Data production on Brazilian favelas and the problem of intercensal incomparabilityAbstract
This article investigates the conceptual and methodological transformations introduced by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in the identification of Favelas and Urban Communities (FCU), with the specific objective of reflecting on the problem of data incomparability between the 2010 and 2022 Population Censuses. Through a qualitative and documentary approach centered on the analysis of methodological notes and public data released by the Institute, the study aims to understand the strategies adopted in the different stages of the census process: before, during, and after data collection. The research includes an empirical case study conducted in the city of Juiz de Fora, where the overlap of FCU polygons is examined to identify possible discontinuities in classification, as well as their causes and effects on the territorial reading of favelas.
Keywords
Population Census; IBGE; favelas; incomparability
Resumo
Este artigo investiga as transformações conceituais e metodológicas promovidas pelo IBGE na identificação de Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas (FCU), com o objetivo específico de refletir sobre o problema da incomparabilidade dos dados produzidos pelos Censos Demográficos de 2010 e 2022. Por meio de uma abordagem qualitativa e documental, centrada na análise das notas metodológicas e dados públicos divulgados pelo Instituto, busca-se compreender as estratégias adotadas nas distintas etapas do processo censitário – antes, durante e após a coleta de dados. O estudo realiza um recorte empírico na cidade de Juiz de Fora, onde se examina, a partir da sobreposição de polígonos das FCUs, a ocorrência de rupturas na identificação e as possíveis causas e efeitos da descontinuidade para a leitura territorial das favelas.
Palavras-chave
Censo Demográfico; IBGE; favelas; incomparabilidades
Background
The recent change in nomenclature adopted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) — replacing the term “subnormal conglomerates” with “favelas and urban communities” — has reignited important discussions, such as the evolution of the concept of what constitutes a favela within the census process, the pressing need for investment by the Brazilian State to improve the production of specific data on these territories, and the symbolic meaning behind the act of naming (D’Ottaviano, 2024; Giannella; Catalá, 2025; Giannella, Soares, Franco, 2024). The new terminology represents progress towards overcoming stigmas and stereotypes historically associated with favelas, while also attempting to better capture the complex and diverse reality of these spaces (IBGE, 2024b). The publication of the Results of the Universe by the end of 2024 intensified this discussion, especially from a quantitative perspective, once again raising questions regarding the possibility of direct comparisons with previous censuses in the pursuit of a longitudinal study of the urban issue and favelas in Brazil.
IBGE has been tackling the challenge of data production on favelas since the 1940s. Although initially without nationwide coverage and being strongly influenced by the configuration of Rio de Janeiro's favelas, the Institute has since faced the challenge of adequately representing these territories (Giannella, Soares, Franco, 2024; Gonçalves, 2020). These difficulties stem both from technical limitations — especially during the institution's early stages — and the heterogeneity of favelas themselves, which are in a constant process of self-transformation driven by public policies, new regulatory frameworks, emerging social arrangements, the emergence of new social actors, as well as advances in communication, transportation and construction technologies (Bonduki, 2022; Senra, 2009).
The final preparation cycle for the 2020/2022 Census was particularly challenging, marked by the impacts of the global health crisis between 2019 and mid-2022. The pandemic caused the postponement of data collection twice and resulted in constant threats of cancellation of the survey due to budget cuts and political resistance arising from the adopted guidelines of Jair Bolsonaro's presidential administration (2019-2022). Nonetheless, IBGE demonstrated efforts to expand its activities in the identification of favelas and communities, working in closer collaboration with other levels of government and civil society.
The institute has sought an increasingly closer engagement with Brazilian society, leading to constant updates not only in nomenclature, but also in the adopted concepts, data collection methods and data processing. In general, this evolution is a result of the expansion of the set of information collected from households and individuals. These changes, although fundamental for more accurately reflecting sociospatial transformations, often compromise comparability across different periods. The institute itself, when publishing results and official documents for the most recent census, reinforces the need to analyze data separately, taking methodological and conceptual differences into consideration in order to avoid misleading interpretations.
It is worthy of notice, however, that the methodological improvements implemented by IBGE for the 2022 Population Census compromises the comparability of its results with those of the 2010 Population Census regarding Favelas and Urban Communities. Whereas the 2010 Census identified 11,425,633 people residing in 6,329 Favelas and Urban Communities – designated then as Subnormal Agglomerations – the 2022 Census identified 16,390,825 residents living in 12,348 Favelas and Urban Communities. The increase in these numbers does not exclusively represent demographic growth, but can also be attributed to the improvement of identification methods in the latest operation, as well as the mapping and classification of these territories. (IBGE, 2024a, p. 7)
In 2025, shortly after the first publications of the results of the 2022 Population Census, the institute was willing to clarify any doubts and questions related to the topic. To this end, IBGE, in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), issued a public call to hire a specialist with the objective of conducting a specific study on the two most recent censuses, within the scope of the project entitled “Brazil in the Third Decade of the Twenty-First Century: Dissemination of the Results of the Country's 13th Population Census”, bringing further attention to the importance of this discussion.
Therefore, the main goal of this study is to analyze possible incompatibilities between the 2010 and 2022 Population Censuses regarding the identification and delimitation of favelas by IBGE – previously designated as “subnormal agglomerations”. More specifically, the study aims to identify and compare the technical and conceptual criteria used by the Institute in each of these census editions for defining such areas, as well as to analyze the main changes in the implemented territorial mapping and data collection procedures. Disaggregated information, or sample data, regarding the 2022 survey, had not been published at the time this study was written, preventing other types of analysis.
The theoretical framework will be based upon IBGE's publications, especially Methodological Note n. 01 – On the Change from Subnormal Agglomerations to Favelas and Urban Communities (IBGE, 2024b) and Results of the Universe – 2022 Population Census (IBGE, 2024a), in conjunction with documents from the 2010 Census, such as Results of the Universe – 2010 Population Census (IBGE, 2011a) and Technical Note – Subnormal Agglomerations – Territorial Information (IBGE, 2011b). For map production, shapefiles available in the Institute’s database were used. Discussions preceding the publication of the 2022 Census will also be considered, as well as studies developed with post-census data, creating a time-oriented overview of the transformations in the census process.
