participatory mapping: methods, results and lessons from cape … · 2014. 8. 28. · participatory...

Kevin Musungu

Participatory Mapping: Methods, Results and Lessons from Cape Town

FIG Congress 2014

Engaging the Challenges, Enhancing the Relevance

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 16 – 21 June 2014


Kevin MUSUNGU, South Africa

Key words: Indigenous Knowledge, Planning, Crime, Participatory Geographic Information

System, Geographical Knowledge Systems, Surveys, Flooding. Informal Settlements.

SUMMARY

It has been stated in a number of studies that there is need for a paradigm shift towards

involving stakeholders in the creation of silos of geospatial information. This call has been

answered by the growth in the research bodies of Geographical Knowledge Systems (GKS) also

known as Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS). GKS has now been used in

various applications including disaster, disease, agricultural information, soil-type and risk

mapping. However, few studies have highlighted their experiences in the development of GKS.

This study seeks to report on the methods, results and lessons in the development of such

systems over three years in four case study areas. Various methods were highlighted in this text.

These involved the use of questionnaires in, questionnaires and blocks, workshops and the internet.

Each of these methods offered varying levels of community and stakeholder interaction.

Nonetheless, they were all effective in capturing the voice of the local communities and

stakeholders. Also, the visual representation of the stories from the communities created dialogue

within the communities and between stakeholders showing that GKS can be just as effective as

traditional GIS in facilitating decision making.

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014




Key words: Indigenous Knowledge, Planning, Crime, Participatory Geographic Information

Systems, Geographical Knowledge Systems, Surveys, Flooding. Informal Settlements.

SUMMARY

It has been stated in a number of studies that there is need for a paradigm shift towards

involving stakeholders in the creation of silos of geospatial information. This call has been

answered by the growth in the research bodies of Geographical Knowledge Systems (GKS) also

known as Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PGIS). GKS has now been used in

various applications including disaster, disease, agricultural information, soil-type and risk

mapping. However, few studies have highlighted their experiences in the development of GKS.

This study seeks to report on the methods, results and lessons in the development of such

systems over three years in four case study areas. Various methods were highlighted in this text.

These involved the use of questionnaires in, questionnaires and blocks, workshops and the internet.

Each of these methods offered varying levels of community and stakeholder interaction.

Nonetheless, they were all effective in capturing the voice of the local communities and

stakeholders. Also, the visual representation of the stories from the communities created dialogue

within the communities and between stakeholders showing that GKS can be just as effective as

traditional GIS in facilitating decision making.

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have commonly been used to facilitate decision making.

A GIS may be defined as a computer-based tool for storing, mapping and analysing spatially

referenced data (Quan et al. 2001). Since GIS technology is a common choice for the capture and

display of location based data, it has been used in various institutions to facilitate the

comprehension of spatial aspects of social and economic development. For instance, Quan et al.

(2001) reported that GIS could be used as a tool:

i. To compare and contrast socio-economic variables to natural resources and the physical

world;

ii. To facilitate the targeting of interventions and monitoring of impacts at various scales and

over wide areas; and

iii. To place planning and research technology into the public domain in order to enhance

access to information and improve understanding of conflicting viewpoints.

These characteristics of GIS make it a useful platform for location-based analyses such as

vulnerability assessment, crime mapping, disease mapping etc. However, this potential of GIS to

facilitate dialogue between stakeholders at various scales has often been unrealised, mainly because

GIS development has traditionally been carried out exclusively at a technical level by various

professionals without input from communities located in the actual geographical space of the GIS

(Edney, 1991; Pickles, 1991; Carver, 2001; Quan et al., 2001). Also, Laituri (2003) noted that

access to GIS technology and data is dependent on, among other things, the relationship between

the stakeholders (context); the technological infrastructure, policy and funding available

(connectivity); the basic, computer and spatial literacy of the participants (capabilities); as well as

the availability and types of data, such as public data or sensitive data from government entities

(content). Hence, the use of GIS required a certain level of expertise, and communities could not

gain access to the data in the GIS (Edney, 1991; Pickles, 1991; Carver, 2001; Quan et al., 2001).

Consequently, traditional development of GIS has often frustrated participation rather than

encouraging it.

