to secure both farming and settlement land. Rather than functioning through impersonal markets or codified legal processes, access to land in this peri-urban frontier is governed by everyday transactions embedded in trust, kinship, reciprocity, and convivial relations. These arrangements, ranging from monetary-based rentals to non-monetary exchanges such as caretaking and labor provision, highlight the significance of social embeddedness in shaping informal land governance. Migrants are not merely passive beneficiaries of these systems; they actively forge, maintain, and negotiate access through affective labor, strategic friendships, and moral economies of belonging. This section explores how these informal mechanisms operate in practice, revealing how land is transacted, protected, and legitimized through everyday performances of trust, obligation, and social recognition. Together, these practices constitute a vernacular tenure system; fragile, negotiated, yet vital, that reflects both the creativity and precarity of migrant life on the urban margins of Zimbabwe. Figure 4 provides a typology of land access pathways among migrants in Lydiate. These include monetary rentals, non-monetary arrangements such as caretaking and labor exchange, and relational routes grounded in fictive kinship and religious affiliation. The diagram illustrates how seeking land access is a socially embedded and diversified process, negotiated through both economic exchanges and moral-social affiliations. Rather than a singular strategy, migrants draw on a repertoire of relational and transactional mechanisms that reflect both constraint and creativity in navigating Zimbabwe’s peri-urban margins. 4.1. Rental of Farming Land 4.1.1 Monetary-Based Rentals In the absence of formal land tenure systems, migrants in Lydiate have devised intricate social strategies to gain access to farming land, with monetary-based rental agreements emerging as a significant pathway. These rentals, while involving symbolic cash payments, typically ranging between $ 5 and $ 10 per acre per farming season, are not simple market transactions. Rather, they are deeply embedded in social relations of trust, kinship, and conviviality, underscoring the relational economy that governs land access in peri-urban Zimbabwe (Nyambara, 2014 ; Scoones et al., 2010 ). Unlike formal urban rental markets where price and contract terms dominate, monetary rentals in Lydiate are preceded by the careful cultivation of social relationships. Migrants seeking land must first invest in building trust, often over long periods, through strategic friendships with indigenous Zimbabwean plot owners, many of whom were beneficiaries of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. These friendships are not incidental but intentionally nurtured as mechanisms to secure access to land. The case of Mr. Phiri illustrates this process vividly. Mr. Phiri, a migrant originally from Malawi, recounted the painstaking relationship-building necessary to access a piece of land from an indigenous farm owner, Mr. Mukubvu. He explained: We are surrounded by plots and farms owned by war veterans. If you manage to develop a relationship with the owners, they will allocate you a portion of land for a small fee. I have known one plot owner, Mr. Mukubvu, for some time now. He has now become like a friend and relative, and I have been renting his plot ever since we became friends. For the last farming season, I was paying $ 10 per acre. This testimony demonstrates how land transactions are socially brokered before they are financially transacted. The payment of $ 10 per acre is not sufficient in itself to guarantee land access; it is the social capital embodied in friendship, familiarity, and mutual trust that enables the transaction to take place at all. Further deepening the relationship, Mr. Phiri and Mr. Mukubvu discovered that they share the same totem ( Shumba , meaning “lion”), a culturally significant bond in Zimbabwean society. Mr. Phiri revealed: After I found out that Mr. Mukubvu’s wife shares the same totem as me, we started calling each other in-laws. This made our relationship even stronger. It was no longer just a business deal; it became a family connection. That is how I managed to farm on his land without problems. Here, fictive kinship rituals — in this case, invoking a totemic kin relationship — solidify what would otherwise be a precarious rental arrangement, providing social legitimacy and protection (Stack, 1974; Nyamnjoh, 2017 ). Similarly, the experience of Mr. Kamala offers further insight into the dynamics of monetary-based rentals forged through convivial relations. Mr. Kamala narrated his journey to accessing land as follows: I started knowing Mr. Nhau a long time ago. When he started staying in this area, he did not know anyone, and I was one of the few people who gave him company. We became like brothers, and from then, he allocated me two acres of land in his farm. In return, I appreciate him with $ 10 every farming season. Again, the monetary payment is secondary to the relational labor that Mr. Kamala invested in building fraternity with Mr. Nhau. Notably, Mr. Kamala emphasized: I am among the few that are lucky to be renting land in Mr. Nhau’s plot. He only rents land to a few trusted individuals. For me, renting land is much better than invading unutilized spaces which can be risky. This statement reveals the underlying politics of selectivity and trust: not all migrants have equal access to land even if they can afford the rental fee. Access is contingent upon being perceived as “trusted” and “family-like”, demonstrating the centrality of social embeddedness over pure market logic. Moreover, these monetary-based rental arrangements are often deliberately concealed under the guise of fictive kinship to protect both parties from external scrutiny. As Mr. Phiri confessed: Initially, we didn’t even want to reveal that there was a land deal between us. It was as if we were just helping each other as in-laws. This resonates with findings from Hungwe ( 2014 ) and Marongwe ( 2008 ), who observed that clandestine land transactions among migrants in peri-urban Zimbabwe are frequently disguised under the language of kinship or friendship to avoid legal exposure and to anchor the relationship in socially accepted norms. In sum, monetary-based rentals in Lydiate illustrate a complex entanglement of economic exchange and relational negotiation. While small fees are paid in cash, these transactions are fundamentally sustained by convivial practices, fictive kinship, and trust-based infrastructures (Simone, 2004; Wise & Velayutham, 2014 ). Access to land, therefore, is not simply about the ability to pay but about the ability to belong within locally meaningful social worlds. 4.1.2 Non-Monetary Rentals While monetary-based rentals offer one pathway to land access, many migrants in Lydiate rely on non-monetary rental arrangements, wherein access to farming land is secured through caretaking absentee owners’ plots or providing labor to indigenous landholders. These arrangements highlight the profound role of reciprocity, trust, and convivial labor exchanges in facilitating land access where formal contracts and cash-based markets are either unavailable or socially risky (Cleaver, 2005 ; Ferguson, 1999 ). Caretaking Absentee Owners’ Land One prominent form of non-monetary rental involves caretaking land owned by absentee indigenous Zimbabweans, many of whom are based in urban centers such as Harare or are residing in the diaspora. In these cases, migrants are entrusted to protect and maintain underutilized or idle land in return for rights to farm a portion of it. These arrangements are often informal, verbal, and heavily reliant on long-standing social ties. The case of Mr. Paul Banda exemplifies this dynamic. Mr. Banda, a 65-year-old migrant of Malawian descent, detailed how he and his son Luckson were entrusted with land by Mr. Sibanda, a Fast Track Land Reform beneficiary now living in Harare: We are fortunate because my son and I were allocated a plot for temporary use by Mr. Sibanda. He stays in the capital city and is not using the farm. He trusted us to look after it. In return, we farm two acres for ourselves. We grow maize, sweet potatoes, and groundnuts during the rainy season. Mr. Banda’s account highlights several critical dimensions of these caretaking agreements: they are framed around trust, protection of property rights, and mutual benefit. For the absentee owner, entrusting migrants like Mr. Banda serves as a form of security against land invasions or degradation, while for the migrant, it provides a lifeline to livelihood through farming. Similarly, Mr. Trymore Baloyi, a 40-year-old migrant, recounted his experience as a caretaker: “I was fortunate to meet Mr. Badza who owns an agro-residential plot next to our compound. I met him through a friend. Now I am a caretaker of his plot. In return, he gives me a small salary and allows me to farm. We grow maize and vegetables.” Baloyi’s story adds an additional layer: in some cases, caretaking comes with modest monetary compensation, but the primary reward is still access to productive land. His relationship with Mr. Badza was mediated through another fictive kinship connection — his friend Lazarus — illustrating again how social networks operate as critical conduits to land access (Bourdieu, 1986; Stack, 1974). In both cases, caretaking arrangements represent a relational form of land governance, where absentee owners and migrant caretakers co-produce tenure security in ways that are flexible, adaptive, and deeply embedded in everyday social life. Providing Labour in Exchange for Farming Land Another variant of non-monetary rental involves providing agricultural labor to indigenous landowners in exchange for a portion of land for personal cultivation. These arrangements mirror what Daimon ( 2015 ) describes as “land-labour rents” in Zimbabwe’s post-reform agrarian landscape, where access to land is secured through services rather than cash. The case of Leticia Kalaulau exemplifies how migrants negotiate labor-based land access. A 49-year-old woman of Malawian descent, Leticia shared: I was born on a farm in Mazowe. We moved here in 1981. Life was tough after land reform. But I met Mrs. Gapara at the nearby shopping center. She runs a greenhouse. I started helping her with tasks, and eventually she allowed my family and me to farm on a portion of her land. We now have about an acre where we plant maize and sweet potatoes. Leticia’s case reveals how labor exchanges are often initiated through informal, opportunistic encounters and evolve into longer-term reciprocal relationships. Her labor, initially casual, became a currency of trust and obligation, leading to access to vital farming land. This reflects Cleaver’s ( 2005 ) insight that in marginalized settings, resource access is often “negotiated through the channels of daily life” rather than through formalized contracts. Further, labor-based rentals often blur the lines between employment, kinship, and tenancy. Leticia explained: Mrs. Gapara treats me like family now. Sometimes she even helps us with seeds or fertilizers for our plot. This statement highlights the emergence of fictive kinship bonds that reinforce and stabilize these otherwise precarious land access arrangements (Bouquet, 1996 ; Stack, 1974). A similar arrangement was observed with Mr. Thomas Kachire and his son Jairos, who worked for Mr. Jena, an A2 farm owner. Thomas described: There is no money involved. But whenever Mr. Jena needs help, my son and I go and assist him with farming work. In return, he lets us use a hectare of land. Life is better now because we no longer have to buy maize meal. Again, trust, loyalty, and labor reciprocity replace monetary payment, building a form of vernacular tenure security through ongoing social performance (Meagher, 2010 ). Non-monetary rental arrangements in Lydiate thus illustrate a complex political economy of trust, labor, and care. Migrants leverage their labor and social ties to craft access to land in contexts where legal tenure is unavailable. As Hammar ( 2017 ) argues, in Zimbabwe’s post-land reform peri-urban frontiers, migrants “forge emplacement” through everyday, situated practices rather than through formal legal processes. However, these arrangements are highly contingent. Access to land through caretaking or labor is conditional on continued loyalty, performance, and the maintenance of trust relations. As Ferguson ( 1999 ) reminds us, in informal systems, trust must be continuously performed and reaffirmed, and any breakdown in relations can result in immediate loss of access. Thus, non-monetary rentals in Lydiate reflect both the creativity and the precarity of migrant land strategies: resourceful, relational, and negotiated, yet always fragile and subject to renegotiation. 4.2 Rental of Settlement Land Beyond farming land, migrants in Lydiate have also developed informal strategies to access residential land and housing, largely through settlement rental agreements based on caretaking absentee owners’ homesteads. These arrangements mirror the broader relational infrastructure observed in farming land rentals but are uniquely shaped by the need for ongoing presence, stewardship, and protection of property in a context of high vulnerability to land disputes, theft, and squatting (Hammar, 2017 ; Potts, 2011 ). 4.2.1 Lodging Agreements Based on Caretaking Absentee Owners’ Homesteads In Lydiate, settlement rental often involves a caretaking model, whereby migrants occupy and look after a homestead on behalf of an absentee owner in exchange for residence rights. These agreements are usually verbal, trust-based, and relational, rather than transactional or formalized through legal contracts. The experience of Luckson Machakwa, a 27-year-old migrant, provides a clear example. Luckson initially lived with his parents before seeking independence. His access to settlement land came through an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Nguguya, who had relocated to Norton Town. Luckson explained: I am a lodger here. The owner of this homestead was born and grew up in this compound — mwana wemuno [child of this place]. He is currently staying in Norton town with his family. It’s like I am a lodger, but I do not pay any money. The owners just want me to take good care of their land and homestead. This account highlights several key dynamics. First, Luckson’s right to reside is not founded on monetary rent, but on his willingness and ability to perform caretaking responsibilities. Second, the relationship is framed in familial and localist terms, invoking notions of shared community origin “mwana wemuno” rather than formal tenancy. Finally, the arrangement is deeply embedded in relational trust: his caretaking role protects the property from invasion or deterioration, serving the absentee owners’ interests while also meeting his own need for shelter. Similarly, Thomas and Gilbert Dhairesi, two brothers, secured residence through a comparable arrangement. They were entrusted with the care of a homestead owned by Mr. Kalembe, who had moved to a farm in Chegutu. Their relationship with Mr. Kalembe was cemented through shared religious affiliation — all three being members of the Johane Masowe Church. Thomas recounted: Madzibaba Kalembe is like a father to us. He is a well-respected man at our Johane Masowe Church. He gives us life advice and intercedes for us. Currently, he is away in Chegutu, and he has made us custodians of his property. This testimony reveals how fictive kinship and religious ties serve as crucial social currencies in establishing settlement arrangements. Calling Mr. Kalembe “like a father” situates the relationship within a moral economy of kinship and obligation (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, 1996 ), which is vital in contexts where formal legal claims to property are tenuous or absent. Moreover, the Dhairesi brothers’ role is not just about occupancy; it involves stewardship and defense of Mr. Kalembe’s land against possible illegal takeovers — a risk that remains high in peri-urban Zimbabwean settlements where land rights are informally recognized and weakly protected (Marongwe, 2008 ; Hammar, 2017 ). As Thomas emphasized: We know this place is vulnerable. If you leave a house empty, others can seize it. Madzibaba Kalembe trusts us to keep his place safe until he comes back. Thus, the arrangement reflects a mutual but asymmetrical relationship: the absentee owner benefits from property security, while the caretakers benefit from access to housing and a degree of social legitimacy within the community. Settlement rental arrangements in Lydiate are thus deeply relational and performative rather than strictly financial. Migrants must demonstrate trustworthiness, loyalty, and relational competence to secure and maintain access to homesteads. As Simone (2004) and Ferguson ( 1999 ) have argued, in informal urban systems, people themselves constitute the infrastructure through which resources like land and housing are allocated, protected, and reproduced. Importantly, these lodging agreements are not static; they are continuously negotiated and contingent on maintaining good relations. A failure in caretaking duties, a breakdown of trust, or a shift in the absentee owner’s circumstances (such as returning to the settlement) can quickly lead to eviction or displacement — illustrating the fragility and conditionality of informal settlement rights (Cleaver, 2005 ; Nyamnjoh, 2025 ). Furthermore, while these arrangements provide crucial access to shelter, they also reinforce certain hierarchies and dependencies. Migrants’ right to remain often hinges on subordinate roles as stewards rather than as autonomous owners or renters, limiting their ability to claim full belonging or permanence in the settlement. Table 2 summarizes the key forms of land access transactions identified in Lydiate, highlighting how different social mechanisms underpin monetary, caretaking, and labor-based arrangements among migrants. Table 2 Typology of Land Access Transactions in Lydiate Form of Transaction Basis of Agreement Key Social Mechanisms Example Participants Risk Factors Monetary-based Rentals Verbal agreements, symbolic fees ( $ 5– $ 10/acre) Trust, friendship, fictive kinship (totemic links) Mr. Phiri, Mr. Kamala Breakdown in trust, unilateral eviction Caretaking (Absentee Owners) Stewardship of idle land/homesteads Trust, relational loyalty, social responsibility Paul Banda, Luckson Machakwa, Thomas Dhairesi Owner returning, trust deterioration Labour-based Land Rentals Agricultural labour in exchange for land access Reciprocity, convivial labour, mutual benefit Leticia Kalaulau, Thomas Kachire Labor disputes, shifts in landowner priorities Figure 5 visualizes the constellation of relational actors and intermediaries that structure migrants’ access to land in Lydiate. Migrants mobilize different strategies — from fictive kinship with indigenous landowners, to caretaking labor for absentee owners, to leveraging ties with religious leaders — to gain access and legitimacy within the settlement. These relationships are mediated through broader community networks, embedded in norms of trust, social recognition, and reputational value. The diagram also highlights the role of caretakers and religious figures as key access brokers who negotiate land use on behalf of, or in relationship with, absentee and indigenous landholders. Together, these actors form a decentralized governance network that underpins everyday land transactions in the absence of formal tenure systems. 5. Making Kinship: The Social Logics Behind Land Transactions The previous section outlined the diverse practices through which migrants access land in Lydiate; this section delves into the underlying social logics that make such transactions possible. In a context where formal legal tenure is largely absent, migrants rely on dense webs of sociality—particularly fictive kinship, trust, and relational obligation—to negotiate belonging and access. These are not merely cultural residues but deliberate, strategic practices that constitute alternative infrastructures of tenure. Here, land is not simply transacted; it is relationally brokered, morally legitimized, and socially sustained. This section unpacks how kinship scripts, trust-based agreements, and the ongoing performance of loyalty and respect become the invisible scaffolding through which land governance unfolds in the margins of urban Zimbabwe. 5.1. Forging Fictive Kinship In the absence of formal land rights, peri-urban migrants in Lydiate mobilize fictive kinship as a critical social strategy to access farming and settlement land. Fictive kinship, the deliberate construction of kin-like ties outside of blood or marriage, enables migrants to insert themselves into relational networks that confer access to resources, protection, and social legitimacy (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, 1996 ). Rather than being a residual or secondary form of relationship, fictive kinship in Lydiate is a central, active process in the negotiation of land transactions. Table 3 outlines the varied dimensions and specific expressions of fictive kinship employed by migrants to secure land, underscoring how these socially validated ties facilitate access and relational legitimacy. Table 3 Dimensions and Expressions of Fictive Kinship Kinship Type Social Relationship Mechanism of Validation Material Benefits Participants Totemic Kinship Shared totems (Shumba) Ritualized language, social recognition Rental of farmland, protective claims Mr. Phiri Religious Kinship Church-based brotherhood (Johane Masowe) Spiritual leadership, moral obligation Housing, stewardship rights Thomas Dhairesi, Gilbert Dhairesi Friendship-based Kinship Sahwira (brotherhood) Mutual support, historical relational investment Farmland rental, community inclusion Mr. Kamala Migrants are often “adopted” as sahwira (close friend), brother, or in-law by indigenous landowners or established residents, thus embedding themselves in relational systems that facilitate land access. As Carol Stack (1974) famously demonstrated in her study of African American communities, such adoptions are not sentimental; they are strategic acts of survival, establishing social obligations that can be called upon in times of need. The case of Mr. Phiri provides a clear example. After years of nurturing a friendship with Mr. Mukubvu, a local landowner, Mr. Phiri discovered a shared totem affiliation ( Shumba , or lion) with Mr. Mukubvu’s wife, a significant cultural marker in Shona society. Mr. Phiri described how this discovery transformed their relationship: After I found out that Mr. Mukubvu’s wife shares the same totem as me, we started calling each other in-laws. This made our relationship even stronger. It was no longer just about friendship; we became family. Here, invoking totemic kinship allowed Mr. Phiri to reframe an economic rental agreement as a moral and familial obligation. Totems, long recognized in Zimbabwean culture as structuring rules of marriage, alliance, and social respect (Bourdillon, 1987 ), are repurposed in Lydiate as tools of land negotiation and access. Similarly, religious affiliation emerges as a potent mechanism for forging fictive kinship. Thomas Dhairesi explained his relationship with Mr. Kalembe, an absentee landowner and respected elder in the Johane Masowe Church: Madzibaba Kalembe is like a father to us. At church, he gives us guidance. When he moved away, he left us in charge of his homestead because he trusted us as his children in faith. Religious fellowship thus extends beyond spiritual domains into tangible material transactions, with church-based fictive kinship providing a framework for property stewardship and residence. This finding aligns with Ebaugh and Curry’s ( 2000 ) analysis of religiously mediated fictive kinship, where rituals and shared beliefs create bonds that mirror familial obligations. Moreover, long-term neighborhood friendships, often cultivated through shared histories of migration, work, and hardship, also underpin kin-like relationships that enable land access. Mr. Kamala narrated how his friendship with Mr. Nhau developed: When Mr. Nhau moved to this area, he didn’t know anyone. I was one of the first to befriend him. Over time, we became like brothers. That’s how I got two acres of land to farm. In this context, being a “brother” is not a biological fact but a social accomplishment, built through the everyday practices of support, loyalty, and conviviality (Wise & Velayutham, 2014 ; Simone, 2004). These relational investments eventually translate into material entitlements, such as farming plots or residential spaces. Importantly, the performance of kinship is ongoing. Migrants must continuously reaffirm their loyalty, respect social norms, and fulfill obligations, whether through small gifts, labor assistance, or social deference, to sustain their fictive kin relationships. As Mr. Phiri put it: You don’t just get land and relax. You have to keep the relationship strong. Visit them. Help if there’s a funeral. Show that you are family. This demonstrates that fictive kinship in Lydiate is not static but dynamic and performative, requiring constant maintenance and renewal. As Cleaver ( 2005 ) notes in her analysis of institutional bricolage, access to resources in marginalized communities often depends not on static rules or rights but on the ongoing performance of relational belonging. The forging of fictive kinship in Lydiate challenges dominant narratives that frame land transactions solely in terms of markets, law, or state-driven allocations. Instead, migrants create alternative moral economies where land access is mediated by kinship scripts, religious alliances, and