The article begins with a brief review of the census processes conducted by IBGE regarding the identification of favelas and communities, spanning back from the antecedents of the first classification in the General Census of 1950 to the most recent surveys. Subsequently, the analysis focuses in greater depth on the two most recent censuses, 2010 and 2022, as they provide the most up-to-date data available. The empirical section of the study is dedicated to analyzing the areas identified by the Institute in the municipality of Juiz de Fora, with the aim of illustrating, through maps and tables, the transformations that occurred between the two periods and the possible effects resulting from methodological changes. The choice of municipality is justified by the relatively small number of classified areas, compared to major metropolitan centers such as Rio de Janeiro, which allows for a more comprehensive analysis of results across the entire city rather than in only one specific community. Furthermore, the study takes advantage of data already being processed by the authors within the context of an ongoing research project scheduled for completion in 2026.
A brief history of the production of data on favelas
The identification and production of information on favelas in Brazil, specifically in Rio de Janeiro, began long before the publication of the first “official” data by IBGE. The 1906 and 1920 censuses already mentioned certain locations that would later be recognized as favelas, although considering them as ordinary neighborhoods, without census distinction or any records of the particularities of these territories (Gonçalves, 2020). For some time, the press played a significant role in the collection of data, becoming one of the first and main sources of information documenting the houses built on the city's hillsides, which would later become favelas. However, this representation was not limited to an objective description of the reality of these territories and would often create a stigmatized and stereotyped image of the favelas and their residents (Abreu, 2014; Valladares, 2005).
During the sanitary crisis in the federal capital within the context of the first urban reforms (1903-1906), studies were carried out with the goal of eliminating areas considered as incompatible with the urbanistic and sanitary standards of the time. Initially focused on tenements, these interventions ultimately encouraged the expansion of occupations on the hillsides, redirecting attention towards these areas that would later be called favelas. Public health physicians such as Victor de Moura Tavares and urban planners such as Alfred Agache played a central role in producing the first systematic records of these territories (Gonçalves, 2020).
From the 1940s onward, other professionals and institutions became actively involved in studies on favelas encouraged by the policies of Getúlio Vargas, an administration that not only developed initiatives in the interest of the working class, such as the Brazilian model of the Welfare State (Santos, 1979), but also attributed increasing importance to the use of statistics as an essential guiding tool for public policies. In this context, the creation of the National Statistics Institute in 1936, and its subsequent merger with the National Geography Council in 1938, resulted in the formation of IBGE, marking the birth of a consolidated national statistical institution with its own structure and growing autonomy. However, before becoming recognized as the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the statistical agency1 faced difficulties in its early years, such as technical limitations, institutional and budgetary instability and a bureaucratic administration that rendered it politically vulnerable. Therefore, topics such as favelas and urban communities were not treated as priorities by the public administration, restricting the production of information about these territories (Senra, 2009).
The 1950 General Census represented the first major official milestone in the definition and collection of data on favelas, including, for the first time, a specific section with information on the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and proposing a methodological discussion regarding the defition of the category “favela”. Its formulation was heavily influenced by the Census of Favelas of Rio de Janeiro, conducted by the Department of Geography and Statistics of the Federal District between 1947 and 1949. Despite notable advances, the document had methodological weaknesses that compromised its credibility, though these were overcome in 1950 through Alberto Torres Guimarães’ contributions to the General Census. The 1949 report itself acknowledged that the published numbers had been reduced due to the possibility that the census takers had exaggerated their estimates (Gonçalves, 2020).
In the 1950 publications, however, the document entitled Favelas of the Federal District and the 1950 Census (1953) presented relevant information regarding the social context that led to the formation of these territories, as well as a detailed analysis of the investigated characteristics and the data collection methodology employed. This work reveals a significant scientific leap, contributing beyond the technical and methodological aspects of quantifying favelas by shedding light on issues such as social segregation, racial inequality and other dimensions of sociospatial injustices (Guimarães, 1953).
For the 1950 General Census, five criteria were established to define what would constitute a favela: agglomerations with at least 50 dwellings, housing type (materials used), legal status of occupation (without legal authorization), absence of public services, and lack of urbanization (precarious infrastructure). These criteria subsequently guided later censuses, and their legacy remains perceptible in the definitions used in census operations to this day. The document (Guimarães, 1953) also described the methodological process, not only reflecting upon the creation of the concept but explicitly addressing the difficulties encountered during data collection, such as the absence of street names or numbering, which hindered the coverage of these territories, as well as the adopted strategies.
A complete topographic survey was carried out in each favela, based on the sketches drawn in each sector covered by the locators [SIC]. Only in Praia do Pinto did this work become impracticable, given the disorder and dispersion with which the houses had been built, without any type of street layout. In this case, only one solution was possible in order to carry out the census collection in Praia do Pinto: the use of aerial photographs, supervised by the special team of census takers. (Guimarães, 1953, p. 19)2
The 1960 and 1970 censuses largely maintained the previous criteria for the identification of favelas, with minor updates regarding construction materials used for characterization. In both cases, data collection was based on the prior delimitation of areas on cartograms, indicating a certain methodological continuity. The most significant change occurred in the nomenclature: in 1970, the term “favela” was replaced by “exceptional urban agglomerations, generally known as favelas, mocambos, flooded settlements, etc.,” signaling an attempt to expand the category beyond the context of Rio de Janeiro. This change, however, did not result in broader territorial coverage, which remained restricted to Rio de Janeiro (IBGE, 2024a; Gonçalves, 2020).
In 1960, the report produced by the Society for Graphic and Mechanographic Analysis Applied to Social Complexes (SAGMACS), financed and published by the newspaper O Estado de S.Paulo, is also worthy of notice. Opposed to the transfer of the national capital and to the government of Juscelino Kubitschek, the newspaper advocated investment in popular housing and, in this context, commissioned the study on the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Although it was not intended to quantify all favelas in Rio de Janeiro, the study addressed 16 favelas in the city, seven of which were analyzed in greater depth, revealing their complexities on multiple levels. The study stands out for its methodological quality, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, in addition to a rich cartographic and visual representation. The report became a historical and methodological landmark in favela studies.
The 1980 Census stands out among other surveys because it achieved, for the first time, nationwide coverage for the collection and processing of information on favelas. However, the definition of the concept was substantially reduced and became highly generic, with favelas thereafter being designated as special urban agglomeration sectors considered to include all agglomerations with: “at least 50 dwellings, most of them lacking adequate infrastructure and generally located on land not owned by the residents” (IBGE, 2024a, p. 32). The simplification of this concept may be interpreted not only as a strategy to make census coverage operationally feasible, but also as a reflection of the influence of the military dictatorship on IBGE during the preparatory years preceding the census. This context was marked by the strengthening of favela eradication policies, which contributed to institutional neglect regarding these territories (Russo, 2016). A paradox thus emerged: while IBGE expanded its capacity to produce information on these territories, such data did not necessarily support inclusive policies and could also serve as basis for removal actions.
