Overall, richer households enjoy better job accessibility (Table 3). Regardless of the transport mode in measuring the JAIs, households in the first (that is, poorest) consumption quartile have the lowest scores, while households in the fourth (that is, richest) quartile have the highest scores. For example, households in the first consumption quartile can access 7.8 percent of Nairobi jobs by foot within 60 minutes, in contrast to the households in the fourth quartile (9.6 percent). By minibus, households in the first and fourth quartiles can access 11.8 percent and 15.7 percent of jobs within 45 minutes, respectively. Thus, the gap in the average job accessibility (either by foot or by minibus) between the poorest and richest groups of households is more than 20 percent. In other words, poor households can reach 20 percent fewer jobs than richer households in case of the same transport mode used for the same travel time. The gap becomes wider if we also consider the difference in their main transport modes (foot vs minibus/car).

**Table 3. JAI by consumption quartile and informal status**

||<br>|Consumpti<br>|on quartile<br>|<br>|Inform<br>|al area<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Q1<br>(1)|Q2<br>(2)|Q3<br>(3)|Q4<br>(4)|Yes<br>(5)|No<br>(6)|
|Distance from the CBD (km)|7.3|7.1|7.4|6.8|6.8|7.5|
|Share of accessible jobs by foot in 60 minutes (%)|7.8|8.7|8.5|9.6|7.0|10.0|
|Share of accessible jobs by minibus in 45 minutes (%)|11.8|13.3|13.6|15.7|9.6|17.1|

The results also highlight how informal settlements are disconnected from the rest of the city. The gap in the JAIs between households in informal and formal areas (30 percent by foot and 40 percent by minibus) is wider than the gap between the poor and the rich (20 percent by both foot and minibus). Even using minibus, residents in informal settlements can on average reach only 10 percent of existing jobs in Nairobi. There are two possible interpretations for the fact that accessibility to jobs is low in informal neighborhoods. The first is that except for inner-city neighborhoods, informal settlements tend to be located in less desirable areas, typically those disconnected from employment opportunities. A second explanation however might reside in the structure of informal settlements themselves with high densities and limited rights of way which would constrain supply of public transport and force inhabitants to walk through often large informal areas to access jobs. In fact, a third of houses in informal settlements are located more than 500 meters away from the nearest bus stop, as opposed to 14 percent in formal residential areas. Nevertheless, lower-income households choose to live in informal neighborhoods because they cannot afford formal dwellings, but the question is how costly is it to live with better job accessibility in Nairobi?

# _Trade-off over job accessibility, living conditions, and living costs_

Table 4 reports the estimation results of hedonic regression models in Equation 5. Columns 1 and 2 present the models with the distance from the CBD as a proxy of job accessibility. Columns 3 and 4 are the results with the share of accessible jobs by foot, while columns 5 and 6 report for the share of accessible jobs by minibus. The models overall fit well: the adjusted R-squared is around 0.78 in all models. The estimate of each variable is also reasonable; rents are higher for the units with written agreement, larger floor area, walls made of stone, brick, or block, water taps, flush toilets, and/or electricity. By contrast, the following characteristics are negatively correlated with housing rents: roof made of corrugated iron sheets, earth/clay floor, located near garbage dump sites, and/or being affected by pollution from factories. Interestingly, a dummy indicator of informal status is not clearly correlated with housing rents probably because other observed characteristics already capture the difference between informal and formal 14