reciprocal obligations. Yet, as with monetary and non-monetary rentals, fictive kinship relations are fragile and contingent. Failure to uphold the relational expectations embedded in these ties can result in exclusion, eviction, or loss of access. Thus, while fictive kinship opens doors to land, it also entrenches hierarchies and conditional forms of belonging, reinforcing the precarity that defines migrant life in peri-urban Zimbabwe. Ultimately, the social logics of forging kinship illustrate how migrants rework cultural repertoires — such as totemism, religious brotherhood, and sahwira friendships — to carve spaces of survival and belonging in otherwise exclusionary urban margins. These practices reflect not a nostalgic retreat to tradition, but a creative, tactical reassembly of social forms to meet the demands of contemporary urban life. 5.2. Trust as Infrastructure In the absence of formal legal contracts, land surveys, and enforceable property rights, trust emerges as a critical infrastructure through which peri-urban migrants in Lydiate negotiate and sustain access to farming and settlement land. As AbdouMaliq Simone (2004) and James Ferguson ( 1999 ) have argued, in many African urban margins, people do not merely rely on formal state structures to secure livelihoods; instead, they build and sustain their own relational infrastructures, where trust, reputation, and mutual obligation substitute for institutional guarantees. Table 4 details the governance functions served by trust-based systems in Lydiate, illustrating how trust operates as an informal infrastructure regulating land allocation, conflict resolution, and tenure security. Table 4 Trust as Infrastructure—Governance Functions Function of Trust Operational Example Social Enforcement Potential Vulnerabilities Land Allocation Verbal land agreements Community reputation, verbal commitment Arbitrary land repossession Conflict Resolution Community-based mediation, gossip Social sanctions, reputation management Unequal negotiation power Tenure Security Continuous relational performance (e.g., caretaking duties, labor) Ongoing social trust, relational loyalty Fragility if relations deteriorate In Lydiate, almost all land rental, caretaking, and settlement agreements are sealed through verbal understandings rather than written contracts. These verbal agreements, though legally unenforceable in a formal sense, carry profound moral weight, binding both parties through social expectations and relational accountability. As one migrant, Mr. Phiri, emphasized: Here, the farm owners just trust us. They do not want any witnesses or written agreement when they enter into rental contracts. We make a verbal agreement without any witnesses present, but once you give your word, it is as strong as any paper. This underscores that the performative act of giving one’s word, embedded within a web of social relations, functions as a binding contract in everyday practice. In line with Ferguson’s ( 1999 ) analysis of informal economies, where trust must be continually produced and reaffirmed, the moral obligation to honor one’s verbal commitments becomes the principal safeguard against conflict and dispossession. Similarly, Thomas Kachire, who accessed land through a labor-based exchange with an A2 farm owner, described the relational basis of his land tenure: There is no paper signed. Just trust. If Mr. Jena needs help, I go. If I keep the trust, I keep the land. Here, trust is not a static asset but an ongoing process of relational performance. It must be reaffirmed through acts of labor, loyalty, and social deference. In this sense, migrants’ access to land is not secured once and for all but is continually negotiated through everyday practices of trustworthiness. Importantly, trust in Lydiate is not purely interpersonal; it is also embedded in broader communal moral economies. Many migrants emphasized the role of community gossip, surveillance, and reputation in maintaining the integrity of verbal agreements. As Mr. Banda, who caretakes an absentee owner’s land, explained: If you break a promise here, the whole community will know. Your name will be damaged. No one will trust you again. You will not get land or help. Thus, the enforcement of verbal contracts relies not only on personal morality but also on social sanctions and collective memory. In this way, trust operates as a decentralized, informal governance mechanism, enabling resource allocation and conflict resolution without recourse to state courts or formal legal systems (Meagher, 2010 ). Moreover, trust-based transactions are not entirely egalitarian or unproblematic. They often reflect power asymmetries, with landowners wielding greater leverage over migrants whose access is contingent on ongoing deference and relational compliance. As one informant, Mrs. Dzimbiri, lamented after losing her farming plot: At first, they trust you. But when they want the land back, they just say, ‘We no longer need you.’ There is nothing you can do, because there is no paper. This quotation highlights the precariousness of trust-based tenure: while trust enables initial access, it does not guarantee permanence or protection against arbitrary withdrawal of rights. This resonates with Cleaver’s ( 2005 ) insight that informal governance systems, while flexible and accessible, are often unstable and contingent, particularly for the more vulnerable actors. Viewing trust as a form of infrastructure shifts the analytical gaze away from binaries of “formal” versus “informal” legality. Instead, it highlights how social relationships themselves constitute binding frameworks that enable land transactions, regulate behavior, and allocate scarce resources in contexts of institutional fragility (Simone, 2004; Thebe and Rakotje, 2013 ). However, this infrastructure is highly relational, conditional, and uneven. While it allows migrants to survive and navigate land scarcity, it also exposes them to significant risks of dispossession, exclusion, and exploitation. Trust, in this setting, is both a currency and a vulnerability — enabling access while simultaneously embedding migrants within fragile and asymmetrical systems of relational dependency. 5.3. Fragility of Transactions While conviviality, fictive kinship, and trust-based relationships have enabled migrants in Lydiate to access farming and settlement land, these arrangements are fundamentally fragile and contingent. Access to land, in the absence of formal legal protection, is always precarious — dependent on the continued maintenance of trust, relational loyalty, and the goodwill of landowners. As many scholars have argued, informal urban systems, while adaptive and flexible, are also marked by instability, contestation, and vulnerability (Ferguson, 1999 ; Cleaver, 2005 ; Simone, 2004). Table 5 presents key indicators illustrating the inherent fragility of informal land transactions, demonstrating how relational breakdowns, economic opportunism, and asymmetrical power dynamics heighten migrants' vulnerability. Table 5 Fragility Indicators of Informal Land Transactions Indicator of Fragility Manifestations Example Cases Consequences for Migrants Relational Breakdown Disputes, mistrust, withdrawal of verbal agreements Mr. Mollen Jaji, Mrs. Dzimbiri Eviction, loss of land investments Economic Opportunism Land reclaimed after migrants make improvements Mr. Jaji’s garden fence scenario Financial loss, dispossession Social Hierarchy and Power Landowners unilaterally ending arrangements Mr. Nhau reclaiming land without notice Increased precarity, displacement risk The fragility of trust-based land transactions is starkly illustrated in cases where land access was unilaterally revoked by indigenous landowners once relationships deteriorated or landowners’ interests shifted. As Mr. Mollen Jaji, a migrant who lost access to his rented garden plot, recounted: “I rented a portion of land from Mr. Nhau. I fenced the garden, planted vegetables, tomatoes, and beans. The garden flourished. But when it became productive, he took it over from me without refunding anything. The fence and everything I had invested stayed. We were never really in good books with him.” Mr. Jaji’s experience reveals several critical dynamics. First, trust relationships are deeply personalized and subjective; if relational bonds are weak or fraught, migrants are at heightened risk of dispossession. Second, improvements made to land by migrants — fencing, planting, soil enhancement — are not legally protected, meaning that any infrastructural investments can be appropriated without compensation. As observed by Marongwe ( 2008 ) in peri-urban Zimbabwe, migrants’ land tenure remains at the mercy of property owners’ shifting perceptions and desires, underscoring the insecurity woven into everyday land transactions. Similarly, Mrs. Dzimbiri, another Lydiate migrant, recounted her eviction: We used to rent farming land from Mr. Mukubvu and Mr. Nhau, paying $ 10 every season. But last season they refused to renew the rentals, claiming they wanted to use the land themselves. Yet when you pass by, you see the land still idle. Her experience exposes the selective and strategic deployment of land claims by landowners: the assertion that land would be used for personal farming was not necessarily honored. Instead, such claims can mask social repositioning, a desire to exclude migrants once they are perceived as either successful, too independent, or politically risky. As Nyamnjoh ( 2017 ) argues, belonging in African urban margins is highly negotiated and can easily be withdrawn, reflecting the “incompleteness” and “contingency” of migrant emplacement. Moreover, these instances illustrate the limits of conviviality. While conviviality enables coexistence and negotiated access under conditions of scarcity, it does not eliminate asymmetries of power, strategic exclusion, or the latent threat of rupture (Wise & Velayutham, 2014 ). In Lydiate, the social bonds forged through fictive kinship or trust-based rentals are strong enough to create provisional access to land, but not strong enough to guarantee permanence or protect against arbitrary displacement. As Thomas Kachire reflected with concern: Here, you have land today because you are in good books with the owner. If tomorrow you offend him or he changes his mind, you lose everything. There’s nothing binding except trust. Trust, then, while essential, is an inherently fragile infrastructure. It is constantly vulnerable to disruption — through disputes, gossip, perceived disloyalty, or the landowner’s changing personal or economic circumstances. In the absence of written contracts or formal tenancy rights, migrants have limited recourse once their access is revoked. Further, the fragility of these arrangements produces anxiety and constant relational labor. Migrants must continuously perform respect, loyalty, and relational maintenance, often at the cost of their autonomy. As Leticia Kalaulau put it: You must always behave. Show you are grateful. Help when they call you. Even if you are tired. That is how you keep the land. This quotation captures the emotional and physical labor migrants invest to sustain access to land under conditions of structural vulnerability. Figure 6 illustrates the conditional and cyclical nature of land access in Lydiate’s informal tenure system. Initial access to land is typically mediated by a trust-based agreement, which must be continually maintained through displays of loyalty, labor contributions, and ritual performance. However, access remains highly contingent; a breakdown in these social relations can quickly lead to dispossession or eviction. Conversely, sustained positive relationships enable stable occupation and opportunities for renewed trust. This diagram emphasizes the fragile equilibrium that governs migrant tenure in informal peri-urban Zimbabwe, where security is never guaranteed but constantly renegotiated. Overall, the cases from Lydiate reveal that while trust and conviviality facilitate access, they do not insulate migrants from dispossession or exploitation. As Ferguson ( 1999 ) and Cleaver ( 2005 ) argue, informal governance systems reproduce their own forms of hierarchy and instability, often reflecting and reinforcing broader structural inequalities. Thus, conviviality should be understood not as a utopian condition of harmonious coexistence but as a pragmatic, tactical survival strategy, always subject to the pressures of shifting social dynamics, economic opportunism, and political change. As Hammar ( 2017 ) emphasizes in the Zimbabwean context, urban and peri-urban displacement is not a singular rupture but an ongoing risk — a constant specter that shapes everyday practices of emplacement, negotiation, and belonging. This fragility of land transactions in Lydiate demonstrates the ambivalent nature of migrant survival strategies: creatively adaptive yet deeply precarious, enabling temporary inclusion while exposing migrants to new vulnerabilities. Understanding this fragility is critical to appreciating the contested and dynamic geographies of belonging that characterize Zimbabwe’s peri-urban frontiers. 6. Discussion: Rethinking Land, Belonging, and Urban Governance 6.1. Migrants as Active Urban Agents The cases from Lydiate fundamentally challenge dominant representations of migrants in urban and peri-urban Africa as passive victims of displacement, waiting for state intervention or legal recognition to secure livelihoods. Instead, the empirical evidence underscores that migrants are active agents, creatively and strategically forging land access, social belonging, and forms of everyday citizenship through relational practices, trust-building, and the tactical use of cultural repertoires. As Francis Nyamnjoh ( 2017 ) has argued, African migrants engage in “incomplete movements” that are characterized by improvisation, adaptation, and continuous negotiation of space and rights. Rather than seeking full incorporation into the formal state apparatus, migrants construct vernacular citizenships — forms of belonging grounded in everyday social practices rather than legal documentation. In Lydiate, migrants do not rely on formal land markets or legal titles. Instead, they forge fictive kinship ties, lodge verbal rental agreements based on trust, and perform loyalty and obligation as strategies to anchor themselves within precarious urban margins. The field data show that acts such as becoming a sahwira (friend), claiming totemic kinship, or serving as a homestead caretaker are not merely acts of survival but are productive of urban life and belonging. Migrants proactively create access to land, housing, and social networks, thus reconstituting urban space from below. As AbdouMaliq Simone (2004) reminds us, everyday actions — mundane, improvised, relational — are the real “infrastructure” of urban life in African cities. Moreover, these practices reveal agency under conditions of profound constraint. Migrants in Lydiate are not simply reacting to exclusion from formal structures; they are actively reshaping the social and spatial logics of peri-urban Zimbabwe. They establish provisional rights to land, craft obligations of protection and stewardship, and embed themselves within communities through religious, social, and kinship affiliations. In doing so, they contest the dominant spatial imaginaries that render them invisible or illegitimate within urban governance discourses (Watson, 2009 ). Thus, migrants in Lydiate exemplify the broader pattern across African cities where urban citizenship is performed and negotiated daily, rather than conferred once and for all through state recognition (Hammar, 2017 ; Landau, 2014 ). Their practices of relational emplacement demonstrate that belonging in the city is made, contested, and remade through everyday social labor, not merely through formal documents or bureaucratic inclusion. Table 6 summarizes key relational practices migrants actively deploy to construct forms of urban citizenship and belonging in Lydiate, highlighting their strategic agency under conditions of marginalization. Table 5 Relational Practices and Urban Citizenship in Lydiate Type of Practice Example Actions Urban Citizenship Outcomes Migrant Participants Fictive Kinship Formation Totemic rituals, religious brotherhood, sahwira bonds Social legitimacy, access to land Mr. Phiri, Thomas Dhairesi Trust-Building Activities Labor reciprocity, consistent caretaking Provisional tenure, relational belonging Leticia Kalaulau, Luckson Machakwa Performative Loyalty Participating in communal activities, demonstrating gratitude Ongoing tenure security, social recognition Multiple participants 6.2. Informality as Governance The findings from Lydiate also demand a fundamental rethinking of how informality is understood within urban governance debates. Rather than viewing informal, trust-based land systems as failures or deviations from idealized formal models, it is more accurate — and more productive — to see them as adaptive governance systems in their own right (Meagher, 2010 ; Simone, 2004). As the Lydiate case illustrates, informality is not a symptom of governance absence. Instead, it reflects alternative forms of social regulation, moral economy, and negotiated authority. Trust, fictive kinship, verbal contracts, and everyday performances of loyalty together constitute a dynamic and functional governance system that allocates land, regulates behavior, and resolves disputes outside the purview of the state (Cleaver, 2005 ; Thebe & Rakotje, 2013 ). These informal governance mechanisms are often more responsive, flexible, and socially embedded than formal legal systems, particularly in contexts where state institutions are perceived as corrupt, inaccessible, or indifferent to migrant needs (Potts, 2011 ; Rakodi, 2006). For example, in Lydiate, social sanctions — such as reputational damage or exclusion from fictive kin networks — often function more effectively to enforce verbal land agreements than would fragile or non-existent legal enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, informal governance through trust and kinship adapts to the fluid, precarious realities of peri-urban life. It allows for rapid renegotiation of land access, redistribution of plots based on shifting social ties, and protection of land through delegated stewardship — practices that would be cumbersome or impossible under rigid, formalized land regimes. As Simone ( 2010 ) has argued, African urbanism is marked not by the absence of order but by the presence of flexible, relational, and negotiated forms of order. However, recognizing the value of informal governance should not romanticize its limitations. As the empirical cases show, informal systems are also hierarchical, exclusionary, and fragile. Migrants’ land tenure security remains highly contingent, constantly at risk of rupture if trust is lost or kinship bonds fray. Informality provides paths to access but not always to durable rights or full urban citizenship (Ferguson, 2006; Hammar, 2017 ). Critically, then, urban governance scholarship and policy must move beyond simple binaries of “formal versus informal” and recognize the hybrid and relational nature of governance in African cities. Informality is not the absence of governance; it is governance differently organized, grounded in trust, relational labor, and negotiated claims rather than legal codes alone. Understanding informality as governance opens up new possibilities for designing more inclusive, responsive, and contextually grounded urban policies, ones that recognize and engage with — rather than attempt to eradicate — the vibrant relational infrastructures already sustaining urban life at the margins (Watson, 2009 ; Satterthwaite & Mitlin, 2014 ). Figure 7 illustrates a refined conceptual framework that visualizes how migrant agency in peri-urban Zimbabwe is embedded within relational systems of social infrastructure. Conviviality and fictive kinship, alongside trust infrastructures, form the foundational mechanisms enabling informal governance practices such as verbal contracts, caretaking, and labor exchange. These in turn structure land access strategies — both monetary and non-monetary — culminating in outcomes of provisional tenure, social recognition, and precarity. The diagram foregrounds the dynamic interplay between migrant creativity and the fragility of social ties, capturing how exclusion, hierarchy, trust breakdown, and risk constantly shape and reshape belonging. Feedback loops reflect how migrants adapt their strategies, evolve kinship or trust networks, and continuously re-negotiate access under precarious conditions. This conceptualization moves beyond static legalistic models of governance to emphasize the performative, adaptive, and socially negotiated character of land access and urban emplacement in African informal settlements. 6.3. Challenging Formalization Narratives The findings from Lydiate also invite a fundamental critique of dominant narratives around land tenure formalization. The formalization thesis posits that secure property rights — backed by legal titles and state-recognized documentation — are essential for unlocking economic development, urban inclusion, and citizen empowerment in the Global South. According to this view, informality is framed as a barrier to prosperity, and titling is seen as the magic bullet for integrating marginalized populations into the formal economy. However, the everyday land practices of migrants in Lydiate directly challenge these assumptions. Rather than passively awaiting formal titles or state recognition, migrants have built complex, functional systems of land access based on trust, fictive kinship, religious affiliation, and verbal contracts. Their ability to access, hold, and make productive use of land is not dependent on formal documentation, but on dense relational work and social negotiation (Simone, 2004; Cleaver, 2005 ). As Mr. Phiri explained when reflecting on his rental arrangement: “There is no paper signed. Just trust. You keep your word. That is stronger than a letter from town council.” Such testimonies reveal that relational infrastructures, not legalistic bureaucracies, sustain land security and social belonging in everyday practice. As scholars such as Barry and Meinzen-Dick ( 2008 ) and Cleaver ( 2005 ) have argued, formal titles do not automatically deliver security if they are detached from local social realities, trust networks, and moral economies. In many cases, formalization efforts have disrupted existing customary or negotiated systems, leading to new conflicts, exclusions, and inequalities. In Lydiate, formalization would likely not have resolved migrants’ vulnerabilities. Instead, it may have frozen flexible arrangements, privileged powerful landowners, and excluded those unable to navigate costly, bureaucratic titling processes (Durand-Lasserve & Royston, 2002 ; Rakodi, 2006). The critical relational work migrants perform; forging fictive kinship, building trust, maintaining loyalty, is invisible within formalization frameworks yet fundamental to their survival. Moreover, the relational strategies migrants use are not just coping mechanisms but creative acts of citizenship-making (Nyamnjoh, 2025 ; Hammar, 2017 ). They demonstrate that access to land, and by extension to urban life, is being reconstituted from below in ways that are adaptive, socially meaningful, and embedded in local conditions — precisely the dynamics ignored by simplistic calls for titling. Thus, formalization narratives, while appealing in their clarity, often fail to capture the messy, relational, and negotiated nature of urban life at the margins. As the Lydiate cases show, secure tenure is less about paperwork and more about relational embeddedness — an insight that must inform any serious attempts to build inclusive urban futures in Africa. Figure 8 illustrates the continuum of tenure security experienced by migrants in Lydiate, ranging from fragile tenure systems characterized by weak trust, lack of contracts, and limited social embeddedness, to more resilient forms of tenure enabled by strong kinship ties, active religious networks, and reputation-based legitimacy. The diagram demonstrates that tenure security in informal systems is not binary but exists along a spectrum shaped by the depth and quality of social relationships. Rather than viewing informality as uniformly precarious, this continuum approach reveals how relational capital—such as kinship, religious affiliation, and social reputation—can substitute for formal legal protections and enable more durable occupation. Table 7 critically contrasts common assumptions within formalization narratives against observed realities in Lydiate, providing clear policy implications for recognizing and integrating relational and informal governance systems. Table 7 Critique of Formalization Narratives—Comparison with Lydiate Practices Formalization Claims Realities in Lydiate Implications for Policy Secure tenure through titles Secure tenure via trust and relational ties Recognize relational governance systems Reduction of conflict through formal rights Conflict managed via informal community sanctions and relationships Support flexible tenure systems sensitive to local conditions Economic empowerment through documented ownership Economic livelihoods sustained through informal networks and kinship obligations Integrate relational infrastructures in economic policies Figure 9 illustrates the bifurcated policy choices available to local authorities in responding to informal land governance systems. On one path, recognizing trust-based systems and supporting flexible tenure arrangements can lead to more inclusive urban policies that engage with, rather than suppress, the social infrastructures migrants have built. On the other hand, criminalizing informal practices and disrupting existing relational networks risks deepening marginalization and eroding the adaptive mechanisms that currently sustain tenure and belonging. This visualization underscores the urgent need for state responses to be reflexive, context-sensitive, and grounded in the lived realities of informal urban life. 6.4. Conviviality Beyond Harmony The concept of conviviality has often been invoked to celebrate the peaceful cohabitation and mutual tolerance among diverse groups in multicultural urban spaces (Gilroy, 2004 ). However, the experiences of peri-urban migrants in Lydiate demand a more critical reading of conviviality, one that acknowledges its strategic, survivalist, and interest-based nature rather than assuming it is purely harmonious or egalitarian. As the empirical cases show, convivial relationships — whether framed through fictive kinship, sahwira friendships, or religious bonds — are often instrumental and tactical. Migrants forge ties with landowners not out of sentimental attachment, but to access land, shelter, and social protection. These relationships are calculated acts of survival in contexts where legal and political structures exclude them. For example, Mr. Kamala’s description of his relationship with Mr. Nhau reflects this pragmatic orientation: “We became like brothers, but everyone knows: it’s because he trusted me, and I needed the land. If there is no trust, there is no land.” This frank acknowledgment illustrates that conviviality in Lydiate is less about cultural celebration and more about negotiated interest, a form of relational pragmatism essential for survival. As Wise and Velayutham ( 2014 ) argue, conviviality is often fragile, tactical, and imbued with latent tensions. It enables daily cohabitation and resource-sharing but does not eliminate inequalities, power struggles, or the risk of rupture. In Lydiate, convivial ties are enabling but precarious: they offer pathways to land and belonging, but they can be abruptly severed if trust breaks down, interests shift, or conflicts emerge. Mrs. Dzimbiri’s account of losing her farming plot despite years of rental payments captures this precariousness: “We thought we were part of them. But when they no longer needed us, they pushed us away.” Thus, everyday conviviality in Lydiate is both a mode of access and a site of vulnerability. Migrants must continuously perform loyalty, manage social risks, and navigate shifting relational terrains to maintain their precarious foothold on land. Importantly, recognizing the ambivalent nature of conviviality helps move beyond romanticized narratives of multicultural urban harmony. It highlights that survival in marginal urban spaces is often about strategic co-existence, negotiated interdependence, and constant relational work, a complex balancing act that blends cooperation with latent contestation (Simone, 2010 ; Meagher, 2010 ). In this sense, conviviality is not an end-state but an ongoing, unstable process, reflecting both the possibilities and the precarities of urban life at Africa’s evolving peripheries. 