Due to the budget cuts imposed by the economic stabilization plan implemented during the first year of the presidency of Collor de Mello (1990-1992), together with the institutional dismantling resulting from the fiscal crisis of the 1980s, which led to mass dismissals within the Institute, the census originally scheduled for 1990 was postponed until 1991. When finally conducted, practices similar to those of the previous census were observed, although the nomenclature had been once again altered, becoming “Subnormal Agglomerations”. The adoption of this terminology as the official designation was widely criticized by researchers and by favela residents themselves for being considered heavily stigmatizing. Nevertheless, this designation remained officially in use until 2024.
Classification, representation, and narrative translate into power. When we use a certain terminology, we are invoking a system of representation, a symbolic system, through that term. [...] “Subnormal agglomerations”, as used today, reproduces coloniality of knowledge. In other words, there is no longer direct exploitation or violence, but it assumes other forms and becomes updated within the society in which we live today through terminology. (Borges, 2023, 54 min.)
According to IBGE (2024a), the 1991 Census stood out for technological and institutional advances. The use of satellite imagery improved mapping, and the publication of data in digital format expanded both the detail and circulation of information. The adopted methodology began identifying agglomerations with 20 to 50 dwellings within sector descriptions, even outside surveyed areas. This approach represented an important advance, since the minimum requirement of 50 dwellings had been criticized by researchers for underreporting these territories (Pasternak, 2001). There was also greater openness to dialogue with society through Municipal Census Commissions, which focused on mobilization and support for data collection. However, there is no evidence that these commissions operated within favelas or incorporated community leaders in their teams.
In the 2000 Census, demand for census information became even greater, driven by the political-administrative decentralization established by the 1988 Constitution. With greater autonomy and expanded responsibilities, states and municipalities increasingly sought data and instruments for planning their policies. Among the advances of this census were important technological innovations in census operations, such as the conversion of the cartographic base into digital format, the creation of the IBGE website for publishing information, the creation of databases, among other improvements.
The strengthening of IBGE as an institution, driven by increased financial resources, the qualification of its technical staff, and the gradual conquest of legitimacy, favored advances in different fields of research. In the specific case of favela studies, progress became more evident in technological aspects, although efforts to understand the phenomenon in its complexity remained relatively limited. In 2000, no thematic publication on the information was released. Nevertheless, the work of researchers dedicated to the topic contributed to broadening the debate and generating growing pressure for improvements within IBGE’s treatment of information on the subject.
By the 2000s, more than 80% of Brazil’s population already lived in urban areas, and according to IBGE, nearly 5% of this total resided in favelas. However, research conducted by IPEA (Mation, Nadalin, Krause, 2014) indicates that difficulties in analyzing available physical criteria, combined with the absence of a reliable database – such as a street network database limited by difficult access to certain information – caused the identification of favelas to become strongly associated with local land tenure conditions, which themselves lacked more complete and consistent records. In this context, the authors point out that growth was significantly greater than that recorded by the 2010 Census: whereas official data indicated that 5% of the population lived in favelas, their research estimated nearly 8%. On the other hand, the same study points to remarkable improvements in the 2010 survey, as will be discussed below.
2010 Census and 2022 Census
In the years following the 2000 Census, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) carried out two other major surveys: the Survey of Basic Municipal Information (Munic) and the Population Count. These surveys, which also addressed the issue of favelas, produced results that drew the Institute’s attention to the need for a more detailed analysis of the national reality, since, for example, in 2001 the Munic survey identified approximately 700 thousand more households than those recorded in the 2000 Census, as a result of a methodology that also incorporated records provided by municipal governments (IBGE, 2024b).
The effort to improve the census methodology resulted in the incorporation of a stage prior to the general data collection process, characterized by the adoption of new identification procedures. For the first time, a detailed survey of housing conditions and the immediate surroundings of the so-called subnormal agglomerations was carried out, based on a specific morphological survey. This process included the use of georeferenced identification and preliminary field visits, with the purpose of obtaining close knowledge of these territories and improving the definition of the boundaries of these special areas. The survey, called the Territorial Information Survey (Levantamento de Informações Territoriais – LIT), was structured in two phases. In the first phase, census agents conducted fieldwork to collect information directly in the areas (Chart 1). In the second phase, Municipal Information Survey forms were distributed and meetings were held in partnership with municipal governments in order to validate territorial delimitations and, above all, gather information on the land tenure situation of each locality. These meetings took place within the framework of the Municipal Geography and Statistics Commissions (CMGEs), created in 350 municipalities.
The nomenclature (Subnormal Agglomerations) and the concept used to define favela remained virtually the same as those employed in the 1991 and 2000 censuses, although some criteria were specified in greater detail:
It is a cluster consisting of at least 51 housing units (shacks, houses, etc.) lacking, for the most part, essential public services, occupying or having occupied until recently land owned by others (public or private), and generally arranged in a disorderly and/or dense manner. The identification of subnormal agglomerations is based on the following criteria:
a) Illegal occupation of land, that is, construction on land owned by others (public or private) at the present time or in the recent past (acquisition of legal title to the land ten years ago or less); and
b) Having at least one of the following characteristics:
• urbanization outside current standards – characterized by narrow and irregularly aligned streets, unequally sized and shaped lots, and buildings not regularized by public authorities; or
• precarious essential public services, such as electricity, garbage collection, and water and sewage networks.
Subnormal Agglomerations may be classified, according to urbanization standards and/or the precariousness of essential public services, into the following categories: invasion, irregular or clandestine subdivision, and invaded areas and irregular or clandestine subdivisions recently regularized.
The definition adopts the so-called “paradigm of lack” (Silva, 2009), which contributes to the hierarchical classification of neighborhoods within cities and reinforces a depreciative view of these territories, particularly when considering the nomenclature employed. In response to this conception, the years following the census saw the intensification of a civil society movement (also involving academics and NGOs) seeking to create new perspectives on these data, with the objective of improving their use in the creation and allocation of fairer and more effective public policies for favelas (Matiolli, 2023). In this sense, the 2020 Census represented, in several respects, the Institute’s response to this mobilization, opening a broad dialogue with society, including a public consultation intended to support the revision of related concepts and the institutionalization of a new nomenclature to replace “Subnormal Agglomerations.”