Conversely, the absence of an input of information from communities meant that the traditional

GIS did not have the full scope of information required by decision makers to come to the best

conclusions. Furthermore, if decisions were being made based on information in the GIS, it meant

that the marginalised communities could not participate in the decision-making process. Taylor

(1990) postulated that incorporating the full scope of information on a locality would transform the

corresponding GIS into a Geographical Knowledge System (GKS) and thereby facilitate better

decision making.

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



These deficiencies in traditional GIS facilitated the body of research in what became known as

Participatory GIS (PGIS) and Public Participation GIS (PPGIS). The acronyms PGIS for

„Participatory GIS‟ and GISP for „GIS with Participation‟ have been used interchangeably by

scholars on the subject. Various definitions have been postulated in the body of research on

participatory GIS. For instance, Quan et al. (2001: 2) provide the following definition:

“Participatory GIS is the integration of local knowledge as well as stakeholders‟ perspectives

in a GIS”.

Laituri (2003: 25) conversely, describes Participatory GIS as:

“A confluence of social activity such as grassroots organizations and government decision

making with technology in specific places or grounded geographies”.

Although definitions vary, they all address the development of a link between a locality and the

sharing of information between stakeholders in that locality. Naturally, the body of research on

Participatory GIS can be split into two broad themes, addressing the two deficiencies highlighted in

the preceding discussion. Some scholars address the issues involved in enabling access of the

various stakeholders to information in the GIS (Carver, 2001; Laituri, 2003; McCall, 2003), whilst

others advocate the inclusion of information from various stakeholders including communities in a

GIS (Abbott et al., 1998; Abbott, 2000; Karanja, 2010). PPGIS is employed mostly in the planning

profession and is essentially a component of PGIS that focuses on empowerment of communities

(Carver, 2001). The primary aim of PPGIS is to use GIS to provide information that can strengthen

the involvement of communities or marginalized groups in actual decision making (Ghose &

Elwood, 2003; Sieber, 2006).

Previous studies point to different methods of community involvement, such as the use of

interviews by Iuliana & Eugen (2009) in Romania; a review of the use of questionnaires by Bird

(2009) and the actual use of questionnaires by Abbot et al. (1998), Abbot (2000) and Bouchard et

al. (2007) in South Africa and Raaijmakers et al. (2008) in Spain; the use of voice and video

recordings (Roux & Barry, 2001; Barry & Rüther, 2005); and the general use of ephemeral

mapping, sketch mapping and scale mapping by Rambaldi et al. (2006).

In summary, various authors have prescribed the need for more inclusivity of stakeholder

communities in data usage and data contribution when creating silos of geospatial information. This

paper will present the experiences in the form of methods, results and lessons learnt in trying to

achieve this goal in a number of case studies areas located in Cape Town, South Africa over the last

three years.

2 CASE STUDIES, METHODS AND RESULTS

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



2.1 Vulnerability in Graveyard Pond

Graveyard Pond is an informal settlement located in the suburb of Philippi in Cape Town. The

aim of this study was to analyse the risk of hazards such as fires and flooding in the informal

settlement of Graveyard Pond. A widely accepted description of risk was offered by Crichton

(1999) and cited by Kelman (2003: 7) as follows:

“Risk is the probability of a loss, and this depends on three elements, hazard, vulnerability and

exposure”. Hence, the following equation was put forward:

Risk = Hazard × Exposure × Vulnerability [1]

Based on this description, Crichton (1999) postulated that if any of these three elements in risk

increases or decreases, then risk increases or decreases respectively; an opinion shared by Cardona

(2004). Cardona (2004) also suggested that hazard and vulnerability cannot exist independently of

each other. Hence any changes in hazard and/or vulnerability will influence the extent of the risk.

Furthermore, Cardona (2004) pointed out that since hazards cannot be modified; efforts aimed at

reducing risk to a hazard can only be focussed on reducing vulnerability of the exposed

communities or environments to that hazard. Drawing from the arguments of the United Nations

Department of Humanitarian Affairs (1992), Wilde (1994), Crichton (1999), Etkin (1999), Kelman

(2001), Cardona (2004) and Kumpulainen (2006) vulnerability has a strong bearing on the

magnitude of risk. Consequently, studies into the level of vulnerability of an environment or

community to a particular hazard will invariably provide insight into the magnitude of risk of the

environment or the community to that hazard. This study therefore adopted vulnerability as an

indicator of risk.