7. Conclusion This paper critically examined the everyday practices through which peri-urban migrants in Lydiate, Zimbabwe, access farming and settlement land in the absence of formal rights and state recognition. Through detailed ethnographic analysis, it revealed that migrants do not passively await legal inclusion or state benevolence. Instead, they proactively craft convivial relations, forge fictive kinship ties, and build trust-based social infrastructures that allow them to navigate land scarcity and secure fragile but meaningful claims to space. A key finding is that land access in Lydiate is profoundly relational. It is negotiated not through formal markets, legal contracts, or bureaucratic state processes, but through personalized, trust-based engagements, often mediated by fictive kinship, shared totems, religious affiliations, and long-standing friendships. As the empirical cases of Mr. Phiri, Mr. Kamala, Luckson Machakwa, and others demonstrate, these relational strategies provide pathways to survival and emplacement in contexts of exclusion. However, the analysis also highlights the fragility and conditionality of these arrangements, as access is always vulnerable to breakdowns in trust, shifting social dynamics, and the interests of more powerful landholders. Theoretically, the paper extends existing work on conviviality (Gilroy, 2004 ; Nyamnjoh, 2017 ; Wise & Velayutham, 2014 ) and fictive kinship (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, 1996 ) into new terrain: the negotiation of land rights and urban governance in African peri-urban margins. While much scholarship on conviviality has focused on multicultural coexistence and social cohesion, this study highlights the strategic, survivalist, and often precarious dimensions of convivial practices in contexts of urban marginalization. It demonstrates that conviviality and fictive kinship are not merely social niceties but are critical political and economic tools, enabling migrants to stake claims to land, forge belonging, and craft alternative citizenships beyond the reach of formal structures. Further, the paper proposes the notion of “trust infrastructures” as a useful conceptual innovation for understanding urban governance beyond the state. In Lydiate, trust functions as an informal governance mechanism: regulating land transactions, securing property against encroachment, managing social conflicts, and maintaining fragile tenure security. Recognizing trust as a form of urban infrastructure challenges dominant assumptions that governance must flow from formal legality and institutional frameworks. Instead, it highlights the relational architectures that sustain urban life in contexts of state absence or hostility (Simone, 2004; Meagher, 2010 ). The findings carry important policy implications. Current tendencies by local governments to criminalize informal settlements and dismiss migrant land practices as illegal or chaotic fundamentally misrecognize the adaptive, organized, and socially meaningful nature of these systems. Policymakers need to move beyond simplistic formalization models and instead engage with the realities of relational land governance. This could involve recognizing and supporting trust-based agreements, offering flexible tenure arrangements that accommodate social realities, and designing inclusive urban policies that build upon — rather than disrupt — existing relational infrastructures. Urban interventions must respect the social labor migrants invest in crafting belonging and land security, acknowledging their agency rather than pathologizing their practices. Finally, this study points toward important avenues for further research. Comparative studies across different peri-urban contexts in Zimbabwe and other African countries would deepen understanding of how trust, fictive kinship, and conviviality operate in varied settings. Particularly valuable would be longitudinal research examining how such relational systems evolve, adapt, or disintegrate over time, especially under conditions of economic shocks, political change, or generational shifts. Further investigation into the limits and breakdowns of conviviality: moments of betrayal, exclusion, and conflict, would also enrich theoretical understandings of the precarious balances migrants must navigate in their quest for land, survival, and belonging. In conclusion, the experiences of migrants in Lydiate compel a rethinking of land governance, urban citizenship, and informality in African cities. They reveal that urban life at the margins is not a space of chaos or abandonment, but of creative negotiation, relational resilience, and fragile emplacement. It is through these everyday, tactical, and deeply social practices that marginalized populations forge spaces of life, dignity, and future-making amidst the uncertainties of contemporary urban transformations. Declarations Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Disclaimer: Liability for commissions, omissions and/or views expressed in this paper remains entirely the responsibility of the authors. Funding: The author appreciates the support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (Grant No. 41600690) for funding this research through its ‘Mobility and Sociality in Africa’s Emerging Urban’ Doctoral Fellowship programme. Data availability (data transparency) Some of the data that underlie the findings of this study may be made available upon request from the authors. Informed consent All participants provided written informed consent before inclusion in the study. The process included a clear explanation of the study, potential risks, benefits, and the voluntary nature of participation. Clinical trial number : not applicable. Consent to Publish declaration: not applicable Ethics The research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Zimbabwe. Prior to participation, all participants were duly informed of their rights and responsibilities and provided explicit written consent. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the University of Zimbabwe. Author Contributions Johannes Bhanye - conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, and writing - original draft, review and editing. References Barry, D., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2008, July). The invisible map: Community tenure rights. In 12th Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons . Bhanye, J. (2023). Temporality, Translocality, and Sedentariness: ‘Complex And Varied’Perceptions For The Future Among African Irregular Migrants On The Margins. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Change (pp. 1-21). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Bhanye, J. (2024). Beyond informality:’Nimble peri-urban land transactions’-how migrants on the margins trade, access and hold land for settlement. Discover Global Society , 2 (1), 6. Bhanye, J. I., Dzingirai, V., & Campbell, M. M. (2024). Transactional and Supplementary Strategies for Accessing Land Among Migrants on the Margins: An Ethnographic Study Among Malawian Migrants at Lydiate Informal Settlement, Zimbabwe. In Secondary Cities and Local Governance in Southern Africa (pp. 87-114). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Bhanye, J., Matamanda, A., & Shayamunda, R. (2025). ‘This settlement is just a launch pad to move to better city spaces’: radical sense of place and migration aspirations among youth migrants in the diaspora. Comparative Migration Studies , 13 (1), 2. Bouquet, M. (1996). Family trees and their affinities: the visual imperative of the genealogical diagram. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute , 43-66. Bouquet, M. (1996). Family trees and their affinities: the visual imperative of the genealogical diagram. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute , 43-66. Bourdillon, M. F. (1987). Guns and rain: taking structural analysis too far?. Africa , 57 (2), 263-274. Brown, A. (2015). Claiming the streets: Property rights and legal empowerment in the urban informal economy. World Development , 76 , 238-248. Chekero, T. (2023). Borders and boundaries in daily urban mobility practices of refugees in Cape Town, South Africa. Refugee Survey Quarterly , 42 (3), 361-381. Cleaver, F. (2005). The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. World development , 33 (6), 893-906. Daimon, A. (2015). ’Mabhurandaya’: the Malawian diaspora in Zimbabwe: 1895 to 2008 (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State). Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, L. (Eds.). (2002). Holding their ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries . Earthscan. Ebaugh, H. R., & Curry, M. (2000). Fictive kin as social capital in new immigrant communities. Sociological Perspectives , 43 (2), 189-209. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . University of Chicago press. Ferguson, J. (1999). Expectations of modernity: myths and meanings of urban life on the Zambian Copperbelt (Vol. 57). Univ of California Press. Geyer, H. S., Geyer Jr, H. S., & Du Plessis, D. J. (2013). Migration, geographies of marginality and informality—impacts on upper and lower ends of urban systems in the North and South. European Planning Studies , 21 (3), 411-431. Gilroy, P. (2004). After empire: melancholia or convivial culture?. Hammar, A. (2017). Urban displacement and resettlement in Zimbabwe: The paradoxes of propertied citizenship. African Studies Review , 60 (3), 81-104. Hungwe, E. (2014). Land transactions and rural development policy in the Domboshava peri-urban communal area, Zimbabwe (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch--Stellenbosch University). Johannes, B., Dzingirai, V., & Chirisa, I. (2023). Transnational migrants on the margin: agency, aspirations, and perceptions for the future among Malawian migrants in Zimbabwe’s Norton peri-urban. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of urban and regional futures (pp. 1876-1886). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Landau, L. B. (2014). Urban refugees and IDPs. The Oxford Handbook of refugee and forced migration studies , 1 , 139-150. Mabin, A., Butcher, S., & Bloch, R. (2013). Peripheries, suburbanisms and change in sub-Saharan African cities. Social Dynamics , 39 (2), 167-190. Marongwe, N. (2008). Interrogating Zimbabwe’s fast track land reform and resettlement programme: A focus on beneficiary selection (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape). Marx, C., Royston, L., & LandMark, U. (2007). How the poor access, hold and trade land. Urban Land Markets, Research by Isandla Institute, Stephen Berrisford Consulting with Progressus Research and Development, London (http://www. urbanlandmark. org. za/downloads/OOM_booklet_v5ss. pdf) . Meagher, K. (2010). Identity economics: social networks & the informal economy in Nigeria (Vol. 25). Boydell & Brewer Ltd. Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2014). Sustainable development and cities. In Sustainability the environment and urbanisation (pp. 23-61). Routledge. Moyo, S. (2011). Three decades of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of peasant studies , 38 (3), 493-531. Mushonga, R. H. (2024). Performing conviviality in diverse and precarious urban spaces: everyday experiences of Nigerian migrant entrepreneurs in Downtown, Harare. Urban geography , 45 (2), 161-178. Nyambara, P. S. (2014). State power, land-use planning, and local responses in northwestern Zimbabwe, 1980s-1990s. African Studies Quarterly , 14 (4), 37-60. Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2017). Incompleteness: Frontier Africa and the currency of conviviality. Journal of Asian and African studies , 52 (3), 253-270. Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2025). Reimagining African Scholarship: A Convivial Approach Beyond the Single Story . African Books Collective. O’reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods . Routledge. Pieterse, E. (2011). Grasping the unknowable: coming to grips with African urbanisms. Social dynamics , 37 (1), 5-23. Potts, D. (2011). Making a livelihood in (and beyond) the African city: the experience of Zimbabwe. Africa , 81 (4), 588-605. Rakodi, C. (1997). Global forces, urban change, and urban management in Africa. The urban challenge in Africa: Growth and management of its large cities , 17-73. Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in human geography , 21 (3), 305-320. Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995). The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropology. Current anthropology , 36 (3), 409-440. Scoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, B., Mahenehene, J., Murimbarimba, F., & Sukume, C. (2010). Zimbabwe’s land reform. Myths and Realities . Simone, A. (2010). City life from Jakarta to Dakar: movements at the crossroads . Routledge. Simone, A. (2014). People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in johannesburg (2004). In The people, place, and space reader (pp. 241-246). Routledge. Smit, S., Musango, J. K., Kovacic, Z., & Brent, A. C. (2017). Conceptualising slum in an urban African context. Cities , 62 , 107-119. Stack, C. B. (1997). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community . Basic books. Thebe, V., & F. Rakotje, M. (2013). Land strategies and livelihood dynamics in peri-urban communities: challenges to land and agricultural policy in Lesotho. African Studies , 72 (3), 399-415. Watson, V. (2009). ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away…’: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in planning , 72 (3), 151-193. Wise, A., & Velayutham, S. (2014). Conviviality in everyday multiculturalism: Some brief comparisons between Singapore and Sydney. European journal of cultural studies , 17 (4), 406-430. Wise, A., & Velayutham, S. (2014). Conviviality in everyday multiculturalism: Some brief comparisons between Singapore and Sydney. European journal of cultural studies , 17 (4), 406-430. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6831334","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":472455382,"identity":"dce62f55-2f60-48a4-b5b9-5e1c99196e35","order_by":0,"name":"Johannes Bhanye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Cape Town","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Johannes","middleName":"","lastName":"Bhanye","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-05 17:53:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831334/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831334/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85070423,"identity":"f2c6a61b-199c-4776-b904-8602ea29cf9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:36:47","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":84802,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConceptual Framework: Relational Infrastructures of Survival and Belonging\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/fb091f92b2716a967f6cb64f.png"},{"id":85069214,"identity":"6f60b766-da2a-4313-b66a-b87ed2f48c76","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:28:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1050889,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eArea of Study: Lydiate squatter settlement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: \u003c/em\u003eAuthor\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/743139caae39696141fcfed2.jpeg"},{"id":85069211,"identity":"007f3156-00b6-4692-85f6-162d807767eb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:28:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":352213,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpatial Layout of Lydiate Informal Settlement and Surrounding Land Uses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/af8d6bdba8d48924b0102c8d.jpeg"},{"id":85070424,"identity":"349b2f69-ca4d-40ac-86b5-bfe756079500","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:36:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":187716,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePathways to Land Access in Lydiate’s Informal Settlement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/669aa20878b165d4723db3d6.jpeg"},{"id":85069218,"identity":"f38bfbe1-4038-41b5-ac0d-9cba468a2daa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:28:47","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":268142,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelational Actors and Access Brokers in Migrant Land Negotiations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/c1f8dc2432222df980eabb5f.png"},{"id":85070426,"identity":"6a8c9daf-3b29-4105-a6c7-06279ba558ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:36:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":254091,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Conditional Lifecycle of Informal Land Access in Lydiate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/ec1b931dfd4bd35085bea292.jpeg"},{"id":85072287,"identity":"e438ab67-805a-4d92-a3c8-fc6d5b2e1524","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:52:47","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":544073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocial Infrastructures and the Contingent Governance of Land and Belonging in Peri-Urban Zimbabwe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/f9ac687b7d04563dc802ec39.png"},{"id":85071886,"identity":"5ca7dad8-804b-4d90-8ddb-439706980b43","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:44:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":207598,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContinuum of Tenure Security in Informal Land Access Systems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/40153caa79b15c03f9d49a8e.jpeg"},{"id":85069224,"identity":"fab8793d-8729-4567-a52e-247aada4c550","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-20 15:28:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":256701,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDivergent Pathways of Local Authority Response to Informal Land Governance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/7e8166dd3bf91fbef86ae89e.jpeg"},{"id":98431025,"identity":"ebba36a0-8cea-434f-9516-a8cc26d749bc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:46:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4572381,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6831334/v1/e4ff5874-55be-4b20-8b6c-38620454d6dd.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConviviality, Becoming Kin and Gaining Land: Everyday Transactions of Trust and Survival among Peri-Urban Migrants in Zimbabwe\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe became like brothers,\u0026rsquo; said Mr. Kamala, describing the moment a plot of land in a peri-urban Zimbabwean compound passed into his care. There was no contract, no paperwork; just years of shared hardship, laughter over mealie-meal, and the tacit promise of mutual loyalty. In cities growing beyond planning and policies, this simple act of kin-making carries the weight of governance. It is through such everyday rituals that migrants negotiate access to land and weave themselves into the social and spatial order of the city, beyond the reach of the state. While urban planners speak of formalization and tenure regularization, migrants in these peri-urban margins speak another language entirely; one of \u003cem\u003esahwira\u003c/em\u003e friendships, symbolic kinship, labor exchanges, and trust built over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contexts where formal governance systems are either absent, weak, or exclusionary, migrants often craft alternative modes of accessing land and livelihoods (Bhanye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Geyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Potts, 201; Smit et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). While extensive scholarship explored informal land markets, squatting, and peri-urbanization (Durand-Lasserve \u0026amp; Royston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Rakodi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), there has been less attention to the everyday relational practices like, fictive kinship, trust-building, and convivial negotiation, that underpin these transactions. Much of the existing literature tends to prioritize legal frameworks, market-based approaches, or state-centric narratives of land access, leaving the nuanced social dynamics of migrant survival underexplored (Hammar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Marx \u0026amp; Royston, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYet, in emerging urban margins of African cities, where land titles are often ambiguous and formal property systems poorly entrenched, social relationships themselves become a crucial infrastructure (Mabin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Simone, 2004). Migrants, faced with systemic exclusion from formal land markets and citizenship rights, do not merely wait for state recognition or benevolence. Instead, they actively forge trust networks, fictive kin ties, and strategic convivialities that allow them to access, occupy, and sustain claims to land (Bhanye, 2014). These everyday practices challenge prevailing assumptions that informal land transactions are anarchic or lawless; instead, they reveal structured, negotiated, and socially legitimate pathways to land and belonging (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Nyambara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Against this backdrop, this paper poses two central research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, how do peri-urban migrants in Zimbabwe mobilize social relations to access farming and settlement land?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, how are trust and fictive kinship structured, performed, and maintained within these everyday transactions?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addressing these questions, the paper argues that migrants in peri-urban Zimbabwe survive and establish themselves not through formal tenure systems or state-mediated rights, but through flexible, trust-based, and convivial land transactions. These transactions involve forging new kin-like relations that transcend blood or legal ties, enabling access to farming and settlement spaces otherwise closed off to them. Becoming kin, whether through friendships, shared totems, church affiliations, or neighborhood solidarities, becomes a pragmatic strategy of survival and emplacement. This perspective draws on and extends recent theoretical discussions on conviviality (Gilroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wise \u0026amp; Velayutham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), fictive kinship (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), and informal governance (Simone, 2004; Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). It shows that in contexts of institutional fragility and socio-political exclusion, migrants creatively stitch together social fabrics that serve both material and symbolic needs. At the same time, the paper critically engages the limits of such convivialities, highlighting how trust can be fragile, kinship claims contested, and land access precarious.