As in 2010, a preparatory process was carried out prior to field data collection. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this process was prolonged, as data collection was postponed twice, and the census was effectively conducted only in 2022. In this context, the territorial database had undergone continuous updates since 2013, whose consolidation took place before3 the census reference date. This possibly led to the exclusion of areas that emerged after the database was closed and experienced rapid expansion. The opposite may also have occurred: territories that lost the characteristics of a Subnormal Agglomeration, such as a result of land regularization processes after the update, may have remained classified as Subnormal Agglomerations (IBGE, 2024a).
In the process of updating the territorial database, compared to the 2010 Census, efforts were made not only to review the boundaries of territorial polygons but also to update area identification codes in order to allow a better understanding and disaggregation of information. For example, some favelas that previously shared the same code were separated and assigned new codes once physical discontinuity between them had been identified. In certain cases, polygon boundaries were adjusted either to account for territorial expansion or to exclude unoccupied areas, such as sections near forests or beaches. In addition, a review was carried out regarding predominant building types, prioritizing residential areas over those with predominantly commercial use. These updates will be better observed in the section dedicated to the empirical analysis of the city of Juiz de Fora.
The process also incorporated the use of Territorial Information Forms (Fichas de Informações Territoriais – FITs), created as an improved version of the 2010 LITs. Although there is continuity between the instruments, the FITs differ both in criteria (Chart 1) and objectives. Whereas the LITs were applied individually to each census sector, the FITs focused on the characterization of territories, constituting an instrument for field observation and support for the classification of Favelas and Urban Communities. Municipal governments were also requested to complete the FITs, but with the objective of addressing the land tenure situation of each Favela and Urban Community (FCU) identified in the municipality (IBGE, 2011b; IBGE, 2024a).
Regarding the processes of social participation, while the 2010 Census promoted the Municipal Commissions, the 2020 census process promoted the Census Planning and Monitoring Meetings (Repacs), which included the participation of representatives from civil society, public and private institutions, especially municipal governments. The first meetings focused on discussions regarding the installation of collection posts and the presentation of the territorial database. The second round of meetings, scheduled for 2020, aimed to inform participants about the composition of census teams, the recruitment process for census takers and possible partnerships to establish training locations. With the onset of the pandemic, these meetings were suspended and resumed only in 2021, while also being held by videoconference.
The Repacs subsequently enabled the creation of the Operational Information Bank on Census Sectors (Bios), a system developed specifically to register particular situations involving census sectors with specific collection conditions, such as Indigenous lands, Quilombola territories, gated communities with difficult access, among others. In the case of Favelas and Urban Communities, between 2018 and 2019, the institute registered contacts of community leaders, residents’ associations, and social organizations, in addition to logistical access specifications and possible security-related restrictions (IBGE, 2024a).
Among the objectives of the meetings, it is worth mentioning the consultation conducted by IBGE regarding the nomenclature used to designate territories previously classified as “Subnormal Agglomerations,” marking the beginning of a process of terminology update. This consultation revealed that, among residents of favelas and urban communities, the most common designations vary according to location, with frequent terms such as comunidade, grota, ocupação, vila, baixada, invasão, and favela. Among municipal governments, however, terms such as precarious settlements, community, social territory, AEIS/ZEIS, informal urban center, favela, and community predominated, with varying frequencies. This diversity of nomenclatures clearly indicates that the term adopted by the Institute since 1991 did not correspond to any of the usual designations found in these territories or used in public administration.
Parallel to this process, especially from 2010 onward, one may observe the consolidation of a broader field of data production and methodological development aimed at the identification and characterization of favela territories, involving institutions beyond IBGE. Studies such as Krause et al. (2022), for example, highlight the diversity of approaches and criteria adopted in delimiting so-called informal urban centers or precarious settlements, indicating the absence of a single consensus regarding these categories. The development of integrated identification methodologies, such as IMMerSe (Feitosa et al., 2021), demonstrates advances in the use of geotechnologies and combined methods for mapping these territories, expanding the possibilities for identification through spatial data and automated techniques. This set of experiences, by seeking to overcome the limitations of official statistics for the conduct of different analyses and projects, also contributes to challenging traditional parameters and helps to understand the context in which IBGE began to revise its own definitions more incisively, gradually incorporating demands originating both from academia and from public administration and civil society.
In this movement toward expanding dialogue with civil society, IBGE held, in 2023, in Brasília, the “1st National Meeting on the Production, Analysis, and Dissemination of Information on Favelas and Urban Communities in Brazil,” after completing the collection of census data. The event included presentations and participation by several actors, including representatives from IBGE – especially from a working group created specifically to address this topic – as well as representatives and activists from favelas and urban communities throughout the country, representatives of public agencies, academics, and members of civil society in general. In addition to the debates held, the event also provided an online form,4 accessible to in-person and remote participants as well as the general public interested in contributing with suggestions. Based on the wording of the preliminary proposal presented by IBGE, the objective of the form was to assess users’ degree of satisfaction and gather contributions to improve the definitions, approaches, and nomenclatures adopted. In this context, the subsequent official change in nomenclature may be interpreted as the result of this process of institutional listening and dialogue.
One noteworthy action, also carried out during the processing stage and after the conclusion of data collection, was the exclusive reopening of FCU areas that presented a high number of “nonresponses,” in some cases exceeding the limit considered acceptable by IBGE. To address this challenge, the national campaign “Favela no Mapa” (Favela on the Map) was launched, developed in partnership with the Central Única das Favelas (Cufa) and the Data Favela Institute, with support from the Ministry of Planning and Budget (MPO). Conducted in 20 locations5 throughout the country, the initiative took the form of a joint effort concentrated over a single weekend, mobilizing census workers, residents, and local institutions with the objective of raising awareness about the importance of the Census and expanding data collection coverage.
The first data and thematic publications were released in 2024. In these documents, one may observe a much greater concern with the level of detail regarding the entire process, as well as an in-depth discussion of the criteria adopted. The definition employed also reveals concern with the need to encompass the different types of favela and community territories in Brazil and a concern with breaking certain stigmas that were indirectly perpetuated by the terms previously used. Above all, the changes demonstrate that favelas and urban communities are not in these conditions by choice of their residents, but rather as a consequence of structural processes of urban space production in peripheral capitalist societies, strongly conditioned by the mode of State action in promoting instruments and public policies incapable of guaranteeing equal access to fundamental rights. The final wording established for the new official concept of “Favelas and Urban Communities” was as follows:
Popular territories originating from the various strategies used by the population to meet, generally in an autonomous and collective manner, their housing needs and associated uses (commerce, services, leisure, culture, among others), in the face of the insufficiency and inadequacy of public policies and private investments aimed at guaranteeing the right to the city. In many cases, due to their shared origin, neighborhood relations, community engagement, and intense use of common spaces, they constitute community identity and representation.