Turner et al (2003) stated that holistic studies on vulnerability which are meant to have an input

in decision making should include among others:

A study of all the hazards affecting the system (community or environment);

How the system gets exposed to the hazard; and

The coping capacity of the system.

Turner et al (2003) developed a framework for vulnerability that identified exposure, sensitivity

and resilience as the three main contributors to magnitude of vulnerability. This study was therefore

focused on assessing these prescribed contributors in an informal settlement in Cape Town.

Variations in these indicators will invariably result in variations in vulnerability.

The methodology used to collect the data incorporated the methodologies used by Abbot et al

(1998), Abbot (2000), Karanja (2010), SDI (2009), Turner et al (2003) and Tyler (2011).The data

collection consisted of two main parts: capturing the social information from the communities using

questionnaires and capturing the spatial information using GIS. The questionnaire contained

questions investigating exposure, sensitivity and resilience. Figure 1 summarises the methodology.

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Figure 1. Steps in vulnerability analysis of Graveyard Pond

From initial discussions with community leaders, it emerged that the communities experienced

both flooding and fire hazards. However, there were distinct differences in the types of flooding,

corresponding mitigation measures, income levels and diseases suffered. Hence these four

variations were taken as the main criteria to be used in evaluating differential vulnerability in the

settlement. The data collection involved the use of questionnaires whilst simultaneously mapping

the locations of the households of the respondents on printed aerial photography. Various

alternatives of these four criteria (i.e. exposure to hazards, methods of mitigation, income and

sanitation and disease) were drawn based on the responses to the questionnaires. The alternatives

were ranked from the best case scenario being to the worst case scenario through discussions with

the community leaders. After the ranking had been completed, a pairwise comparison (PCM) was

carried out in order to derive weights for each alternative. Incidentally, PCM and GIS have been

used together by a number of scholars (Guipponi et al, 1999; Jankowski et al, 2001; Kyem, 2001,

2004; Ayalew & Yamagishi, 2005; Yahaya & Abdalla, 2010). The highest weight was allocated to

the best case scenario and the lowest weight to the worst case scenario. The weights were then

linked to the shacks as attribute data in the GIS, based on the alternative preferred by the

corresponding household. Once each household had been allocated a weight, a vulnerability map

was created for each criterion in the entire settlement.

Two of the resulting maps are presented below. Notably, the analyses of the results were carried

out in conjunction with the community leaders of the settlement. This was essential in establishing

the „cause and effect‟ around flood vulnerability in the settlement.

Figure 2. Map showing vulnerability based on prevalence of disease

Data Collection Preliminary

Analysis Data Verification

Extraction of Vulnerability

Inidicators

Pairwise ranking with community

leaders

Calculation of risk weights using PCM

Linking weights to corresponding

shacks in GIS

Creation of risk maps

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



An additional map was created to assess the correlation between the toilet facilities used and

incidence of disease (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Map showing vulnerability based on sanitation and disease

During the enumeration design, the author was informed that there are no toilets in Graveyard

Pond. Hence, approximately 52% of the residents use buckets for toilets whilst the rest use toilets in

neighbouring settlements. The refuse is often poured into an open storm water drain in the North

West of the settlement since it is laborious for residents in the centre of the settlement to walk to

those toilets. It was found that there was a correlation between the dumping site and the North

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Western disease hotspot shown in figure 2. More results from this study can be found in Musungu

et al. (2012a)

2.2 Re-blocking of houses in Langrug

Research in areas such as Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) and Community Action

Planning (CAP) has highlighted the benefits of partnerships between local communities and local

government as well as the negative effect of their absence. In Cape Town, there have been a number

of strikes involving residents of informal settlements and the local municipality. Some of these

protests have started because the local municipality attempted to implement certain decisions that

were made without consultation with the local community. Figure 4 shows examples of such

protests.