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paper is organized as follows. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e elaborates the theoretical framework, grounding the analysis in concepts of conviviality, fictive kinship, informal urbanism, and migrant belonging. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e outlines the methodological approach, detailing the ethnographic fieldwork undertaken in the Lydiate peri-urban settlement. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec13\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents empirical findings on how migrants access land through both monetary and non-monetary rental arrangements. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec19\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e explores the social logics underpinning fictive kin-making, trust, and the informal governance of land transactions. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec23\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e situates the findings within broader debates on urban informality, challenging dominant formalization narratives and reflecting on the politics of everyday belonging. Finally, Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec28\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e concludes by summarizing key insights, highlighting contributions to theory, and offering implications for policy and future research. Through this examination, the paper sheds new light on the relational architectures that enable migrants to carve spaces of belonging and survival in Africa\u0026rsquo;s rough urban margins.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Conviviality and Everyday Urbanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of conviviality has become a crucial lens for understanding the ways in which diverse populations coexist, negotiate, and survive within complex urban environments. Paul Gilroy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) popularized the notion in his seminal work \u003cem\u003eAfter Empire\u003c/em\u003e, describing conviviality as the \u0026ldquo;process of cohabitation and interaction\u0026rdquo; that emerges among different groups sharing urban space. For Gilroy, conviviality is not merely about harmonious multiculturalism but about the daily, ordinary negotiations of difference that make collective life possible in deeply unequal cities. He emphasizes that conviviality operates in a space beyond official multicultural policies, focusing instead on everyday, improvised practices of getting along, making do, and surviving amidst systemic inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on Gilroy\u0026rsquo;s insights, Wise and Velayutham (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) argue that conviviality must be understood as a fragile, strategic, and context-dependent practice. In their comparative study of Singapore and Sydney, they highlight that everyday multicultural interactions often mask underlying tensions, inequalities, and power imbalances. They warn against romanticizing conviviality as inherently stable or egalitarian; rather, conviviality is often tactical, pragmatic, and contingent, providing temporary mechanisms for managing diversity and scarcity without necessarily addressing structural injustices. In highly precarious contexts like informal peri-urban spaces of Africa, conviviality thus emerges less as a celebration of difference and more as a means of survival, negotiated through fragile, interest-driven relations (Johannes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis critical reading of conviviality is highly relevant to peri-urban Zimbabwe, where migrants often engage in pragmatic, strategic relations to access scarce resources such as land. In Lydiate, for instance, becoming fictive kin, forging friendships, or affiliating through shared religious practices are not simply expressions of solidarity, but tactical acts of emplacement in environments marked by insecurity and exclusion. Conviviality, in this context, becomes both a social resource and a survival strategy, enabling migrants to create informal claims to land and to secure temporary belonging amidst uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplementing these perspectives, AbdouMaliq Simone (2004) offers the powerful notion of \u0026ldquo;people as infrastructure\u0026rdquo; to describe the informal systems through which urban residents in African cities support and sustain one another in the absence of formal institutional support. According to Simone, people themselves, through networks of exchange, obligation, and shared labor, become the infrastructure that undergirds urban life. This conceptualization is critical for understanding how peri-urban migrants in Lydiate navigate land access: trust-based social ties, fictive kinship arrangements, and labour-based reciprocity constitute a vital infrastructure through which land is allocated, used, and protected. In the absence of legal titles or municipal governance, social relations substitute for cadastral systems, transforming conviviality into a functional, if precarious, system of land governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, by integrating Gilroy\u0026rsquo;s conceptualization of convivial life, Wise and Velayutham\u0026rsquo;s critique of its fragility, and Simone\u0026rsquo;s depiction of people as functional infrastructures, this paper situates the Lydiate migrants\u0026rsquo; land practices within a broader theorization of everyday urbanism. Migrants\u0026rsquo; everyday negotiations of kinship, trust, and access do not merely fill a void left by absent formal institutions; rather, they constitute an alternative mode of urban ordering \u0026mdash; relational, flexible, and adaptive \u0026mdash; that challenges rigid, Eurocentric models of property, governance, and belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding these informal but socially binding land practices through the prism of conviviality and everyday urbanism enables a more nuanced reading of peri-urban Africa, not as a zone of legal failure or chaos, but as a space of creativity, negotiation, and survival. It is within these informal relational webs that new forms of urban life are forged, and where the future of African urbanization must be understood (Pieterse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Simone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent scholarship has further enriched the concept of conviviality by situating it within African epistemologies and everyday improvisation. Francis Nyamnjoh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, advocates for a \u0026ldquo;convivial scholarship\u0026rdquo; rooted in incompleteness, mobility, and relationality. He critiques rigid, bounded forms of knowledge and instead emphasizes \u003cem\u003eepistemic conviviality\u003c/em\u003e \u0026mdash; a way of knowing and being that embraces multiplicity, fluidity, and interdependence. Nyamnjoh\u0026rsquo;s work foregrounds how Africans navigate exclusions not through withdrawal, but by forging inclusive modes of being and knowing, marked by adaptability and improvisation. In contexts like Lydiate, this speaks directly to how migrants build alliances, adapt to precarious urban conditions, and creatively negotiate access to land and belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNyamnjoh\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) conviviality pushes the analytical lens beyond tolerance or cohabitation to a deeper ethical and ontological engagement with interdependence and mutuality \u0026mdash; even when marked by asymmetry or fragility. His idea of being \u0026ldquo;incompletely complete\u0026rdquo; offers a powerful conceptual tool for understanding the ways peri-urban migrants live with uncertainty, forging relational life-worlds not despite precarity, but through it. In this sense, conviviality is not only a social strategy but an ontological condition \u0026mdash; a mode of being-in-common that sustains life in the interstices of formal and informal urban orders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Fictive Kinship and Chosen Socialities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contexts of economic precarity, social exclusion, and mobility, kinship is often strategically constructed beyond blood or marital ties. The concept of fictive kinship; relationships that mimic the solidarity, support, and obligations of kinship without biological or legal connection, has long been recognized as a crucial social resource among marginalized populations. Carol Stack\u0026rsquo;s groundbreaking ethnography, \u003cem\u003eAll Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community\u003c/em\u003e (1974), remains one of the most influential studies illuminating how constructed kinship networks function as mechanisms for survival, stability, and resource sharing among economically marginalized groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing on her fieldwork in an African American urban community, Stack demonstrated that survival was made possible through a network of \u0026ldquo;swap economies\u0026rdquo;, reciprocity, and mutual obligations structured through fictive kin ties. In Stack\u0026rsquo;s analysis, relationships such as \u0026ldquo;play cousins,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;other mothers,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; were not simply sentimental or symbolic gestures. Rather, they represented deliberate, pragmatic social contracts that redistributed scarce resources such as housing, childcare, food, and emotional support. These fictive relations operated with as much moral authority and binding commitment as traditional kin ties, challenging the rigid anthropological distinctions between \u0026ldquo;real\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;constructed\u0026rdquo; families.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStack\u0026rsquo;s insights provide a vital foundation for understanding the practices observed among peri-urban migrants in Zimbabwe. In Lydiate, migrants facing exclusion from formal land tenure regimes similarly forge fictive kinship ties; through friendship, shared histories, religious affiliations, or mutual hardship, to access farming plots and settlement land. Calling someone a \u0026ldquo;brother,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;uncle,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;sister\u0026rdquo; not only reconfigures affective relationships but produces new entitlements and obligations around critical resources like land. These constructed kin relations, much like Stack\u0026rsquo;s observations, become part of a pragmatic moral economy that structures survival in harsh urban margins.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtending Stack\u0026rsquo;s work into the domain of migration and transnational mobility, Mary Bouquet (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) in her study on migrant families in Britain emphasizes how fictive kinship emerges as an adaptive strategy for negotiating both practical and emotional needs in unfamiliar environments. Bouquet shows that for many migrants, formal nuclear family structures are often insufficient or disrupted by displacement, economic instability, or legal precarity. In response, migrants select, forge, and cultivate kin-like relationships with friends, neighbors, co-workers, or religious associates who can provide support networks essential for housing, employment, emotional stability, and social belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theoretical lens is particularly pertinent in the case of Lydiate, where migrants, many of whom are descendants of foreign farm laborers, find themselves disconnected from formal land rights frameworks and often from broader national citizenship narratives (Moyo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Nyamnjoh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In such contexts, becoming kin is not a mere symbolic act but a survival strategy: it enables migrants to broker access to land, to forge claims to place, and to embed themselves within the fragmented social landscapes of peri-urban Zimbabwe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically, however, as both Stack and Bouquet suggest, fictive kinship is not always uniformly stable or egalitarian. The construction of kin can be strategic, hierarchical, and fragile. In Lydiate, as this paper will later demonstrate, the durability of land access through fictive kinship often depends on the maintenance of good relations, mutual benefit, and the avoidance of conflict. When trust fractures, due to disputes, changing circumstances, or opportunistic behavior, the supposed kinship ties may dissolve, leaving migrants vulnerable to dispossession. Thus, fictive kinship, while enabling survival, also embodies inherent risks, contestations, and asymmetries of power.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Informal Urban Land Access and Trust\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrbanization in Africa has often proceeded not through formal planning and legal land titling but through a complex, dynamic interplay of informal processes, improvisation, and negotiated access. In many contexts, trust becomes a primary mechanism through which urban residents navigate resource scarcity, tenure insecurity, and fragmented governance systems. James Ferguson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), in his seminal ethnography \u003cem\u003eExpectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on the Zambian Copperbelt\u003c/em\u003e, offers critical insights into how urban Africans construct expectations, social relations, and material survival in contexts where formal economic systems and state infrastructures have been hollowed out. Ferguson shows that informal urban life is not characterized by mere lawlessness or chaos; rather, it is structured by social norms of trust, reciprocity, and improvised moral economies that allow people to manage uncertainty and precarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Ferguson, trust is the \u0026ldquo;glue\u0026rdquo; that holds together informal systems of survival when formal institutions fail to deliver stability. In the Copperbelt towns he studied, everyday survival hinged on informal networks of assistance, kinship, and neighborhood solidarities rather than formal employment or state welfare. This argument is critical for understanding peri-urban Zimbabwean contexts like Lydiate, where migrants similarly depend on trust-based relationships, rather than formal land titles or legal rental agreements, to secure farming and settlement land. The informal transactions that migrants engage in are not \u0026ldquo;irrational\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;illegal\u0026rdquo; in the everyday sense; they are governed by norms of reliability, social reputation, and mutual recognition that substitute for absent formal guarantees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding on this theme, Thebe and Rakotje (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) work on informal land markets in peri-urban Lesotho provides further empirical evidence for how trust underpins informal land access systems in African urban margins. In their study, Thebe and Rakotje (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) found that verbal contracts and personal trust between parties were the predominant mechanisms for land transactions, even in cases involving significant transfers of money or property rights. Buyers and sellers relied on reputation, social proximity, and community recognition rather than written contracts or formal state registration. In many cases, the fear of social sanction or exclusion from community networks acted as a stronger deterrent to breach of contract than any legal threat. However, scholars caution against romanticizing trust-based informal systems. While trust facilitates survival in the absence of formal institutions, it also introduces new vulnerabilities. Disputes, misunderstandings, opportunism, or shifts in social relations can rapidly destabilize informal agreements. In peri-urban Zimbabwe, as in other African urban spaces, trust must be constantly produced, performed, and reaffirmed through everyday acts of loyalty, reciprocity, and social embeddedness (Cleaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Meagher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Mobility, Belonging, and Citizenship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary African urbanization is deeply entangled with patterns of mobility, displacement, and precarious citizenship (Bhanye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Migrants who move across spaces \u0026mdash; rural to urban, across borders, or across peri-urban frontiers \u0026mdash; often confront profound challenges in securing legal recognition, accessing resources, and establishing a sense of belonging (Daimon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, as scholars have shown, migrants are not passive victims of displacement; they actively forge everyday practices through which they claim space, negotiate belonging, and enact alternative forms of citizenship outside the formal apparatus of the state (Bhanye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mushonga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrancis Nyamnjoh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), conceptualizes African mobility as inherently incomplete, negotiated, and provisional. According to Nyamnjoh, African migrants, whether internal or cross-border, rarely experience citizenship as a fixed legal status or a stable, state-sanctioned identity. Instead, migrants continuously engage in \u0026ldquo;practices of belonging\u0026rdquo;, forging connections, networks, and forms of mutual recognition that enable them to survive and situate themselves within new environments. Nyamnjoh emphasizes that formal citizenship is often inaccessible, fragile, or exclusionary, particularly for marginalized groups such as former farm workers, border-crossers, or urban squatters. Thus, belonging becomes an everyday achievement, negotiated through conviviality, labor, religion, kinship, and claims to space (Chekero, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mushonga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, Nyamnjoh also cautions against simplistic readings of informality as merely resistance or victimhood. He highlights that migrants\u0026rsquo; practices are both adaptive and complicit, at once negotiating inclusion while also operating within, and sometimes reinforcing, hierarchical and exclusionary social orders. In Lydiate, for instance, gaining land access through fictive kinship often involves deference to indigenous landowners\u0026rsquo; authority and social hierarchies, demonstrating the ambiguous and negotiated nature of everyday citizenship practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplementing Nyamnjoh\u0026rsquo;s theorization, Amanda Hammar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) provides an empirical and historically grounded analysis of urban displacement and resettlement in Zimbabwe, particularly in the aftermath of state-led land reform and political violence. In her study of displaced urban and peri-urban populations, Hammar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) shows that forced displacement does not simply erase belonging; rather, displaced people actively engage in rebuilding social networks, claiming space, and reconstituting forms of home and community. She highlights how displaced groups in peri-urban Zimbabwe navigate fractured landscapes of legality, politics, and livelihoods, crafting fragile, situated practices of emplacement in contexts of profound uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHammar\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) analysis is particularly useful for understanding how migrants in peri-urban spaces like Lydiate negotiate the aftermath of Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s Fast Track Land Reform Programme and broader processes of economic and political displacement. Many migrants, often descendants of foreign farm laborers or internal migrants marginalized from formal land redistribution, find themselves doubly excluded: first, from the formal land market, and second, from full political citizenship narratives tied to indigeneity and \u0026ldquo;land ownership\u0026rdquo; (Bhanye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Daimon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) In response, they deploy everyday tactics of survival and belonging, including informal land rentals, caretaking relationships, and the construction of fictive kinship networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theoretical framing pushes us to expand the conceptualization of citizenship and belonging beyond legalistic frameworks. It demonstrates that migrants in Africa\u0026rsquo;s urban margins perform citizenship not primarily through state documents or legal rights, but through daily acts of negotiation, emplacement, and relational belonging. Belonging is less about formal status and more about situated practices of making life possible, however precarious, contested, and incomplete these may be.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Conceptual Framework: Relational Infrastructures of Survival and Belonging\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the Relational Infrastructures of Survival and Belonging conceptual framework guiding this study. At its core is the notion of \u003cem\u003emigrant agency\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;the everyday survival strategies employed by peri-urban migrants to navigate structural exclusion and legal invisibility in contexts such as Lydiate. This agency is expressed relationally, as migrants mobilize \u003cem\u003etrust infrastructures\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003econvivial/fictive kinship ties\u003c/em\u003e to create embedded social capital. These relational forms are not merely cultural by-products but function as pragmatic tools for negotiating belonging, forging access to resources, and circumventing the absence of formal land rights. As shown in the diagram, these two social processes feed directly into the emergence of \u003cem\u003einformal governance mechanisms\u003c/em\u003e, which operate outside the state but are often more immediate, flexible, and contextually grounded than formal governance systems. These mechanisms include verbal rental agreements, caretaking arrangements, and labor exchanges\u0026mdash;all socially legitimated and anchored in relational trust and social obligation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom these informal governance structures arise \u003cem\u003eland access pathways\u003c/em\u003e, through which migrants gain access to farming or residential land. However, the outcomes of these pathways\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eprovisional tenure\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esocial belonging\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003epersistent precarity\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;are ambivalent. While these arrangements facilitate temporary emplacement and livelihood generation, they remain fragile, conditional, and deeply contingent on the ongoing performance of loyalty, trust, and kinship. Critically, the framework highlights a feedback loop: the outcomes of these land arrangements\u0026mdash;particularly experiences of dispossession, insecurity, or deepened belonging\u0026mdash;inform subsequent rounds of adaptation and reinvention by migrants. This dynamic process demonstrates the temporal and fluid nature of urban survival in marginal spaces, where migrants continuously recalibrate their social strategies in response to shifting social, economic, and political conditions. In sum, the conceptual framework captures the co-production of space, governance, and belonging in peri-urban Africa through everyday relational labor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research Setting: Lydiate, Zimbabwe\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in Lydiate, a peri-urban settlement located near Norton Town in Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s Mashonaland West Province (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Lydiate is one of the many informal, marginalized spaces that emerged and evolved in the wake of Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), launched in 2000. The FTLRP dramatically reshaped rural and peri-urban landscapes, displacing thousands of commercial farm workers, many of whom were of Malawian, Mozambican, and Zambian descent, while reallocating land to politically connected Zimbabwean citizens (Moyo, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Scoones et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, former farm workers and rural migrants, excluded from formal land redistribution processes, were often forced to establish themselves in informal settlements such as Lydiate.