Favelas and urban communities express the sociospatial inequality of Brazilian urbanization. They portray the incompleteness—and, ultimately, the precariousness—of governmental policies and private investments concerning urban infrastructure, public services, collective facilities, and environmental protection in the sites where they are located, thereby reproducing conditions of vulnerability. These conditions are aggravated by legal insecurity of tenure, which also compromises the guarantee of the right to housing and legal protection against forced evictions and removals.
Specific inclusions, such as the expression “They portray the incompleteness – and, ultimately, the precariousness – of governmental policies and private investments [...] thereby reproducing conditions of vulnerability” (IBGE, 2024b, p. 46), propose a shift in perspective and invite a reinterpretation of reality through a new lens. A particularly commendable adjustment concerns the inclusion of aspects that value the potentialities of favelas and urban communities, such as the presence of active community networks and the diversity of nomenclatures used by residents themselves for self-identification. In this sense, the Institute demonstrates an effort to overcome the “paradigm of lack” (Silva, 2009) – widely discussed by researchers in the field – which has traditionally portrayed favelas only through their absences, ignoring what they in fact possess, build, and represent.
Analyses based on Juiz de Fora
Several decades after its formation, in the mid-1850s, Juiz de Fora, a municipality located in the Zona da Mata region of the state of Minas Gerais, gained notoriety due to the advance of industrialization, as well as educational and cultural development. Its accelerated growth earned it the nickname “Manchester Mineira” (“Manchester of Minas”), as the city was experiencing an intense process of urbanization, facing challenges similar to those of major Brazilian capitals such as Rio de Janeiro. According to Christo (1994), the first cholera epidemic had already been recorded in 1855, associated both with the precarious conditions of basic sanitation and with the arrival of European immigrants attracted by local industries, who ultimately contributed to the spread of diseases.
The sanitary crisis in Juiz de Fora was directly associated with the housing crisis, marked not only by the precarious conditions of housing but also by the shortage of housing, which caused rent prices to become extremely high. This situation led an increasing number of workers to crowd into tenements located in the city center, intensifying urban and social problems.
In this context, the creation of the Juiz de Fora Society of Medicine and Surgery (SMCJF) in 1889, and later the Hygiene Inspectorate in 1892, played a central role in public health control and also influenced the formulation of policies aimed at controlling workers’ housing. Predominantly organized in tenements, these dwellings gradually began to be eradicated through decrees issued by the Municipal Council, giving way to clusters of shacks in the peripheral areas of the city. While public authorities legitimized the elimination of this type of housing, with the support of the SMCJF, newspapers of the period recorded and described the expansion of new forms of popular housing that gradually became consolidated in the city.
Resolution n. 706, February 1, 1916:
Art. 1 – Within the urban perimeter, the opening of avenues for workers or streets narrower than 13 meters whose plans have not been approved by the municipal executive agent shall not be permitted.
Paragraph 1 – The municipal executive agent is hereby authorized to expropriate existing dwellings located on avenues opened within city blocks and to demolish them whenever permitted by the municipality’s financial conditions.
Art. 2 – Municipal Resolution No. 666, of October 14, 1912, is hereby revoked in the section referring to the urban perimeter. (Andrade, 1987, p. 55)
Workers’ families began to gather in tenements, making habitable houses that should have been condemned by sanitary standards. There are entire neighborhoods, such as Zinco, Pito Aceso, and Morro Seco, where the proletarian class crowds into crude adobe and thatch shacks, forming permanent centers of all kinds of disease. (Andrade, 1984, p. 56 apud Diário Mercantil, 1920).
In the following decades, the city’s industrial growth continued until the mid-1940s, attracting increasing numbers of new workers to the city. Nevertheless, the housing problem was never effectively addressed and therefore worsened.
Based on an analysis of newspaper excerpts, Abreu (2009) demonstrated that the increase in precarious housing had already become a characteristic feature of Juiz de Fora’s urban landscape from the 1960s onward. In portraying this reality, the local press echoed society’s concern regarding the rapid expansion of these areas. This process intensified once again with the establishment of the city’s industrial park in 1970, which attracted a significant contingent of migrant workers. According to available records, in 1972 – albeit with outdated data – it was estimated that approximately 845 families were living in 800 shacks. Only five years later, in 1977, a new report highlighted that a single favela already concentrated around 600 shacks.
The 1970s and 1980s were marked by intense favela removal actions resulting from the so-called Operação Gente (Operation People). During the administration of then-mayor Mello Reis, an extensive process of urban renewal was implemented, generating large-scale transformations such as the opening of new avenues and roads, in addition to the installation of metallurgical and steel industries. These interventions, however, implied significant expropriations and the removal of entire neighborhoods, such as the Vila da Prata favela (Abreu, 2009). In parallel, in 1985, the municipality carried out its first land regularization experience, signaling the emergence of a new type of policy directed toward the management of these spontaneously formed territories, reflecting the exclusion of broad segments of the population from the formal housing market.
Since then, a continuous policy of land regularization has been consolidated, except during the period marked by the investment boom of the Minha Casa Minha Vida Program (2009-2017), with the city participating in financing projects involving international organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank. Currently, however, these actions are concentrated predominantly on the titling stage, without urbanistic demands being fully addressed (Sant’Ana, 2021).
Although there is a relatively well-documented historical trajectory concerning the emergence and expansion of favelas in Juiz de Fora, the available information derives largely from reports published in the local press and, in more recent periods, from studies produced internally by the Municipal Government. Statistical data on this process, however, are difficult to access. Consultation of the Historical Archive reveals that, throughout the city’s history, there has been a consistent concern with the production of population and commercial data, motivated mainly by the region’s intense coffee-growing activity and the significant industrial presence that generated additional commercial activities. Nevertheless, specific information regarding favelas is almost nonexistent.
The first systematic survey conducted by the Municipal Government with the objective of identifying these territories as a whole took place in 1996, within the framework of the diagnosis prepared for the city’s first Master Plan, when 87 areas denominated Areas of Special Social Interest (AEIS) were delimited, encompassing a total of 8,075 households (Juiz de Fora, 2004). In 2006/2007, with the publication of the City Social Atlas, the draft Municipal Housing Plan expanded this mapping to 147 areas. The current Master Plan, together with more recent municipal administration documents, consolidated the existence of 137 areas (Juiz de Fora, 2018). Without entering into the methodologies adopted and the quantitative divergences resulting therefrom, it may be observed that the quantification carried out at the municipal level significantly exceeds the figures presented by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in the last two censuses.