Figure 4. Service delivery protests in informal settlements (Source: http://global-

studies.doshisha.ac.jp/english/i18n/images/theme2/Togawa_Shotaro_Presentation.pdf)

PRA encompasses a variety of approaches and methods that enable local people to share and

analyse their knowledge of life and conditions in order to plan and to act (Chambers, 1994). CAP

generally consists of an active, intense community-based workshop, depending on the specific goals

of the workshop. The general output of such a workshop is a development plan which includes a list

of prioritized problems, strategies and options for dealing with the problems, and a rudimentary

work program describing who, when and what is to be done. A key element of this method is the

equal relation between the professional technical stakeholders and the community members. PRA

and CAP have been used in a wide variety of projects such as land use planning, health, agriculture,

fishing, forestry and food security, family planning and gender studies (PPT, 2011).

Langrug is a large informal settlement on the slopes of Mont Rochelle Nature Reserve on the

outskirts of Franschoek in Stellenbosch, Cape Town. It is approximately 16 years old and is located

on municipal land. It is 5km north-west of the town centre of Franschoek and 50km north-east of

Cape Town city centre. It comprises 4088 residents most of whom are native IsiXhosa speakers and

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



are immigrants to the Western Cape (SDI, 2011). There are 91 communal toilets, 83 of which are

functional. There are also 57 water taps of which only 45 are functional. The area is prone to

widespread flooding and has also experienced a number of fires (ibid). During initial discussions

between a local Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) and the community, they highlighted an

urgent need for:

- Accessible streets in the settlement; and

- Extension of services such as electricity, water taps and toilets.

Establishing a paradigm shift towards „self-help‟ is pivotal to the success of partnerships

between communities and local government. The Community Organisation Resource Centre

(CORC) and Slum Dwellers International (SDI) are partnering NGOs that also use PRA in

upgrading communities. They use questionnaires to help communities identify issues of concern;

chart potential solutions and create links between the local community of interest and the local

government officials (SDI, 2009; 2011). In general, the technological gap between local

communities and experts such as planners in the local municipality has often been a hindrance to

the participation of local communities. The information collected from local communities is

relevant but often in a format that cannot be used by professionals in the local government. This

study used PGIS as a bridging technology to allow the local residents to plan their settlement. The

methodology used in this study was meant to foster as much community participation as possible

from data collection to actual community upgrading. The methodology is summarised in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Steps in vulnerability analysis of Graveyard Pond

Firstly, partnerships were formed with the community in the informal settlement in order to

reach consensus on the outcomes of the data collection. The settlement was subsequently split into

19 sections, lettered from A to T, based on existing walk ways (Figure 6). A questionnaire was

developed through discussions between all the partners including the local community. It was

designed to capture social/demographic information such as a profile of the inhabitants‟ education

levels, employment and skills, coping mechanisms, health, and frequency of exposure to hazards

such as flooding and fire. The social information was subsequently digitally captured by means of

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



spreadsheets, whereas the spatial information was derived from aerial imagery of Langrug from the

Cape Town City Council (CTCC). Aerial images were printed and given to the data collectors. The

data collectors consisted of SDI volunteers and community leaders. The data collectors were

required to mark the shack number of each visited shack on a print-out of the aerial photographs, as

well as on the corresponding questionnaire. In addition, any differences between the actual

appearance of the shacks on the ground and the aerial image were marked on the printed aerial

photographs. This data was subsequently captured in a GIS. Furthermore, the spread sheets

containing the demographic information were linked with the digitized shacks in the GIS so that the

data in the questionnaire was the attribute information for the corresponding digitized shack.

Figure 6. Hand drawn community maps

Figure 6 shows the hand drawn maps with all the information that the community required. This

section will only report on the use of GIS in the re-blocking phase of the settlement upgrading.

Block E was used as a pilot section in re-blocking the settlement. The aim was to restructure the

shacks to create streets. These streets would subsequently host new services like canals to mitigate

flooding as well as electricity poles and water lines. Firstly, it was agreed that the new shacks would

have an equal footprint; hence, the floor area would be uniform. The shacks would also stay as

close as possible to their original locations. The original layout of the shacks was then printed on an

A0 sheet. Cardboard boxes were then used to create standard shacks. Based on the printed map, a

layout of the new shacks was designed by the community members in conjunction with SDI and the

municipality. In so doing, the community members were actively involved in planning the

restructuring of the settlement. Figure 7 shows the new layout of Block E as proposed by the

community. The streets have been structured to allow for provision of services and access of

vehicles.