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLydiate occupies legal and territorial liminality, situated on the margins of formally demarcated agro-residential plots and farms, yet beyond the structured urban planning frameworks of nearby Norton town (Bhanye et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The settlement lacks formal land tenure systems, adequate infrastructure, and recognition from local authorities, rendering its residents particularly vulnerable to eviction, marginalization, and exclusion. Demographically, Lydiate is characterized by a predominantly migrant-origin population, with many residents tracing their lineage to cross-border labor migrations from Malawi during the colonial period. The community exhibits a high degree of socio-economic precarity, with livelihoods centered on petty farming, informal trading, artisanal activities, and occasional wage labor on neighboring farms. These characteristics make Lydiate a fertile site for investigating how migrants without formal land rights craft everyday practices of survival, trust, and belonging. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e is an aerial view of Lydiate squatter settlement in Zimbabwe, illustrating its location within a peri-urban landscape of mixed land uses. The image shows the proximity of Lydiate to agro-residential private plots, farms allocated under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, a tobacco grading shade, Mutitipi Primary School, and the Zvimba\u0026ndash;Murombedzi Road connecting the area to Norton and Harare. The image highlights the entanglement of informal settlements with formal agricultural and infrastructural landscapes, reflecting the contested and hybrid nature of land access in Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s peri-urban zones\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Ethnographic Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis paper draws on a qualitative ethnographic methodology, designed to uncover the relational and everyday practices that conventional survey or documentary methods would likely miss. Ethnography, with its emphasis on long-term immersion, participant observation, and deep relational engagement, was particularly suited to examining the subtle, often hidden processes of fictive kinship formation, informal land transactions, and trust-building among migrants (Emerson, Fretz, \u0026amp; Shaw, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Fieldwork in Lydiate was conducted over an extended period, allowing for repeated interactions, participation in daily community activities, and the development of trust relationships with residents. Participant observation involved attending community meetings, church gatherings, social events, and informal trading spaces where land-related negotiations and social ties were often discussed. 20 formal semi-structured interviews (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) were conducted with a purposive sample of migrants, indigenous landowners, caretakers, and local leaders, complemented by numerous informal conversations and life histories.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfile of Key Study Participants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipant Name\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge (Years)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNotes on Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Phiri\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRented farming land through friendship and totemic ties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Kamala\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccessed farming land via long-term friendship.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJames Zembe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecured farming land through friendship with a caretaker.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSamson Chigora\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRented farming land via convivial ties with a caretaker.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Paul Banda\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaretaker for absentee landowner; farming beneficiary.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLuckson Banda\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaborated with father Paul Banda in caretaking.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Trymore Baloyi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaretaker for absentee agro-residential plot owner.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeticia Kalaulau\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProvided labor for land access at Mrs. Gapara\u0026rsquo;s greenhouse.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Thomas Kachire\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProvided labor to A2 farmer (Mr. Jena) for land access.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJairos Kachire\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssisted father in labor-based land access.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMagret Sumayile\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccessed farming land through fictive kinship (housemaid connection).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLuckson Machakwa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaretaker of absentee homestead; access to settlement land.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThomas Dhairesi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaretaker of absentee homestead (Mr. Kalembe).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGilbert Dhairesi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaretaker of absentee homestead (Mr. Kalembe).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Mollen Jaji\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLost rental access after breakdown of trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMrs. Dzimbiri\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLost farming land access after refusal to renew rental.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMr. Gumedhe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitially rented settlement, later negotiated full ownership.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMrs. Gumedhe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInitially rented settlement, later negotiated full ownership.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMrs Marais\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRented farming land through friendship.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMrs Muzondo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProvided labor for land access.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuilding trust was absolutely critical for uncovering the hidden world of informal land rentals, fictive kinship arrangements, and clandestine caretaking deals. As noted by Scheper-Hughes (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), in precarious contexts, participants are often reluctant to disclose information that might expose them to legal, political, or social risks. Many Lydiate residents initially hesitated to discuss land transactions, particularly where rentals were concealed under the guise of kinship or friendship. Through sustained engagement, transparency about research intentions, and the gradual building of rapport, participants became more willing to share their experiences, strategies, and vulnerabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Positionality and Ethics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs a researcher engaging with marginalized communities, it was essential to critically reflect on positionality, ethical obligations, and the politics of representation (Rose, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Coming from a background familiar with Zimbabwean rural and peri-urban dynamics, I occupied a position of partial insider-outsider: familiar enough to understand local languages, histories, and cultural references, yet still perceived as an outsider associated with academia and formal institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis positionality had complex effects on fieldwork. On one hand, familiarity with local social codes and migration histories helped facilitate access. On the other hand, my perceived association with formal institutions (the University of Zimbabwe) sometimes raised suspicions about the potential consequences of disclosing informal or illegal activities. To navigate this, I emphasized confidentiality, non-judgmental listening, and informed consent throughout the research process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManaging disclosures about hidden rental arrangements required particular ethical sensitivity. Participants were assured that no personal identifiers would be recorded, and pseudonyms were used in all documentation. In line with ethical guidelines on researching hidden populations, extra care was taken to anonymize sensitive information, especially where disclosures involved illegal land occupation, secret rental transactions, or precarious caretaking agreements. Moreover, the research design incorporated reflexivity, the continuous interrogation of how my presence, identity, and interactions might shape the narratives offered by participants. Recognizing the relational nature of knowledge production was essential to responsibly interpreting the everyday strategies that migrants deploy to survive in insecure urban margins.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDespite the depth of ethnographic engagement, the study is not without limitations. First, access to information was constrained by the fluidity of trust. While some participants were open and forthcoming, others remained guarded or selectively disclosed information depending on the perceived risks. Informal economies are built as much on discretion and secrecy as on trust and exchange. Second, the hidden nature of informal land arrangements posed challenges in verifying claims or reconstructing the full genealogy of land access. Many agreements were verbal, undocumented, and based on private social understandings, making systematic triangulation difficult. Finally, the temporal limits of the study must be acknowledged. Trust-based relations, fictive kin ties, and land access arrangements are fluid and evolving; what appeared stable during the research period may shift rapidly under changing economic, social, or political conditions (Cleaver, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Meagher, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Recognizing these limitations does not diminish the value of the findings but rather situates them within the complex, contested, and dynamic realities of peri-urban migrant life in Zimbabwe. The study thus offers a situated, relational snapshot of how trust, kinship, and land intersect in the margins of urban Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings: Everyday Transactions and Forms of Land Access","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings from Lydiate reveal a layered and deeply relational economy of land access, where formal tenure systems are largely absent and migrants must navigate complex social terrains to secure both farming and settlement land. Rather than functioning through impersonal markets or codified legal processes, access to land in this peri-urban frontier is governed by everyday transactions embedded in trust, kinship, reciprocity, and convivial relations. These arrangements, ranging from monetary-based rentals to non-monetary exchanges such as caretaking and labor provision, highlight the significance of social embeddedness in shaping informal land governance. Migrants are not merely passive beneficiaries of these systems; they actively forge, maintain, and negotiate access through affective labor, strategic friendships, and moral economies of belonging. This section explores how these informal mechanisms operate in practice, revealing how land is transacted, protected, and legitimized through everyday performances of trust, obligation, and social recognition. Together, these practices constitute a vernacular tenure system; fragile, negotiated, yet vital, that reflects both the creativity and precarity of migrant life on the urban margins of Zimbabwe. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e provides a typology of land access pathways among migrants in Lydiate. These include monetary rentals, non-monetary arrangements such as caretaking and labor exchange, and relational routes grounded in fictive kinship and religious affiliation. The diagram illustrates how seeking land access is a socially embedded and diversified process, negotiated through both economic exchanges and moral-social affiliations. Rather than a singular strategy, migrants draw on a repertoire of relational and transactional mechanisms that reflect both constraint and creativity in navigating Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s peri-urban margins.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Rental of Farming Land\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1.1 Monetary-Based Rentals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e In the absence of formal land tenure systems, migrants in Lydiate have devised intricate social strategies to gain access to farming land, with monetary-based rental agreements emerging as a significant pathway. These rentals, while involving symbolic cash payments, typically ranging between \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e5 and \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10 per acre per farming season, are not simple market transactions. Rather, they are deeply embedded in social relations of trust, kinship, and conviviality, underscoring the relational economy that governs land access in peri-urban Zimbabwe (Nyambara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e ; Scoones et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e ). \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnlike formal urban rental markets where price and contract terms dominate, monetary rentals in Lydiate are preceded by the careful cultivation of social relationships. Migrants seeking land must first invest in building trust, often over long periods, through strategic friendships with indigenous Zimbabwean plot owners, many of whom were beneficiaries of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. These friendships are not incidental but intentionally nurtured as mechanisms to secure access to land. The case of Mr. Phiri illustrates this process vividly. Mr. Phiri, a migrant originally from Malawi, recounted the painstaking relationship-building necessary to access a piece of land from an indigenous farm owner, Mr. Mukubvu. He explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are surrounded by plots and farms owned by war veterans. If you manage to develop a relationship with the owners, they will allocate you a portion of land for a small fee. I have known one plot owner, Mr. Mukubvu, for some time now. He has now become like a friend and relative, and I have been renting his plot ever since we became friends. For the last farming season, I was paying \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10 per acre.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e This testimony demonstrates how land transactions are socially brokered before they are financially transacted. The payment of \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10 per acre is not sufficient in itself to guarantee land access; it is the social capital embodied in friendship, familiarity, and mutual trust that enables the transaction to take place at all. Further deepening the relationship, Mr. Phiri and Mr. Mukubvu discovered that they share the same totem ( \u003cem\u003eShumba\u003c/em\u003e , meaning \u0026ldquo;lion\u0026rdquo;), a culturally significant bond in Zimbabwean society. Mr. Phiri revealed: \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter I found out that Mr. Mukubvu\u0026rsquo;s wife shares the same totem as me, we started calling each other in-laws. This made our relationship even stronger. It was no longer just a business deal; it became a family connection. That is how I managed to farm on his land without problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, fictive kinship rituals \u0026mdash; in this case, invoking a totemic kin relationship \u0026mdash; solidify what would otherwise be a precarious rental arrangement, providing social legitimacy and protection (Stack, 1974; Nyamnjoh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the experience of Mr. Kamala offers further insight into the dynamics of monetary-based rentals forged through convivial relations. Mr. Kamala narrated his journey to accessing land as follows:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI started knowing Mr. Nhau a long time ago. When he started staying in this area, he did not know anyone, and I was one of the few people who gave him company. We became like brothers, and from then, he allocated me two acres of land in his farm. In return, I appreciate him with \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10 every farming season.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgain, the monetary payment is secondary to the relational labor that Mr. Kamala invested in building fraternity with Mr. Nhau. Notably, Mr. Kamala emphasized:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am among the few that are lucky to be renting land in Mr. Nhau\u0026rsquo;s plot. He only rents land to a few trusted individuals. For me, renting land is much better than invading unutilized spaces which can be risky.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis statement reveals the underlying politics of selectivity and trust: not all migrants have equal access to land even if they can afford the rental fee. Access is contingent upon being perceived as \u0026ldquo;trusted\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;family-like\u0026rdquo;, demonstrating the centrality of social embeddedness over pure market logic. Moreover, these monetary-based rental arrangements are often deliberately concealed under the guise of fictive kinship to protect both parties from external scrutiny. As Mr. Phiri confessed:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitially, we didn\u0026rsquo;t even want to reveal that there was a land deal between us. It was as if we were just helping each other as in-laws.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis resonates with findings from Hungwe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Marongwe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), who observed that clandestine land transactions among migrants in peri-urban Zimbabwe are frequently disguised under the language of kinship or friendship to avoid legal exposure and to anchor the relationship in socially accepted norms. In sum, monetary-based rentals in Lydiate illustrate a complex entanglement of economic exchange and relational negotiation. While small fees are paid in cash, these transactions are fundamentally sustained by convivial practices, fictive kinship, and trust-based infrastructures (Simone, 2004; Wise \u0026amp; Velayutham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Access to land, therefore, is not simply about the ability to pay but about the ability to belong within locally meaningful social worlds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Non-Monetary Rentals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile monetary-based rentals offer one pathway to land access, many migrants in Lydiate rely on non-monetary rental arrangements, wherein access to farming land is secured through caretaking absentee owners\u0026rsquo; plots or providing labor to indigenous landholders. These arrangements highlight the profound role of reciprocity, trust, and convivial labor exchanges in facilitating land access where formal contracts and cash-based markets are either unavailable or socially risky (Cleaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Ferguson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCaretaking Absentee Owners\u0026rsquo; Land\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne prominent form of non-monetary rental involves caretaking land owned by absentee indigenous Zimbabweans, many of whom are based in urban centers such as Harare or are residing in the diaspora. In these cases, migrants are entrusted to protect and maintain underutilized or idle land in return for rights to farm a portion of it. These arrangements are often informal, verbal, and heavily reliant on long-standing social ties. The case of Mr. Paul Banda exemplifies this dynamic. Mr. Banda, a 65-year-old migrant of Malawian descent, detailed how he and his son Luckson were entrusted with land by Mr. Sibanda, a Fast Track Land Reform beneficiary now living in Harare:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are fortunate because my son and I were allocated a plot for temporary use by Mr. Sibanda. He stays in the capital city and is not using the farm. He trusted us to look after it. In return, we farm two acres for ourselves. We grow maize, sweet potatoes, and groundnuts during the rainy season.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Banda\u0026rsquo;s account highlights several critical dimensions of these caretaking agreements: they are framed around trust, protection of property rights, and mutual benefit. For the absentee owner, entrusting migrants like Mr. Banda serves as a form of security against land invasions or degradation, while for the migrant, it provides a lifeline to livelihood through farming. Similarly, Mr. Trymore Baloyi, a 40-year-old migrant, recounted his experience as a caretaker:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I was fortunate to meet Mr. Badza who owns an agro-residential plot next to our compound. I met him through a friend. Now I am a caretaker of his plot. In return, he gives me a small salary and allows me to farm. We grow maize and vegetables.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaloyi\u0026rsquo;s story adds an additional layer: in some cases, caretaking comes with modest monetary compensation, but the primary reward is still access to productive land. His relationship with Mr. Badza was mediated through another fictive kinship connection \u0026mdash; his friend Lazarus \u0026mdash; illustrating again how social networks operate as critical conduits to land access (Bourdieu, 1986; Stack, 1974). In both cases, caretaking arrangements represent a relational form of land governance, where absentee owners and migrant caretakers co-produce tenure security in ways that are flexible, adaptive, and deeply embedded in everyday social life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eProviding Labour in Exchange for Farming Land\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother variant of non-monetary rental involves providing agricultural labor to indigenous landowners in exchange for a portion of land for personal cultivation. These arrangements mirror what Daimon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) describes as \u0026ldquo;land-labour rents\u0026rdquo; in Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s post-reform agrarian landscape, where access to land is secured through services rather than cash. The case of Leticia Kalaulau exemplifies how migrants negotiate labor-based land access. A 49-year-old woman of Malawian descent, Leticia shared:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI was born on a farm in Mazowe. We moved here in 1981. Life was tough after land reform. But I met Mrs. Gapara at the nearby shopping center. She runs a greenhouse. I started helping her with tasks, and eventually she allowed my family and me to farm on a portion of her land. We now have about an acre where we plant maize and sweet potatoes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeticia\u0026rsquo;s case reveals how labor exchanges are often initiated through informal, opportunistic encounters and evolve into longer-term reciprocal relationships. Her labor, initially casual, became a currency of trust and obligation, leading to access to vital farming land. This reflects Cleaver\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) insight that in marginalized settings, resource access is often \u0026ldquo;negotiated through the channels of daily life\u0026rdquo; rather than through formalized contracts. Further, labor-based rentals often blur the lines between employment, kinship, and tenancy. Leticia explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMrs. Gapara treats me like family now. Sometimes she even helps us with seeds or fertilizers for our plot.