Within IBGE, the official identification of favela and urban community areas was recorded only from 2010 onward. Until then, part of these territories had been enumerated under the classification of ordinary census tracts, without consideration of their sociospatial specificities, while others were not even individualized among the census sectors of Juiz de Fora, making it plausible to assume that they were included within larger territorial sectors. In this first record, 14 subnormal agglomerations were identified, all previously recognized by the Municipal Government, with a total population of 5,842 inhabitants. In the 2022 Census, a significant expansion was observed, with the identification of 37 sectors classified as Favelas and Urban Communities (FCUs), housing 16,780 residents – corresponding to an approximate population growth of 187%. Although part of this growth may be explained by methodological adjustments by the agency and/or by natural population densification, a reduction in population was observed in six of these units. In this sense, the main determinant of the quantitative increase recorded was the incorporation of new areas into the scope of the official survey.6
Regarding the polygons updated in the territorial database, significant reductions are observed in the delimitation of some FCUs, largely resulting from the exclusion of green areas surrounding the housing units.7 In addition to the new approach prioritizing the urban fabric to the detriment of green areas, the application of different territorial information survey forms, as discussed previously, may also have produced adjustments to the boundaries. In the following image, it is possible to observe more clearly the differences in area through the overlap of polygons: the yellow polygon indicates the delimitation adopted in the 2010 Census, while the red polygon corresponds to the delimitation used in the 2022 Census.
In the Milho Branco sector, the reduction in area exceeded 60% of its extension, resulting both from the exclusion of a large green area and from the removal of portions of the urban fabric, probably motivated by land regularization processes implemented in recent years (Sant’Ana, 2021). The total area decreased from 28.9 hectares to 9.19 hectares. Paradoxically, this was precisely the sector that experienced the second-highest relative population growth in the city, with the number of residents increasing from 468 to 867 inhabitants. Such discrepancy demonstrates the impossibility, for example, of directly reconciling demographic density indicators solely through polygon comparison, since these are substantially distinct territorial units in terms of spatial extension.
Due to these modifications, the analysis of population growth or decline also becomes unfeasible, since population variation may be directly related to the level of coverage of the census sectors. The table below shows that, among the 14 areas in Juiz de Fora also identified in 2010, of the six that presented population decline, four also experienced area reduction. On the other hand, sectors that expanded their territorial extension did not necessarily register population growth, as in the case of Favelinha da FACIT (Table 1). Among the sectors that lost area, many showed population growth, which may indeed indicate densification processes, as observed in Terra Nostra and Parque Cachoeira (Figure 2).
– Comparison between the results of sector extension areas (in hectares) and population data for FCU census sectors
In addition to excluding areas not predominantly occupied by households – such as extensive green areas – IBGE also identified and separated mixed-use areas, removing from the polygons those with predominantly commercial use, always respecting the minimum threshold of 21 households. There were also cases of merging conurbated sectors into a single polygon, as well as subdivision when the existence of two distinct places was verified, with the creation of new identification codes. It should be emphasized that, according to IBGE (2024b), part of these modifications was carried out with the aid of geospatial tools and later validated by municipal governments, while others resulted from field visits.
After analyzing the data and maps, no cases of merging or subdivision of census sectors existing in the 2010 and 2022 censuses were identified. It is observed, however, that the delimitation of new areas for the 2022 Census respected the separation of sectors intended for spatially contiguous favelas, also recognizing residents’ own understanding that they constitute different places, as exemplified by the cases of Três Moinhos and Alto Três Moinhos.
In the case of Juiz de Fora, no FCU was excluded between the 2010 and 2022 censuses, which indicates, to a certain extent, that the expansion of favelas and urban communities continues to grow in the city.
Final considerations
IBGE’s initiative to review the adoption of the expression “subnormal agglomeration,” which remained in use for approximately four decades, marks a crucial moment in the way the Brazilian State, through its institutions, recognizes, interprets, and refers to popular territories. The analyses of the census process – from the pre-enumeration stages to the dissemination of the results of the most recent surveys – summarily carried out in this study, highlight the continuous effort to improve the understanding of territorial dynamics, seeking to reduce conceptual and methodological distortions. However, it is essential to recognize that every transformation entails both gains and losses: while efforts are made to overcome limitations identified in previous surveys, as occurred with the 2010 Census, there is also a movement toward incorporating new technologies, concepts, and methodologies capable not only of providing a more accurate representation of reality, but also of responding to social demands that reveal the new conditions under which knowledge is produced, conditions in which diverse social actors are increasingly recognized as co-producers of knowledge, in line with the notion of an “ecology of knowledges” (Santos, 2007). After all, in a society increasingly immersed in technology, and within a living territory such as the city – especially in the context of favelas – a period of more than a decade may be sufficient to promote profound transformations of various kinds in social life. Looking ahead to the next census cycle (2022/2030), it is possible to foresee the emergence of further relevant methodological changes, for example through the potential use of artificial intelligence resources, which may expand analytical capacity and research efficiency while accelerating census processes, but which will also generate new challenges and contradictions to be addressed.
In this context, it becomes practically unfeasible to establish direct comparisons of results across different census rounds, creating a methodological dilemma: should traditional methods and techniques be maintained in order to ensure the comparability of statistical series, or should they instead be adapted to contemporary realities, even if this limits historical and comparative analyses? It can be observed that, in recent census cycles, the Institute has sought to adapt itself to the new physical, social, and legal configurations of favelas, which tend to change more rapidly than more consolidated urban areas. This has produced further advances in the capacity of census research to generate knowledge about these territories, which have historically been marginalized and insufficiently recognized in public policies and official statistics. In other words, the predominant choice has leaned toward the latter of these two alternatives, although certain measures are currently being implemented in order to accommodate the former, as discussed throughout this study.