Figure 7. Community design for new layout of Block E

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Figure 8. Changes in layout of shacks in block E of Langrug

The shacks at the corners of the block were maintained in their original location. The new

layout was then photographed and imported into the GIS software. The image was subsequently

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



geo-referenced to fit the shacks at the corners of the block. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the

layout before and after the study. The captured data was also required for various micro projects in

Langrug. The community was interested in mapping the locations of:

- All the toilets in order to assess which ones were still functional;

- All the underground and surface drains in order to assess their efficiency;

- All the garbage collection points; and

- All business establishments such as shops, spazas and shebeens.

The methodology presented in this paper details the participation of local communities in

planning the layout of their settlement by taking a different approach (Musungu et al., 2012b). The

software, in this case, GIS was used to simplify the planning process for the community members.

The community interacted with simplistic blocks in order to plan their settlement. The blocks were

then digitized for use by the professionals. In this case study, GIS acted as a medium to translate the

community‟s opinions into a product that the professionals could utilize. Moreover, GIS ensured

that the proposals of the local community were captured to the correct scale in the absence of which

the municipal engineers would have been unable to assess the proposed locations of the shacks.

Another key output was that the application of GIS in this micro project empowered the

community to actually engage in planning their settlement and in so doing, facilitated a paradigm

shift towards „self-help‟. By facilitating community involvement, the community was able to create

streets and access ways for services. They also agreed to relocate six shacks from the previous

layout to create the required space for new layout. In the absence of community involvement at the

planning stage, there is often resistance towards initiatives of the local municipality. This case study

shows how participatory GIS facilitated a successful initiative between the local municipality,

NGOs and the local community in informal settlement upgrading.

2.3 Mapping on the Theewaterskloof Dam

In South Africa, the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) is the custodian for water-related data

on state-owned dams. Unfortunately, the efficient dissemination of the data is hampered by the

absence of a single point of access where this data can be accessed instantaneously by various

stakeholders. Further, in order for one to have access to specific datasets or information (hard copy

or digital), various individuals in the organisation have to be contacted. Notably, although paper

maps are readily available, it is difficult to visualize and symbolize various themes or aspects

simultaneously on a single map. Thus, sometimes more than one paper copy is required making it

difficult to handle when the maps have to be used for fieldwork. Moreover, paper maps are static

and only updated periodically.

One potential solution to these problems is the use of an interactive web based map information

service that could be developed to facilitate instantaneous access of various stakeholders‟ to

relevant data. This study sought to develop a methodology for the development of such a web-based

service that could facilitate access to both spatial and non-spatial data using the Theewaterskloof

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



dam area as a case study site. The amount of data available and the dam structure were two main

factors influencing the development of the methodology. This study contributed to the branch of

PGIS concerned with allowing various stakeholders to access geospatial data in their environment.

The Theewaterskloof dam is located near Villiersdorp in the Western Cape province of South

Africa. It has a capacity of 480 million m³ and a surface area of 48km², which makes it the seventh

largest dam in South Africa. The dam structure consists of rocky drop offs, grass, reeds at the

water‟s edge, many submerged trees, old underwater buildings and roads and a bridge. The

structure, the dam size, protected areas, privately owned properties around the dam and limited

access roads made access to the water difficult. It especially had an impact on anglers not familiar

with the area around the dam and the delineated dam zones set out by DWA for water activities

such as fishing, skiing, sailing, protected areas etc. The web map was created with base and

operational data sourced from various stakeholders as well as the public. Figure 9 shows a summary

of the methodology.