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis statement highlights the emergence of fictive kinship bonds that reinforce and stabilize these otherwise precarious land access arrangements (Bouquet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Stack, 1974). A similar arrangement was observed with Mr. Thomas Kachire and his son Jairos, who worked for Mr. Jena, an A2 farm owner. Thomas described:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no money involved. But whenever Mr. Jena needs help, my son and I go and assist him with farming work. In return, he lets us use a hectare of land. Life is better now because we no longer have to buy maize meal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgain, trust, loyalty, and labor reciprocity replace monetary payment, building a form of vernacular tenure security through ongoing social performance (Meagher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Non-monetary rental arrangements in Lydiate thus illustrate a complex political economy of trust, labor, and care. Migrants leverage their labor and social ties to craft access to land in contexts where legal tenure is unavailable. As Hammar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) argues, in Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s post-land reform peri-urban frontiers, migrants \u0026ldquo;forge emplacement\u0026rdquo; through everyday, situated practices rather than through formal legal processes. However, these arrangements are highly contingent. Access to land through caretaking or labor is conditional on continued loyalty, performance, and the maintenance of trust relations. As Ferguson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) reminds us, in informal systems, trust must be continuously performed and reaffirmed, and any breakdown in relations can result in immediate loss of access. Thus, non-monetary rentals in Lydiate reflect both the creativity and the precarity of migrant land strategies: resourceful, relational, and negotiated, yet always fragile and subject to renegotiation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Rental of Settlement Land\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond farming land, migrants in Lydiate have also developed informal strategies to access residential land and housing, largely through settlement rental agreements based on caretaking absentee owners\u0026rsquo; homesteads. These arrangements mirror the broader relational infrastructure observed in farming land rentals but are uniquely shaped by the need for ongoing presence, stewardship, and protection of property in a context of high vulnerability to land disputes, theft, and squatting (Hammar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Potts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.1 Lodging Agreements Based on Caretaking Absentee Owners\u0026rsquo; Homesteads\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Lydiate, settlement rental often involves a caretaking model, whereby migrants occupy and look after a homestead on behalf of an absentee owner in exchange for residence rights. These agreements are usually verbal, trust-based, and relational, rather than transactional or formalized through legal contracts. The experience of Luckson Machakwa, a 27-year-old migrant, provides a clear example. Luckson initially lived with his parents before seeking independence. His access to settlement land came through an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Nguguya, who had relocated to Norton Town. Luckson explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am a lodger here. The owner of this homestead was born and grew up in this compound \u0026mdash; mwana wemuno [child of this place]. He is currently staying in Norton town with his family. It\u0026rsquo;s like I am a lodger, but I do not pay any money. The owners just want me to take good care of their land and homestead.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis account highlights several key dynamics. First, Luckson\u0026rsquo;s right to reside is not founded on monetary rent, but on his willingness and ability to perform caretaking responsibilities. Second, the relationship is framed in familial and localist terms, invoking notions of shared community origin \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;mwana wemuno\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e rather than formal tenancy. Finally, the arrangement is deeply embedded in relational trust: his caretaking role protects the property from invasion or deterioration, serving the absentee owners\u0026rsquo; interests while also meeting his own need for shelter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Thomas and Gilbert Dhairesi, two brothers, secured residence through a comparable arrangement. They were entrusted with the care of a homestead owned by Mr. Kalembe, who had moved to a farm in Chegutu. Their relationship with Mr. Kalembe was cemented through shared religious affiliation \u0026mdash; all three being members of the Johane Masowe Church. Thomas recounted:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMadzibaba\u003c/em\u003e Kalembe is like a father to us. He is a well-respected man at our Johane \u003cem\u003eMasowe\u003c/em\u003e Church. He gives us life advice and intercedes for us. Currently, he is away in Chegutu, and he has made us custodians of his property.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis testimony reveals how fictive kinship and religious ties serve as crucial social currencies in establishing settlement arrangements. Calling Mr. Kalembe \u0026ldquo;like a father\u0026rdquo; situates the relationship within a moral economy of kinship and obligation (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), which is vital in contexts where formal legal claims to property are tenuous or absent. Moreover, the Dhairesi brothers\u0026rsquo; role is not just about occupancy; it involves stewardship and defense of Mr. Kalembe\u0026rsquo;s land against possible illegal takeovers \u0026mdash; a risk that remains high in peri-urban Zimbabwean settlements where land rights are informally recognized and weakly protected (Marongwe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Hammar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). As Thomas emphasized:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe know this place is vulnerable. If you leave a house empty, others can seize it. Madzibaba Kalembe trusts us to keep his place safe until he comes back.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the arrangement reflects a mutual but asymmetrical relationship: the absentee owner benefits from property security, while the caretakers benefit from access to housing and a degree of social legitimacy within the community. Settlement rental arrangements in Lydiate are thus deeply relational and performative rather than strictly financial. Migrants must demonstrate trustworthiness, loyalty, and relational competence to secure and maintain access to homesteads. As Simone (2004) and Ferguson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) have argued, in informal urban systems, people themselves constitute the infrastructure through which resources like land and housing are allocated, protected, and reproduced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, these lodging agreements are not static; they are continuously negotiated and contingent on maintaining good relations. A failure in caretaking duties, a breakdown of trust, or a shift in the absentee owner\u0026rsquo;s circumstances (such as returning to the settlement) can quickly lead to eviction or displacement \u0026mdash; illustrating the fragility and conditionality of informal settlement rights (Cleaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Nyamnjoh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, while these arrangements provide crucial access to shelter, they also reinforce certain hierarchies and dependencies. Migrants\u0026rsquo; right to remain often hinges on subordinate roles as stewards rather than as autonomous owners or renters, limiting their ability to claim full belonging or permanence in the settlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the key forms of land access transactions identified in Lydiate, highlighting how different social mechanisms underpin monetary, caretaking, and labor-based arrangements among migrants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypology of Land Access Transactions in Lydiate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForm of Transaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasis of Agreement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Social Mechanisms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk Factors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonetary-based Rentals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerbal agreements, symbolic fees (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e5\u0026ndash;\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10/acre)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust, friendship, fictive kinship (totemic links)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Phiri, Mr. Kamala\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBreakdown in trust, unilateral eviction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCaretaking (Absentee Owners)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStewardship of idle land/homesteads\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust, relational loyalty, social responsibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaul Banda, Luckson Machakwa, Thomas Dhairesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOwner returning, trust deterioration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabour-based Land Rentals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgricultural labour in exchange for land access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReciprocity, convivial labour, mutual benefit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeticia Kalaulau, Thomas Kachire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabor disputes, shifts in landowner priorities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e visualizes the constellation of relational actors and intermediaries that structure migrants\u0026rsquo; access to land in Lydiate. Migrants mobilize different strategies \u0026mdash; from fictive kinship with indigenous landowners, to caretaking labor for absentee owners, to leveraging ties with religious leaders \u0026mdash; to gain access and legitimacy within the settlement. These relationships are mediated through broader community networks, embedded in norms of trust, social recognition, and reputational value. The diagram also highlights the role of caretakers and religious figures as key access brokers who negotiate land use on behalf of, or in relationship with, absentee and indigenous landholders. Together, these actors form a decentralized governance network that underpins everyday land transactions in the absence of formal tenure systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Making Kinship: The Social Logics Behind Land Transactions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe previous section outlined the diverse practices through which migrants access land in Lydiate; this section delves into the underlying social logics that make such transactions possible. In a context where formal legal tenure is largely absent, migrants rely on dense webs of sociality\u0026mdash;particularly fictive kinship, trust, and relational obligation\u0026mdash;to negotiate belonging and access. These are not merely cultural residues but deliberate, strategic practices that constitute alternative infrastructures of tenure. Here, land is not simply transacted; it is relationally brokered, morally legitimized, and socially sustained. This section unpacks how kinship scripts, trust-based agreements, and the ongoing performance of loyalty and respect become the invisible scaffolding through which land governance unfolds in the margins of urban Zimbabwe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. Forging Fictive Kinship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the absence of formal land rights, peri-urban migrants in Lydiate mobilize fictive kinship as a critical social strategy to access farming and settlement land. Fictive kinship, the deliberate construction of kin-like ties outside of blood or marriage, enables migrants to insert themselves into relational networks that confer access to resources, protection, and social legitimacy (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than being a residual or secondary form of relationship, fictive kinship in Lydiate is a central, active process in the negotiation of land transactions. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e outlines the varied dimensions and specific expressions of fictive kinship employed by migrants to secure land, underscoring how these socially validated ties facilitate access and relational legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimensions and Expressions of Fictive Kinship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKinship Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Relationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMechanism of Validation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaterial Benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotemic Kinship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShared totems \u003cem\u003e(Shumba)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRitualized language, social recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRental of farmland, protective claims\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Phiri\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligious Kinship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChurch-based brotherhood \u003cem\u003e(Johane Masowe)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpiritual leadership, moral obligation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousing, stewardship rights\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThomas Dhairesi, Gilbert Dhairesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFriendship-based Kinship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSahwira\u003c/em\u003e (brotherhood)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMutual support, historical relational investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFarmland rental, community inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Kamala\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrants are often \u0026ldquo;adopted\u0026rdquo; as \u003cem\u003esahwira\u003c/em\u003e (close friend), brother, or in-law by indigenous landowners or established residents, thus embedding themselves in relational systems that facilitate land access. As Carol Stack (1974) famously demonstrated in her study of African American communities, such adoptions are not sentimental; they are strategic acts of survival, establishing social obligations that can be called upon in times of need. The case of Mr. Phiri provides a clear example. After years of nurturing a friendship with Mr. Mukubvu, a local landowner, Mr. Phiri discovered a shared totem affiliation (\u003cem\u003eShumba\u003c/em\u003e, or lion) with Mr. Mukubvu\u0026rsquo;s wife, a significant cultural marker in Shona society. Mr. Phiri described how this discovery transformed their relationship:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter I found out that Mr. Mukubvu\u0026rsquo;s wife shares the same totem as me, we started calling each other in-laws. This made our relationship even stronger. It was no longer just about friendship; we became family.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, invoking totemic kinship allowed Mr. Phiri to reframe an economic rental agreement as a moral and familial obligation. Totems, long recognized in Zimbabwean culture as structuring rules of marriage, alliance, and social respect (Bourdillon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), are repurposed in Lydiate as tools of land negotiation and access. Similarly, religious affiliation emerges as a potent mechanism for forging fictive kinship. Thomas Dhairesi explained his relationship with Mr. Kalembe, an absentee landowner and respected elder in the Johane Masowe Church:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMadzibaba Kalembe is like a father to us. At church, he gives us guidance. When he moved away, he left us in charge of his homestead because he trusted us as his children in faith.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReligious fellowship thus extends beyond spiritual domains into tangible material transactions, with church-based fictive kinship providing a framework for property stewardship and residence. This finding aligns with Ebaugh and Curry\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) analysis of religiously mediated fictive kinship, where rituals and shared beliefs create bonds that mirror familial obligations. Moreover, long-term neighborhood friendships, often cultivated through shared histories of migration, work, and hardship, also underpin kin-like relationships that enable land access. Mr. Kamala narrated how his friendship with Mr. Nhau developed:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen Mr. Nhau moved to this area, he didn\u0026rsquo;t know anyone. I was one of the first to befriend him. Over time, we became like brothers. That\u0026rsquo;s how I got two acres of land to farm.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, being a \u0026ldquo;brother\u0026rdquo; is not a biological fact but a social accomplishment, built through the everyday practices of support, loyalty, and conviviality (Wise \u0026amp; Velayutham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Simone, 2004). These relational investments eventually translate into material entitlements, such as farming plots or residential spaces. Importantly, the performance of kinship is ongoing. Migrants must continuously reaffirm their loyalty, respect social norms, and fulfill obligations, whether through small gifts, labor assistance, or social deference, to sustain their fictive kin relationships. As Mr. Phiri put it:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou don\u0026rsquo;t just get land and relax. You have to keep the relationship strong. Visit them. Help if there\u0026rsquo;s a funeral. Show that you are family.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis demonstrates that fictive kinship in Lydiate is not static but dynamic and performative, requiring constant maintenance and renewal. As Cleaver (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) notes in her analysis of institutional bricolage, access to resources in marginalized communities often depends not on static rules or rights but on the ongoing performance of relational belonging. The forging of fictive kinship in Lydiate challenges dominant narratives that frame land transactions solely in terms of markets, law, or state-driven allocations. Instead, migrants create alternative moral economies where land access is mediated by kinship scripts, religious alliances, and reciprocal obligations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYet, as with monetary and non-monetary rentals, fictive kinship relations are fragile and contingent. Failure to uphold the relational expectations embedded in these ties can result in exclusion, eviction, or loss of access. Thus, while fictive kinship opens doors to land, it also entrenches hierarchies and conditional forms of belonging, reinforcing the precarity that defines migrant life in peri-urban Zimbabwe. Ultimately, the social logics of forging kinship illustrate how migrants rework cultural repertoires \u0026mdash; such as totemism, religious brotherhood, and \u003cem\u003esahwira\u003c/em\u003e friendships \u0026mdash; to carve spaces of survival and belonging in otherwise exclusionary urban margins. These practices reflect not a nostalgic retreat to tradition, but a creative, tactical reassembly of social forms to meet the demands of contemporary urban life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Trust as Infrastructure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the absence of formal legal contracts, land surveys, and enforceable property rights, trust emerges as a critical infrastructure through which peri-urban migrants in Lydiate negotiate and sustain access to farming and settlement land. As AbdouMaliq Simone (2004) and James Ferguson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) have argued, in many African urban margins, people do not merely rely on formal state structures to secure livelihoods; instead, they build and sustain their own relational infrastructures, where trust, reputation, and mutual obligation substitute for institutional guarantees. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e details the governance functions served by trust-based systems in Lydiate, illustrating how trust operates as an informal infrastructure regulating land allocation, conflict resolution, and tenure security.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust as Infrastructure\u0026mdash;Governance Functions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunction of Trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational Example\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotential Vulnerabilities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLand Allocation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerbal land agreements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity reputation, verbal commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArbitrary land repossession\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConflict Resolution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity-based mediation, gossip\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial sanctions, reputation management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnequal negotiation power\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTenure Security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuous relational performance (e.g., caretaking duties, labor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOngoing social trust, relational loyalty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragility if relations deteriorate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Lydiate, almost all land rental, caretaking, and settlement agreements are sealed through verbal understandings rather than written contracts. These verbal agreements, though legally unenforceable in a formal sense, carry profound moral weight, binding both parties through social expectations and relational accountability. As one migrant, Mr. Phiri, emphasized:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere, the farm owners just trust us. They do not want any witnesses or written agreement when they enter into rental contracts. We make a verbal agreement without any witnesses present, but once you give your word, it is as strong as any paper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis underscores that the performative act of giving one\u0026rsquo;s word, embedded within a web of social relations, functions as a binding contract in everyday practice. In line with Ferguson\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) analysis of informal economies, where trust must be continually produced and reaffirmed, the moral obligation to honor one\u0026rsquo;s verbal commitments becomes the principal safeguard against conflict and dispossession. Similarly, Thomas Kachire, who accessed land through a labor-based exchange with an A2 farm owner, described the relational basis of his land tenure:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no paper signed. Just trust. If Mr. Jena needs help, I go. If I keep the trust, I keep the land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, trust is not a static asset but an ongoing process of relational performance. It must be reaffirmed through acts of labor, loyalty, and social deference. In this sense, migrants\u0026rsquo; access to land is not secured once and for all but is continually negotiated through everyday practices of trustworthiness. Importantly, trust in Lydiate is not purely interpersonal; it is also embedded in broader communal moral economies. Many migrants emphasized the role of community gossip, surveillance, and reputation in maintaining the integrity of verbal agreements. As Mr. Banda, who caretakes an absentee owner\u0026rsquo;s land, explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you break a promise here, the whole community will know. Your name will be damaged. No one will trust you again. You will not get land or help.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the enforcement of verbal contracts relies not only on personal morality but also on social sanctions and collective memory. In this way, trust operates as a decentralized, informal governance mechanism, enabling resource allocation and conflict resolution without recourse to state courts or formal legal systems (Meagher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, trust-based transactions are not entirely egalitarian or unproblematic. They often reflect power asymmetries, with landowners wielding greater leverage over migrants whose access is contingent on ongoing deference and relational compliance. As one informant, Mrs. Dzimbiri, lamented after losing her farming plot:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt first, they trust you. But when they want the land back, they just say, \u0026lsquo;We no longer need you.