Although the present study has only briefly indicated the increase in social participation in census processes – associated both with the greater political engagement of diverse actors and with the advancement of new methodological approaches to data production – future research may further investigate the direct impacts of these transformations, considering in an integrated manner the dynamics of participation and the technical innovations involved in the identification and characterization of these territories. Such an agenda may be pursued through analyses involving the Institute’s technical staff, as well as through the incorporation of empirical methods capable of assessing how these changes have affected both the production and the use of information. Even with the growing production of data by non-governmental institutions and private actors, the demand for official information continues to increase, not only for academic studies, institutional planning, and technical analyses, but also as a vital resource for the advancement of the so-called “citizen--generated data” movement.8 This interest is even more relevant when considered from a symbolic perspective, related to the legitimacy and role of the Institute within Brazilian society. In this context, diverse social actors remain interested in participating in and monitoring the Institute’s activities, continuously exerting pressure for further changes and improvements.
Our analyses, informed by the case study of Juiz de Fora, corroborate the results of the effort undertaken by IBGE during the most recent census cycle, both in the adaptation of methodological procedures and in the recognition of 23 new FUCs (Favelas and Urban Communities) within that municipality. The delimitation of these new territories results, in part, from the Institute’s closer collaboration with municipal governments, some of which possess reasonably well-structured databases because they have sought, over the years, to fill informational gaps through their own methodologies, as is the case of Juiz de Fora. In this way, IBGE has come to recognize and incorporate this local effort into its territorial mapping and updating practices, pointing toward a future of increasing alignment between federal and municipal public databases – an achievement that would represent a significant gain for Brazilian public statistics.
The results obtained thus far, within the scope of an ongoing research project, demonstrate the importance of territorial delimitations in the analysis of census data. The improvement of these territorial polygons, driven by technological advances and by intensified coordination between municipal and federal authorities, has enabled more detailed and contextualized representations of territory. However, the same updates that seek to represent space more accurately also directly affect data comparability.
In Juiz de Fora, for example, the updates largely consisted of excluding vegetated areas that had previously been included within the census boundaries of favelas, resulting in a reduction of part of the territorial polygons. Although this modification does not necessarily reflect a real change in the spatial configuration of the favela, it affects indicators that depend on the mathematical relationship between population and area, such as residential density. Even if there is no variation in the number of households, residents, or in the conceptual definition of the favela, the simple reduction in total area – measured in hectares – renders certain inferences based on direct comparisons across different censuses unfeasible. In the case of Vila Barroso, there was a population increase of only 27 people between the two censuses, accompanied by a reduction of 2.46 hectares in its delimited area. This territorial change causes residential density to rise from approximately 26 to 41 inhabitants per hectare – an increase of about 58%. Although the number of residents changed very little, the indicator suggests substantial densification which, in reality, results from the modification of the territorial perimeter considered.
In summary, this example demonstrates how cartographic adjustments, even when relatively limited, may distort interpretations of urban transformations when simple direct comparisons are made between census series. This signals to the scientific community, and even to society more broadly, the need to give careful consideration to methodological changes in the analytical work that will unfold from the dissemination of the new official data. What matters is not only the results ultimately obtained, but, fundamentally, the process through which they are produced.
References
- ABREU, C. S. de (2009). Favela e remoção em Juiz de Fora: um estudo sobre a Vila da Prata. Dissertação de mestrado. Juiz de Fora, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora.
- ABREU, M. de A. (2014). "Reconstruindo uma história esquecida: origem e expansão inicial das favelas do Rio de Janeiro". In: ABREU, M. de A.; FRIDMAN, F.; HAESBAERT, R. (org.). Escritos sobre espaço e história Rio de Janeiro, Garamond.
- ANDRADE, S. M. B. V. de (1987). Classe operária em Juiz de Fora: uma história de lutas (1912-1924). Juiz de Fora, Editora UFJF.
- BONDUKI, N. G. (2022). "Metodologias de avaliação do déficit habitacional: avaliação crítica e perspectivas". In: SANTOS, E. C. (org.). Ensaios e discussões sobre o déficit habitacional no Brasil Belo Horizonte, Fundação João Pinheiro.
-
BORGES, L. (2023). Encontro Nacional de Produção, Análise e Disseminação de Informações sobre as Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas do Brasil. In: Arquivo IBGE. Brasília. Disponível em: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48K25Q5HMfw Acesso em: 10 jun 2026.
» https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48K25Q5HMfw - CHRISTO, M. de C. V. (1994). Europa dos pobres: a belle-époque mineira Juiz de Fora, Editora UFJF.
- D’OTTAVIANO, C. (org.) (2024). Habitação e cidade: trocas latino-americanas São Paulo, Habitação & Cidade.
-
FARIA, C. P. de; FERREIRA, T.; BAPTISTA, R. R.; GRACIE, R.; MOTA, P. (s.d). Geração cidadã de dados. In: DICIONÁRIO DE FAVELAS MARIELLE FRANCO (WIKIFAVELAS). Disponível em: https://wikifavelas.com.br/index.php/Gera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cidad%C3%A3_de_Dados Acesso em: 11 jun 2026.
» https://wikifavelas.com.br/index.php/Gera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cidad%C3%A3_de_Dados - FEITOSA, F. F.; VASCONCELOS, V. V.; PINHO, C. M. D.; SILVA, G. F. G.; GONCALVES, G. S.; DANNA, L.; LISBOA, F. S. (2021). IMMerSe: An integrated methodology for mapping and classifying precarious settlements. Applied Geography, v. 133, p. 102494.
-
GIANNELLA, L. de C.; CATALÁ, L. S. (2025). Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas: a nova nomenclatura adotada pelo IBGE e o retrato da diversidade desses territórios. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais, v. 27, n. 1. Disponível em: https://rbeur.anpur.org.br/rbeur/article/view/7977 Acesso em: 5 ago 2025.
» https://rbeur.anpur.org.br/rbeur/article/view/7977 - GIANNELLA, L. de C.; SOARES, J. de S.; FRANCO, C. de O. (2024). O poder do ato de nomear: o compromisso do IBGE diante das favelas e comunidades urbanas brasileiras. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 29, n. 11, p. e04232024.
-
GONÇALVES, R. S. (2020). Censos e favelas cariocas: evolução de um conceito censitário. Anais do Museu Paulista: História e Cultura Material, [s. l.], v. 28. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-47142020000100454&tlng=pt Acesso em: 30 abr 2025.
» http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-47142020000100454&tlng=pt - GUIMARÃES, A. P. (1953). As favelas do Distrito Federal [s. l.], IBGE.
- IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2011a). Censo Demográfico 2010: Aglomerados subnormais - Primeiros resultados. [s. l.], IBGE.
- IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2011b). Censo Demográfico 2010: Nota técnica - informações territoriais. [s. l.], IBGE.