Figure 9. Developing a web map service at Theewaterskloof

Links to documentation and other web sites of interest to the identified stakeholders were

incorporated to make this a comprehensive web information service accessible from the user‟s

preferred device. Additionally, any other indigenous knowledge that is not currently captured can

be contributed by the public or communities around the dam site. This data could include statistics

of incidents that happened on or around the dams in the past. Examples of such data or information

include boating accidents, old submerged structures, fallen trees or other dangerous obstacles that

are not visible when the dam water levels are high etc. The web map service was tested for

accessibility, upload time, interactivity and visualization on different digital devices to optimise the

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



value of such an application to the user. The service was tested using laptops and smart phones.

This web service was served on the DWA server and also overlaid on external web services such as

ArcGIS Online and Google Earth as they already contained base maps. During the pilot phase, two

questionnaires were compiled in order to get feedback from users that were testing the functionality

of the web service. The questions focussed on the devices used and their means of accessing the

internet (Local Area Network, 3G etc.), upload times and which web service platform was

preferred. The questionnaire also queried the ease-of–use, interactive ability, and other data that

users would like to have access as well as suggestions for the future development of such web

services. Figure 10 shows a snapshot of the Theewaterskloof Dam from the Google Earth web

service.

Figure 10. Developing a web map service at Theewaterskloof Dam

Notably, the development of the web service was participatory as it was compiled and refined

based on feedback and input from users at different GIS skill levels – from a GIS professional to the

general public. Moreover, once the final web service is uploaded onto the official DWA website

(www.dwa.gov.za) all users and stakeholders of the dam will be able to access and contribute data

and/or information to the web service via the DWA website. The only limitation of the Google

Earth and ArcGIS online service is that the user is unable to access supplementary documents that

could provide extra information on the dam.

2.4 Crime mapping in Freedom Park

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Freedom Park is located in Mitchell‟s Plain, one of the biggest townships in Cape Town. It is a

former informal settlement that was upgraded into formal housing. Freedom Park was established in

1998 when a group of backyard dwellers occupied a parcel of vacant land which had been zoned for

a school that was never built. A livelihoods analysis conducted in the area revealed challenges of

crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic violence and community conflict, high levels of food

insecurity with most residents reliant on social grants. The construction of formal houses started in

2007 and was completed in 2009. In this study, the residents of Freedom Park reflected on the

changes in occurrence of crime in 2004 prior to the construction, in comparison to occurrence of

crime in 2013-four years after construction of formal housing. Figure 11 shows a summary of the

methodology. It was adopted from Karanja (2010) and Musungu et al. (2011)

Figure 11. Steps in crime analysis of Freedom Park

The community leaders used aerial photographs from 2004 and 2013 to identify crime

hotspots as well as the types of crimes that occurred there. The various crimes were colour coded

(Figure 12) to group similar crimes. In addition, they mapped police and community patrol routes,

illegal taverns, drug dens, gang turfs etc. Essentially, each spot and its corresponding crime(s) were

digitised and captured in the GIS. It was then possible to map each crime against a variety of factors

such as illegal taverns and fighting, shootings and gang turfs etc. Figure 13 shows a map of crimes

in 2004. Similar maps were made for the 2013 data. One key outcome in this study was that the

stories of the residents were used to create a shared spatial understanding of perceptions of risk to

crime in 2004 and 2013.

Figure 12. Colour-coded crime hotspots in 2004

Data Collection using

stickers

Preliminary Analysis

Data Cleaning Digitisation and

intergration

Preliminary Mapping

Calculation of risk weights

Creation of heat maps

Presentation to community

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Figure 13. Colour-coded crime hotspots in 2004

3 LESSONS

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



It has been stated in preceding sections that participatory GIS prescribes the involvement of

stakeholder communities in mapping activities as well as their access to geospatial information in

about their geographical space. Various methods were highlighted in this text. These involved the

use of questionnaires in Graveyard Pond, questionnaires and blocks in Langrug, workshops in

Freedom Park and the internet at Theewaterskloof dam. Each of these methods offered varying

levels of community interaction. Questionnaires allow many local community members to get

involved. However, the digitisation and cleaning of questionnaires is very cumbersome. Moreover,

since some communities only allow NGOs to conduct the surveys, the data is often poorly digitised

and organisational internal codes e.g. 1 = Yes, 2 = No etc. are often inconsistent or missing. Also,

the surveyors sometimes bias the responses. Validation of the data can be planned in the design of

the questionnaire as well as after the data has been captured.