\u0026rsquo; There is nothing you can do, because there is no paper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quotation highlights the precariousness of trust-based tenure: while trust enables initial access, it does not guarantee permanence or protection against arbitrary withdrawal of rights. This resonates with Cleaver\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) insight that informal governance systems, while flexible and accessible, are often unstable and contingent, particularly for the more vulnerable actors. Viewing trust as a form of infrastructure shifts the analytical gaze away from binaries of \u0026ldquo;formal\u0026rdquo; versus \u0026ldquo;informal\u0026rdquo; legality. Instead, it highlights how social relationships themselves constitute binding frameworks that enable land transactions, regulate behavior, and allocate scarce resources in contexts of institutional fragility (Simone, 2004; Thebe and Rakotje, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). However, this infrastructure is highly relational, conditional, and uneven. While it allows migrants to survive and navigate land scarcity, it also exposes them to significant risks of dispossession, exclusion, and exploitation. Trust, in this setting, is both a currency and a vulnerability \u0026mdash; enabling access while simultaneously embedding migrants within fragile and asymmetrical systems of relational dependency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3. Fragility of Transactions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile conviviality, fictive kinship, and trust-based relationships have enabled migrants in Lydiate to access farming and settlement land, these arrangements are fundamentally fragile and contingent. Access to land, in the absence of formal legal protection, is always precarious \u0026mdash; dependent on the continued maintenance of trust, relational loyalty, and the goodwill of landowners. As many scholars have argued, informal urban systems, while adaptive and flexible, are also marked by instability, contestation, and vulnerability (Ferguson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Cleaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Simone, 2004). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents key indicators illustrating the inherent fragility of informal land transactions, demonstrating how relational breakdowns, economic opportunism, and asymmetrical power dynamics heighten migrants' vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragility Indicators of Informal Land Transactions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator of Fragility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManifestations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample Cases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequences for Migrants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelational Breakdown\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisputes, mistrust, withdrawal of verbal agreements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Mollen Jaji, Mrs. Dzimbiri\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEviction, loss of land investments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic Opportunism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLand reclaimed after migrants make improvements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Jaji\u0026rsquo;s garden fence scenario\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial loss, dispossession\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Hierarchy and Power\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLandowners unilaterally ending arrangements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Nhau reclaiming land without notice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreased precarity, displacement risk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fragility of trust-based land transactions is starkly illustrated in cases where land access was unilaterally revoked by indigenous landowners once relationships deteriorated or landowners\u0026rsquo; interests shifted. As Mr. Mollen Jaji, a migrant who lost access to his rented garden plot, recounted:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I rented a portion of land from Mr. Nhau. I fenced the garden, planted vegetables, tomatoes, and beans. The garden flourished. But when it became productive, he took it over from me without refunding anything. The fence and everything I had invested stayed. We were never really in good books with him.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Jaji\u0026rsquo;s experience reveals several critical dynamics. First, trust relationships are deeply personalized and subjective; if relational bonds are weak or fraught, migrants are at heightened risk of dispossession. Second, improvements made to land by migrants \u0026mdash; fencing, planting, soil enhancement \u0026mdash; are not legally protected, meaning that any infrastructural investments can be appropriated without compensation. As observed by Marongwe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) in peri-urban Zimbabwe, migrants\u0026rsquo; land tenure remains at the mercy of property owners\u0026rsquo; shifting perceptions and desires, underscoring the insecurity woven into everyday land transactions. Similarly, Mrs. Dzimbiri, another Lydiate migrant, recounted her eviction:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe used to rent farming land from Mr. Mukubvu and Mr. Nhau, paying \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10 every season. But last season they refused to renew the rentals, claiming they wanted to use the land themselves. Yet when you pass by, you see the land still idle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHer experience exposes the selective and strategic deployment of land claims by landowners: the assertion that land would be used for personal farming was not necessarily honored. Instead, such claims can mask social repositioning, a desire to exclude migrants once they are perceived as either successful, too independent, or politically risky. As Nyamnjoh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) argues, belonging in African urban margins is highly negotiated and can easily be withdrawn, reflecting the \u0026ldquo;incompleteness\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;contingency\u0026rdquo; of migrant emplacement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, these instances illustrate the limits of conviviality. While conviviality enables coexistence and negotiated access under conditions of scarcity, it does not eliminate asymmetries of power, strategic exclusion, or the latent threat of rupture (Wise \u0026amp; Velayutham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In Lydiate, the social bonds forged through fictive kinship or trust-based rentals are strong enough to create provisional access to land, but not strong enough to guarantee permanence or protect against arbitrary displacement. As Thomas Kachire reflected with concern:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere, you have land today because you are in good books with the owner. If tomorrow you offend him or he changes his mind, you lose everything. There\u0026rsquo;s nothing binding except trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust, then, while essential, is an inherently fragile infrastructure. It is constantly vulnerable to disruption \u0026mdash; through disputes, gossip, perceived disloyalty, or the landowner\u0026rsquo;s changing personal or economic circumstances. In the absence of written contracts or formal tenancy rights, migrants have limited recourse once their access is revoked. Further, the fragility of these arrangements produces anxiety and constant relational labor. Migrants must continuously perform respect, loyalty, and relational maintenance, often at the cost of their autonomy. As Leticia Kalaulau put it:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou must always behave. Show you are grateful. Help when they call you. Even if you are tired. That is how you keep the land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quotation captures the emotional and physical labor migrants invest to sustain access to land under conditions of structural vulnerability. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the conditional and cyclical nature of land access in Lydiate\u0026rsquo;s informal tenure system. Initial access to land is typically mediated by a trust-based agreement, which must be continually maintained through displays of loyalty, labor contributions, and ritual performance. However, access remains highly contingent; a breakdown in these social relations can quickly lead to dispossession or eviction. Conversely, sustained positive relationships enable stable occupation and opportunities for renewed trust. This diagram emphasizes the fragile equilibrium that governs migrant tenure in informal peri-urban Zimbabwe, where security is never guaranteed but constantly renegotiated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the cases from Lydiate reveal that while trust and conviviality facilitate access, they do not insulate migrants from dispossession or exploitation. As Ferguson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) and Cleaver (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) argue, informal governance systems reproduce their own forms of hierarchy and instability, often reflecting and reinforcing broader structural inequalities. Thus, conviviality should be understood not as a utopian condition of harmonious coexistence but as a pragmatic, tactical survival strategy, always subject to the pressures of shifting social dynamics, economic opportunism, and political change. As Hammar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes in the Zimbabwean context, urban and peri-urban displacement is not a singular rupture but an ongoing risk \u0026mdash; a constant specter that shapes everyday practices of emplacement, negotiation, and belonging. This fragility of land transactions in Lydiate demonstrates the ambivalent nature of migrant survival strategies: creatively adaptive yet deeply precarious, enabling temporary inclusion while exposing migrants to new vulnerabilities. Understanding this fragility is critical to appreciating the contested and dynamic geographies of belonging that characterize Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s peri-urban frontiers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion: Rethinking Land, Belonging, and Urban Governance","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Migrants as Active Urban Agents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cases from Lydiate fundamentally challenge dominant representations of migrants in urban and peri-urban Africa as passive victims of displacement, waiting for state intervention or legal recognition to secure livelihoods. Instead, the empirical evidence underscores that migrants are active agents, creatively and strategically forging land access, social belonging, and forms of everyday citizenship through relational practices, trust-building, and the tactical use of cultural repertoires.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs Francis Nyamnjoh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) has argued, African migrants engage in \u0026ldquo;incomplete movements\u0026rdquo; that are characterized by improvisation, adaptation, and continuous negotiation of space and rights. Rather than seeking full incorporation into the formal state apparatus, migrants construct vernacular citizenships \u0026mdash; forms of belonging grounded in everyday social practices rather than legal documentation. In Lydiate, migrants do not rely on formal land markets or legal titles. Instead, they forge fictive kinship ties, lodge verbal rental agreements based on trust, and perform loyalty and obligation as strategies to anchor themselves within precarious urban margins.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe field data show that acts such as becoming a \u003cem\u003esahwira\u003c/em\u003e (friend), claiming totemic kinship, or serving as a homestead caretaker are not merely acts of survival but are productive of urban life and belonging. Migrants proactively create access to land, housing, and social networks, thus reconstituting urban space from below. As AbdouMaliq Simone (2004) reminds us, everyday actions \u0026mdash; mundane, improvised, relational \u0026mdash; are the real \u0026ldquo;infrastructure\u0026rdquo; of urban life in African cities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, these practices reveal agency under conditions of profound constraint. Migrants in Lydiate are not simply reacting to exclusion from formal structures; they are actively reshaping the social and spatial logics of peri-urban Zimbabwe. They establish provisional rights to land, craft obligations of protection and stewardship, and embed themselves within communities through religious, social, and kinship affiliations. In doing so, they contest the dominant spatial imaginaries that render them invisible or illegitimate within urban governance discourses (Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, migrants in Lydiate exemplify the broader pattern across African cities where urban citizenship is performed and negotiated daily, rather than conferred once and for all through state recognition (Hammar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Landau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Their practices of relational emplacement demonstrate that belonging in the city is made, contested, and remade through everyday social labor, not merely through formal documents or bureaucratic inclusion. Table\u0026nbsp;6 summarizes key relational practices migrants actively deploy to construct forms of urban citizenship and belonging in Lydiate, highlighting their strategic agency under conditions of marginalization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelational Practices and Urban Citizenship in Lydiate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType of Practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample Actions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban Citizenship Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrant Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFictive Kinship Formation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotemic rituals, religious brotherhood, \u003cem\u003esahwira\u003c/em\u003e bonds\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial legitimacy, access to land\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMr. Phiri, Thomas Dhairesi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrust-Building Activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabor reciprocity, consistent caretaking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvisional tenure, relational belonging\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeticia Kalaulau, Luckson Machakwa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformative Loyalty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipating in communal activities, demonstrating gratitude\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOngoing tenure security, social recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Informality as Governance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from Lydiate also demand a fundamental rethinking of how informality is understood within urban governance debates. Rather than viewing informal, trust-based land systems as failures or deviations from idealized formal models, it is more accurate \u0026mdash; and more productive \u0026mdash; to see them as adaptive governance systems in their own right (Meagher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Simone, 2004). As the Lydiate case illustrates, informality is not a symptom of governance absence. Instead, it reflects alternative forms of social regulation, moral economy, and negotiated authority. Trust, fictive kinship, verbal contracts, and everyday performances of loyalty together constitute a dynamic and functional governance system that allocates land, regulates behavior, and resolves disputes outside the purview of the state (Cleaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Thebe \u0026amp; Rakotje, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese informal governance mechanisms are often more responsive, flexible, and socially embedded than formal legal systems, particularly in contexts where state institutions are perceived as corrupt, inaccessible, or indifferent to migrant needs (Potts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rakodi, 2006). For example, in Lydiate, social sanctions \u0026mdash; such as reputational damage or exclusion from fictive kin networks \u0026mdash; often function more effectively to enforce verbal land agreements than would fragile or non-existent legal enforcement mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, informal governance through trust and kinship adapts to the fluid, precarious realities of peri-urban life. It allows for rapid renegotiation of land access, redistribution of plots based on shifting social ties, and protection of land through delegated stewardship \u0026mdash; practices that would be cumbersome or impossible under rigid, formalized land regimes. As Simone (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) has argued, African urbanism is marked not by the absence of order but by the presence of flexible, relational, and negotiated forms of order.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, recognizing the value of informal governance should not romanticize its limitations. As the empirical cases show, informal systems are also hierarchical, exclusionary, and fragile. Migrants\u0026rsquo; land tenure security remains highly contingent, constantly at risk of rupture if trust is lost or kinship bonds fray. Informality provides paths to access but not always to durable rights or full urban citizenship (Ferguson, 2006; Hammar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically, then, urban governance scholarship and policy must move beyond simple binaries of \u0026ldquo;formal versus informal\u0026rdquo; and recognize the hybrid and relational nature of governance in African cities. Informality is not the absence of governance; it is governance differently organized, grounded in trust, relational labor, and negotiated claims rather than legal codes alone. Understanding informality as governance opens up new possibilities for designing more inclusive, responsive, and contextually grounded urban policies, ones that recognize and engage with \u0026mdash; rather than attempt to eradicate \u0026mdash; the vibrant relational infrastructures already sustaining urban life at the margins (Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Satterthwaite \u0026amp; Mitlin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e illustrates a refined conceptual framework that visualizes how migrant agency in peri-urban Zimbabwe is embedded within relational systems of social infrastructure. Conviviality and fictive kinship, alongside trust infrastructures, form the foundational mechanisms enabling informal governance practices such as verbal contracts, caretaking, and labor exchange. These in turn structure land access strategies \u0026mdash; both monetary and non-monetary \u0026mdash; culminating in outcomes of provisional tenure, social recognition, and precarity. The diagram foregrounds the dynamic interplay between migrant creativity and the fragility of social ties, capturing how exclusion, hierarchy, trust breakdown, and risk constantly shape and reshape belonging. Feedback loops reflect how migrants adapt their strategies, evolve kinship or trust networks, and continuously re-negotiate access under precarious conditions. This conceptualization moves beyond static legalistic models of governance to emphasize the performative, adaptive, and socially negotiated character of land access and urban emplacement in African informal settlements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Challenging Formalization Narratives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from Lydiate also invite a fundamental critique of dominant narratives around land tenure formalization. The formalization thesis posits that secure property rights \u0026mdash; backed by legal titles and state-recognized documentation \u0026mdash; are essential for unlocking economic development, urban inclusion, and citizen empowerment in the Global South. According to this view, informality is framed as a barrier to prosperity, and titling is seen as the magic bullet for integrating marginalized populations into the formal economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the everyday land practices of migrants in Lydiate directly challenge these assumptions. Rather than passively awaiting formal titles or state recognition, migrants have built complex, functional systems of land access based on trust, fictive kinship, religious affiliation, and verbal contracts. Their ability to access, hold, and make productive use of land is not dependent on formal documentation, but on dense relational work and social negotiation (Simone, 2004; Cleaver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). As Mr. Phiri explained when reflecting on his rental arrangement: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;There is no paper signed. Just trust. You keep your word. That is stronger than a letter from town council.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuch testimonies reveal that relational infrastructures, not legalistic bureaucracies, sustain land security and social belonging in everyday practice. As scholars such as Barry and Meinzen-Dick (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) and Cleaver (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) have argued, formal titles do not automatically deliver security if they are detached from local social realities, trust networks, and moral economies. In many cases, formalization efforts have disrupted existing customary or negotiated systems, leading to new conflicts, exclusions, and inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Lydiate, formalization would likely not have resolved migrants\u0026rsquo; vulnerabilities. Instead, it may have frozen flexible arrangements, privileged powerful landowners, and excluded those unable to navigate costly, bureaucratic titling processes (Durand-Lasserve \u0026amp; Royston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Rakodi, 2006). The critical relational work migrants perform; forging fictive kinship, building trust, maintaining loyalty, is invisible within formalization frameworks yet fundamental to their survival. Moreover, the relational strategies migrants use are not just coping mechanisms but creative acts of citizenship-making (Nyamnjoh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Hammar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). They demonstrate that access to land, and by extension to urban life, is being reconstituted from below in ways that are adaptive, socially meaningful, and embedded in local conditions \u0026mdash; precisely the dynamics ignored by simplistic calls for titling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, formalization narratives, while appealing in their clarity, often fail to capture the messy, relational, and negotiated nature of urban life at the margins. As the Lydiate cases show, secure tenure is less about paperwork and more about relational embeddedness \u0026mdash; an insight that must inform any serious attempts to build inclusive urban futures in Africa. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the continuum of tenure security experienced by migrants in Lydiate, ranging from fragile tenure systems characterized by weak trust, lack of contracts, and limited social embeddedness, to more resilient forms of tenure enabled by strong kinship ties, active religious networks, and reputation-based legitimacy. The diagram demonstrates that tenure security in informal systems is not binary but exists along a spectrum shaped by the depth and quality of social relationships. Rather than viewing informality as uniformly precarious, this continuum approach reveals how relational capital\u0026mdash;such as kinship, religious affiliation, and social reputation\u0026mdash;can substitute for formal legal protections and enable more durable occupation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e critically contrasts common assumptions within formalization narratives against observed realities in Lydiate, providing clear policy implications for recognizing and integrating relational and informal governance systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritique of Formalization Narratives\u0026mdash;Comparison with Lydiate Practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormalization Claims\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRealities in Lydiate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplications for Policy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecure tenure through titles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecure tenure via trust and relational ties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognize relational governance systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReduction of conflict through formal rights\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConflict managed via informal community sanctions and relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport flexible tenure systems sensitive to local conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic empowerment through documented ownership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic livelihoods sustained through informal networks and kinship obligations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrate relational infrastructures in economic policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the bifurcated policy choices available to local authorities in responding to informal land governance systems. On one path, recognizing trust-based systems and supporting flexible tenure arrangements can lead to more inclusive urban policies that engage with, rather than suppress, the social infrastructures migrants have built. On the other hand, criminalizing informal practices and disrupting existing relational networks risks deepening marginalization and eroding the adaptive mechanisms that currently sustain tenure and belonging. This visualization underscores the urgent need for state responses to be reflexive, context-sensitive, and grounded in the lived realities of informal urban life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.4. Conviviality Beyond Harmony\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of conviviality has often been invoked to celebrate the peaceful cohabitation and mutual tolerance among diverse groups in multicultural urban spaces (Gilroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). However, the experiences of peri-urban migrants in Lydiate demand a more critical reading of conviviality, one that acknowledges its strategic, survivalist, and interest-based nature rather than assuming it is purely harmonious or egalitarian.