-
IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2022). Ficha de informações territoriais - Prefeitura. Censo Demográfico 2022. Rio de Janeiro, IBGE. Disponível em: https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=55733 Acesso em: 10 jun 2026.
» https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=55733 -
IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2023). Ação de mobilização busca ampliar cobertura do Censo nas favelas do país. Agência de Notícias IBGE, 28 mar. Disponível em: https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/36521-acao-de-mobilizacao-busca-ampliar-cobertura-do-censo-nas-favelas-do-pais Acesso em: 10 jun 2026.
» https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/36521-acao-de-mobilizacao-busca-ampliar-cobertura-do-censo-nas-favelas-do-pais - IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2024a). Censo Demográfico 2022 - Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas: Resultados do Universo. [s. l.], IBGE.
- IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2024b). Notas metodológicas n. 01 - Sobre a mudança de Aglomerado Subnormal para Favelas e Comunidades Urbanas. [s. l.], IBGE.
- JUIZ DE FORA. Prefeitura. Câmara Municipal de Juiz de Fora (2018). Lei Complementar n. 082, de 3 de julho.
- JUIZ DE FORA. Prefeitura (2004). Plano Diretor de Desenvolvimento Urbano de Juiz de Fora. Juiz de Fora, Funalfa Edições.
- KRAUSE, C. H.; FEITOSA, F. F.; DENALDI, R.; PETRAROLLI, J. (2022). Núcleos Urbanos Informais: abordagens metodológicas e principais resultados de sua caracterização e identificação. Ipea - Boletim Regional, Urbano e Ambienta l, v. 26, pp. 127-131.
- MATIOLLI, T. (2023). "Novos atores na construção do problema da favela: o CEPEDOCA e o pra quê e pra quem servem as pesquisas sobre as favelas?" In: VIANA, M. T. Drogas, violência e racismo: as alternativas no limite, os limites das alternativas. Rio de Janeiro, Faculdades Católicas.
- MATION, L. F.; NADALIN, V.; KRAUSE, C. (2014). Favelização no Brasil entre 2000 e 2010: Resultados de uma classificação comparável [s. l.], Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada.
- PASTERNAK, S. (2001). Favelas em São Paulo - censos, consensos e contra-sensos. Cadernos Metrópole. São Paulo, n. 5, pp. 9-27.
- RUSSO, E. de O. (2016). "O que o indicador indica? O déficit habitacional no Brasil e as disputas em torno de sua elaboração, em meados dos anos 1990". In: CARDOSO, A. L.; JAENISCH, S. T.; ARAGÃO, T. A. 22 anos de política habitacional no Brasil: da euforia à crise. Rio de Janeiro, Letra Capital.
- SANT'ANA, M. C. (2021). Contribuições da regularização fundiária de interesse social para as condições de habitabilidade residencial e urbana: os casos de Vale Verde e Milho Branco II em Juiz de Fora (MG). Dissertação de mestrado. Viçosa, Universidade Federal de Viçosa.
- SANTOS, B. de S. (2007). Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Novos Estudos - Cebrap, n. 79, pp. 71-94.
- SANTOS, W. G. dos (1979). Cidadania e justiça: a política social na ordem brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, Campus.
- SENRA, N. (2009). Uma breve história das estatísticas brasileiras (1822-2022) Rio de Janeiro, IBGE.
- SILVA, J. de S. e (org.) (2009). O que é favela afinal? Rio de Janeiro, Observatório de Favelas do Rio de Janeiro.
- VALLADARES, L. do P. (2005). A invenção da favela: do mito de origem a favela.com Rio de Janeiro, Editora FGV.
Notes
-
1
Before the agency was named the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, it was designated as the General Board of Statistics (DGE). For further details on the history of the Institute, see Senra, 2008.
-
2
The term “locators” is maintained in the transcription, although the context suggests that it may possibly be a typographical or reading error, with “census takers” being the more appropriate form. The original wording of the source has nevertheless been preserved, since this is a literal quotation.
-
3
The IBGE records do not inform in what year this database stopped being updated.
-
4
The full proposal, as well as the event schedule, is available at the Meeting’s official website (https://eventos.ibge.gov.br/infofavela2023/), on the tab “Consulta”, by clicking the highlighted link entitled “Proposta inicial para consulta”. The panel discussion is available at the channel Arquivo IBGE, on Youtube.
-
5
Cities where the joint effort took place: Bairro do Caladinho (Porto Velho/GO), Meu Bem, Meu mal (Manaus/AM), Marabaixo IV (Macapá/AP), Tapanã (Belém/PA), Vila Lobão (São Luís/MA), Parque Brasil II (Teresina/PI), Dendê (Fortaleza/CE), Porto de João Tota/ Santa Clara/ Miramar (João Pessoa/PB), Curcurana/Barra de Jangada (Jabotão dos Guarapés/PE), Capadócia (Palmas/TO), Bairro da Paz (Salvador/BA), Cidade do Entorno (Águas Lindas de Goiás /GO), Nova Palestina (Vitória/ES), Vila Santa Clara (Mariana/MG), Rocinha, Complexo da Penha (Rio de Janeiro/RJ), Heliópolis (São Paulo/SP), Morro do Macêdo Molhado (Guarujá/SP), Andorinha (Piraquara/PR), Favela da Grota (Florianópolis/SC), Cidade de Deus (Campo Grande/MS), Jardim Florianópolis (Cuiabá/MT) (Agência IBGE,2023).
-
6
All data used in this study were obtained from official IBGE databases available in digital format, including vector files in shapefile (KML) format and statistical information retrieved from the SIDRA platform.
-
7
The criteria utilized for polygon adjustment are described in Table 3 of the document: Results of the Universe (IBGE,2024a)
-
8
Expression associated with the Citizen-Generated Data Network (GCD Network), an initiative aimed at the production and use of data by civil society organizations to inform and influence public policy. Such initiatives engage directly with official data – particularly those produced by IBGE – whether as a basis for comparison, validation, or critical scrutiny of public statistics. Available at: https://wikifavelas.com.br/index.php/Rede_Gera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cidad%C3%A3_de_Dados_(Rede_GCD). Accessed on: October 20, 2025.
-
Data availability statement:
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
Edited by
-
Editors
Lucia BógusLuiz César de Queiroz Ribeiro
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
Source: Produced by the author, in 2025, based on IBGE shapefile data and Google Earth.
Source: Produced by the author, in 2025, based on IBGE shapefile data.
Source: Produced by the author, in 2025, based on IBGE shapefile data