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the empirical cases show, convivial relationships \u0026mdash; whether framed through fictive kinship, sahwira friendships, or religious bonds \u0026mdash; are often instrumental and tactical. Migrants forge ties with landowners not out of sentimental attachment, but to access land, shelter, and social protection. These relationships are calculated acts of survival in contexts where legal and political structures exclude them. For example, Mr. Kamala\u0026rsquo;s description of his relationship with Mr. Nhau reflects this pragmatic orientation: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We became like brothers, but everyone knows: it\u0026rsquo;s because he trusted me, and I needed the land. If there is no trust, there is no land.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis frank acknowledgment illustrates that conviviality in Lydiate is less about cultural celebration and more about negotiated interest, a form of relational pragmatism essential for survival. As Wise and Velayutham (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) argue, conviviality is often fragile, tactical, and imbued with latent tensions. It enables daily cohabitation and resource-sharing but does not eliminate inequalities, power struggles, or the risk of rupture. In Lydiate, convivial ties are enabling but precarious: they offer pathways to land and belonging, but they can be abruptly severed if trust breaks down, interests shift, or conflicts emerge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMrs. Dzimbiri\u0026rsquo;s account of losing her farming plot despite years of rental payments captures this precariousness: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We thought we were part of them. But when they no longer needed us, they pushed us away.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Thus, everyday conviviality in Lydiate is both a mode of access and a site of vulnerability. Migrants must continuously perform loyalty, manage social risks, and navigate shifting relational terrains to maintain their precarious foothold on land. Importantly, recognizing the ambivalent nature of conviviality helps move beyond romanticized narratives of multicultural urban harmony. It highlights that survival in marginal urban spaces is often about strategic co-existence, negotiated interdependence, and constant relational work, a complex balancing act that blends cooperation with latent contestation (Simone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Meagher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In this sense, conviviality is not an end-state but an ongoing, unstable process, reflecting both the possibilities and the precarities of urban life at Africa\u0026rsquo;s evolving peripheries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper critically examined the everyday practices through which peri-urban migrants in Lydiate, Zimbabwe, access farming and settlement land in the absence of formal rights and state recognition. Through detailed ethnographic analysis, it revealed that migrants do not passively await legal inclusion or state benevolence. Instead, they proactively craft convivial relations, forge fictive kinship ties, and build trust-based social infrastructures that allow them to navigate land scarcity and secure fragile but meaningful claims to space.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key finding is that land access in Lydiate is profoundly relational. It is negotiated not through formal markets, legal contracts, or bureaucratic state processes, but through personalized, trust-based engagements, often mediated by fictive kinship, shared totems, religious affiliations, and long-standing friendships. As the empirical cases of Mr. Phiri, Mr. Kamala, Luckson Machakwa, and others demonstrate, these relational strategies provide pathways to survival and emplacement in contexts of exclusion. However, the analysis also highlights the fragility and conditionality of these arrangements, as access is always vulnerable to breakdowns in trust, shifting social dynamics, and the interests of more powerful landholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretically, the paper extends existing work on conviviality (Gilroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Nyamnjoh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wise \u0026amp; Velayutham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and fictive kinship (Stack, 1974; Bouquet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) into new terrain: the negotiation of land rights and urban governance in African peri-urban margins. While much scholarship on conviviality has focused on multicultural coexistence and social cohesion, this study highlights the strategic, survivalist, and often precarious dimensions of convivial practices in contexts of urban marginalization. It demonstrates that conviviality and fictive kinship are not merely social niceties but are critical political and economic tools, enabling migrants to stake claims to land, forge belonging, and craft alternative citizenships beyond the reach of formal structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, the paper proposes the notion of \u0026ldquo;trust infrastructures\u0026rdquo; as a useful conceptual innovation for understanding urban governance beyond the state. In Lydiate, trust functions as an informal governance mechanism: regulating land transactions, securing property against encroachment, managing social conflicts, and maintaining fragile tenure security. Recognizing trust as a form of urban infrastructure challenges dominant assumptions that governance must flow from formal legality and institutional frameworks. Instead, it highlights the relational architectures that sustain urban life in contexts of state absence or hostility (Simone, 2004; Meagher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings carry important policy implications. Current tendencies by local governments to criminalize informal settlements and dismiss migrant land practices as illegal or chaotic fundamentally misrecognize the adaptive, organized, and socially meaningful nature of these systems. Policymakers need to move beyond simplistic formalization models and instead engage with the realities of relational land governance. This could involve recognizing and supporting trust-based agreements, offering flexible tenure arrangements that accommodate social realities, and designing inclusive urban policies that build upon \u0026mdash; rather than disrupt \u0026mdash; existing relational infrastructures. Urban interventions must respect the social labor migrants invest in crafting belonging and land security, acknowledging their agency rather than pathologizing their practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study points toward important avenues for further research. Comparative studies across different peri-urban contexts in Zimbabwe and other African countries would deepen understanding of how trust, fictive kinship, and conviviality operate in varied settings. Particularly valuable would be longitudinal research examining how such relational systems evolve, adapt, or disintegrate over time, especially under conditions of economic shocks, political change, or generational shifts. Further investigation into the limits and breakdowns of conviviality: moments of betrayal, exclusion, and conflict, would also enrich theoretical understandings of the precarious balances migrants must navigate in their quest for land, survival, and belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the experiences of migrants in Lydiate compel a rethinking of land governance, urban citizenship, and informality in African cities. They reveal that urban life at the margins is not a space of chaos or abandonment, but of creative negotiation, relational resilience, and fragile emplacement. It is through these everyday, tactical, and deeply social practices that marginalized populations forge spaces of life, dignity, and future-making amidst the uncertainties of contemporary urban transformations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclaimer:\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiability for commissions, omissions and/or views expressed in this paper remains entirely the responsibility of the authors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author appreciates the support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (Grant No. 41600690) for funding this research through its \u0026lsquo;Mobility and Sociality in Africa\u0026rsquo;s Emerging Urban\u0026rsquo; Doctoral Fellowship programme.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u0026nbsp;(data transparency)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome of the data that underlie the findings of this study may be made available upon request from the authors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided written informed consent before inclusion in the study. The process included a clear explanation of the study, potential risks, benefits, and the voluntary nature of participation. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003enot applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003enot applicable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Zimbabwe. Prior to participation, all participants were duly informed of their rights and responsibilities and provided explicit written consent. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the University of Zimbabwe.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohannes Bhanye - conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, and writing - original draft, review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarry, D., \u0026amp; Meinzen-Dick, R. (2008, July). The invisible map: Community tenure rights. In \u003cem\u003e12th Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhanye, J. (2023). Temporality, Translocality, and Sedentariness: \u0026lsquo;Complex And Varied\u0026rsquo;Perceptions For The Future Among African Irregular Migrants On The Margins. In \u003cem\u003eThe Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Change\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1-21). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhanye, J. (2024). Beyond informality:\u0026rsquo;Nimble peri-urban land transactions\u0026rsquo;-how migrants on the margins trade, access and hold land for settlement. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Global Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhanye, J. I., Dzingirai, V., \u0026amp; Campbell, M. M. (2024). Transactional and Supplementary Strategies for Accessing Land Among Migrants on the Margins: An Ethnographic Study Among Malawian Migrants at Lydiate Informal Settlement, Zimbabwe. In \u003cem\u003eSecondary Cities and Local Governance in Southern Africa\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 87-114). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhanye, J., Matamanda, A., \u0026amp; Shayamunda, R. (2025). \u0026lsquo;This settlement is just a launch pad to move to better city spaces\u0026rsquo;: radical sense of place and migration aspirations among youth migrants in the diaspora. \u003cem\u003eComparative Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBouquet, M. (1996). Family trees and their affinities: the visual imperative of the genealogical diagram. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute\u003c/em\u003e, 43-66.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBouquet, M. (1996). Family trees and their affinities: the visual imperative of the genealogical diagram. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute\u003c/em\u003e, 43-66.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBourdillon, M. F. (1987). Guns and rain: taking structural analysis too far?. \u003cem\u003eAfrica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(2), 263-274.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrown, A. (2015). Claiming the streets: Property rights and legal empowerment in the urban informal economy. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e, 238-248.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChekero, T. (2023). Borders and boundaries in daily urban mobility practices of refugees in Cape Town, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eRefugee Survey Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 361-381.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCleaver, F. (2005). The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty. \u003cem\u003eWorld development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(6), 893-906.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDaimon, A. (2015). \u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;Mabhurandaya\u0026rsquo;: the Malawian diaspora in Zimbabwe: 1895 to 2008\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDurand-Lasserve, A., \u0026amp; Royston, L. (Eds.). (2002). \u003cem\u003eHolding their ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries\u003c/em\u003e. Earthscan.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEbaugh, H. R., \u0026amp; Curry, M. (2000). Fictive kin as social capital in new immigrant communities. \u003cem\u003eSociological Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 189-209.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., \u0026amp; Shaw, L. L. (2011). \u003cem\u003eWriting ethnographic fieldnotes\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFerguson, J. (1999). \u003cem\u003eExpectations of modernity: myths and meanings of urban life on the Zambian Copperbelt\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 57). Univ of California Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeyer, H. S., Geyer Jr, H. S., \u0026amp; Du Plessis, D. J. (2013). Migration, geographies of marginality and informality\u0026mdash;impacts on upper and lower ends of urban systems in the North and South. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Planning Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 411-431.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGilroy, P. (2004). After empire: melancholia or convivial culture?.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHammar, A. (2017). Urban displacement and resettlement in Zimbabwe: The paradoxes of propertied citizenship. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Studies Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(3), 81-104.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHungwe, E. (2014). \u003cem\u003eLand transactions and rural development policy in the Domboshava peri-urban communal area, Zimbabwe\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch--Stellenbosch University).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohannes, B., Dzingirai, V., \u0026amp; Chirisa, I. (2023). Transnational migrants on the margin: agency, aspirations, and perceptions for the future among Malawian migrants in Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s Norton peri-urban. In \u003cem\u003eThe Palgrave encyclopedia of urban and regional futures\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1876-1886). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLandau, L. B. (2014). Urban refugees and IDPs. \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford Handbook of refugee and forced migration studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 139-150.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMabin, A., Butcher, S., \u0026amp; Bloch, R. (2013). Peripheries, suburbanisms and change in sub-Saharan African cities. \u003cem\u003eSocial Dynamics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 167-190.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarongwe, N. (2008). \u003cem\u003eInterrogating Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s fast track land reform and resettlement programme: A focus on beneficiary selection\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarx, C., Royston, L., \u0026amp; LandMark, U. (2007). How the poor access, hold and trade land. \u003cem\u003eUrban Land Markets, Research by Isandla Institute, Stephen Berrisford Consulting with Progressus Research and Development, London (http://www. urbanlandmark. org. za/downloads/OOM_booklet_v5ss. pdf)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeagher, K. (2010). \u003cem\u003eIdentity economics: social networks \u0026amp; the informal economy in Nigeria\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 25). Boydell \u0026amp; Brewer Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMitlin, D., \u0026amp; Satterthwaite, D. (2014). Sustainable development and cities. In \u003cem\u003eSustainability the environment and urbanisation\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 23-61). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoyo, S. (2011). Three decades of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eJournal of peasant studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 493-531.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMushonga, R. H. (2024). Performing conviviality in diverse and precarious urban spaces: everyday experiences of Nigerian migrant entrepreneurs in Downtown, Harare. \u003cem\u003eUrban geography\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161-178.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyambara, P. S. (2014). State power, land-use planning, and local responses in northwestern Zimbabwe, 1980s-1990s. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Studies Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 37-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyamnjoh, F. B. (2017). Incompleteness: Frontier Africa and the currency of conviviality. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Asian and African studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(3), 253-270.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyamnjoh, F. B. (2025). \u003cem\u003eReimagining African Scholarship: A Convivial Approach Beyond the Single Story\u003c/em\u003e. African Books Collective.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;reilly, K. (2012). \u003cem\u003eEthnographic methods\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePieterse, E. (2011). Grasping the unknowable: coming to grips with African urbanisms. \u003cem\u003eSocial dynamics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePotts, D. (2011). Making a livelihood in (and beyond) the African city: the experience of Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eAfrica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(4), 588-605.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRakodi, C. (1997). Global forces, urban change, and urban management in Africa. \u003cem\u003eThe urban challenge in Africa: Growth and management of its large cities\u003c/em\u003e, 17-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. \u003cem\u003eProgress in human geography\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 305-320.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScheper-Hughes, N. (1995). The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropology. \u003cem\u003eCurrent anthropology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 409-440.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, B., Mahenehene, J., Murimbarimba, F., \u0026amp; Sukume, C. (2010). Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s land reform. \u003cem\u003eMyths and Realities\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimone, A. (2010). \u003cem\u003eCity life from Jakarta to Dakar: movements at the crossroads\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimone, A. (2014). People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in johannesburg (2004). In \u003cem\u003eThe people, place, and space reader\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 241-246). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmit, S., Musango, J. K., Kovacic, Z., \u0026amp; Brent, A. C. (2017). Conceptualising slum in an urban African context. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 107-119.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStack, C. B. (1997). \u003cem\u003eAll our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community\u003c/em\u003e. Basic books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThebe, V., \u0026amp; F. Rakotje, M. (2013). Land strategies and livelihood dynamics in peri-urban communities: challenges to land and agricultural policy in Lesotho. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(3), 399-415.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWatson, V. (2009). \u0026lsquo;The planned city sweeps the poor away\u0026hellip;\u0026rsquo;: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. \u003cem\u003eProgress in planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(3), 151-193.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWise, A., \u0026amp; Velayutham, S. (2014). Conviviality in everyday multiculturalism: Some brief comparisons between Singapore and Sydney. \u003cem\u003eEuropean journal of cultural studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 406-430.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWise, A., \u0026amp; Velayutham, S. (2014). Conviviality in everyday multiculturalism: Some brief comparisons between Singapore and Sydney. \u003cem\u003eEuropean journal of cultural studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 406-430.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Urban informality, Land access, Peri-urban, migration, kinship, African urbanism, governance, Zimbabwe","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831334/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831334/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eLand in Lydiate is not bought or sold in conventional terms. It is earned; through years of care, friendship, and carefully nurtured kin-like ties. It is also easily lost, as trust unravels or allegiances shift. In this precarious balance, migrants are both deeply rooted and perennially at risk. This paper explores how such fragile arrangements - fictive kinship, trust infrastructures, and informal contracts, do not only mediate access to land but actively constitute the governance of urban life on Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s peri-urban edges. The paper recasts what it means to belong, to occupy, and to govern in African cities. Drawing on long-term ethnographic research in the Lydiate informal settlement, the study reveals that migrants do not passively await inclusion into formal land markets. Instead, they actively forge fictive kinship ties, build trust-based relationships, and engage in strategic convivial practices to negotiate land access, secure provisional tenure, and craft alternative forms of urban belonging. Through detailed case studies, the paper shows that land transactions are not governed by state law or formal property regimes, but by social infrastructures of trust, loyalty, and negotiated kinship, often sealed through verbal agreements and everyday performances of relational obligation. The paper extends debates on conviviality and fictive kinship by demonstrating their centrality to urban governance and land access in African cities, beyond traditional framing as mechanisms of multicultural coexistence. It introduces the concept of \u0026ldquo;trust infrastructures\u0026rdquo; to describe the informal but highly functional systems that regulate land allocation, tenure security, and conflict resolution in peri-urban margins. Highlighting the agency, creativity, and social labor of migrants, the study challenges dominant narratives that view informality as mere disorder and critiques simplistic calls for tenure formalization as blind to the relational architectures sustaining urban life. The findings call for a fundamental rethinking of urban policy: local authorities must recognize and engage with, rather than criminalize, the relational and adaptive governance systems migrants have built. The paper contributes to scholarship on urban informality, African urbanism, land governance, and migrant agency, while also offering new conceptual tools for understanding how everyday social practices reshape the governance of land and belonging in contemporary urban Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Conviviality, Becoming Kin and Gaining Land: Everyday Transactions of Trust and Survival among Peri-Urban Migrants in Zimbabwe","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-20 15:28:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6831334/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c3a897d6-8517-41e7-b471-69b2db9c033d","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-15T07:55:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-20 15:28:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6831334","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6831334","identity":"rs-6831334","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}