The use of community workshops is also an effective way of gathering data from various

stakeholders simultaneously. Unlike questionnaires where respondents could give biased responses,

workshops enable the community to validate their responses as the data is captured. It is also

possible to start to identify trends such as „cause and effect‟ of occurrences in the environment of

study. Conversely, workshops limit the extent to which individual experiences can be captured. For

instance, in the crime study in Freedom Park, it is impossible to know how many times each

individual household experienced crime. However, as seen in the building of blocks at Langrug,

workshops can facilitate consensus between stakeholders.

The web is an excellent platform for dissemination of data on a large scale. It was found that

various stakeholders were able to use the web map service at Theewaterskloof dam by accessing the

DWA site, ArcGIS online as well as Google Earth. They were also able to contribute data on the

Google Earth platform. Some of the major limitations of this method included the lack of mobile

coverage in some areas on and around the dam as well as the need for smartphones and tablets for

mobile stakeholders. Hence, most users accessed and contributed data from their computers and

laptops.

In summary, despite all these limitations these methods and technologies proved to be viable

participatory mapping vehicles. In future, research should address the possibility of using phones

for data capture and mapping on-the-fly in informal settlements. The proliferation of smart phone

apps with location capturing capabilities should make this a reality in the near future.

REFERENCES

Abbot, J, Chambers, R, Dunn, C, Harris, T, de Merode, E, Porter, G, Townsend, J, & Weiner, D

1998, „Participatory GIS: Opportunity or Oxymoron‟,PLA Notes, Vol. 33, pp. 27–34.

Abbot, JR 2000, „An Integrated spatial information framework for informal settlement upgrading‟,

International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 33, Part B2, pp. 7–16.

Ayalew, L. & Yamagishi, H 2005, „The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide

susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda–Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan‟,Geomorphology,

Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 15–31.

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Bouchard, B, Goncalo, A, Susienka, M& Wilson, K 2007, „Improving flood risk management in

informal settlements of Cape Town‟ E-project-121307-110919. Available at:

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-

121307110919/unrestricted/FinalReport.pdf. Accessed on 14 January 2011.

Cardona, OD 2004, „The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of Vulnerability and Risk from a

Holistic Perspective: A Necessary Review and Criticism for Effective Risk Management‟,

in G Bankoff, G Frerks and DHilhorst (eds.),Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,

Development and People, Earthscan,London

Chambers, R 1994, „The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal‟, World

Development, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 953-969, 1994.

Crichton, D 1999, „The Risk Triangle‟, in JIngleton (ed.), Natural Disaster Management, Tudor

Rose, London.

Etkin, D 1999, „Risk Transference and related trends: Driving forces towards more mega-disasters‟,

Environmental hazards, Vol.1, pp. 69-75.

Giupponi, C, Eiselt, B and Ghetti, PF 1999, „A multi-criteria approach for mapping risks of

agricultural pollution for water resources: The Venice Lagoon watershed case study‟,

Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 259–269.

Jankowski, P, Andrienko, N &Andrienko, G 2001, „Map-centred exploratory approach to multiple

criteria spatial decision making‟, International Journal of Geographical Information

Science, Vol. 15, pp. 101–127.

Karanja, I 2010, „An enumeration and mapping of informal settlements in Kisumu, Kenya,

implemented by their inhabitants‟, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 217–

239.

Kelman, I. 2001, „The autumn 2000 floods in England and flood management‟, Weather, Vol. 56,

No. 10, pp 353-360.

Kelman, I 2003,„Defining Risk‟,Flood Risk Newsletter, Issue 2, Winter 2003.

Kumpulainen, S 2006, „Vulnerability concepts in hazard and risk assessment. Natural and

technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions‟,

Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 42, pp. 65–74.

Kyem, PAK 2001. „An application of a choice heuristic algorithm for managing land resource

allocation problems involving multiple parties and conflicting interests.‟ Transactions in

GIS, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 111–129.

Kyem, PAK 2004, „Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for

consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands‟, Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 37–57.

Kevin Musungu


FIG Congress 2014



Musungu, K., Motala, S. & Smit, J., 2011. A Participatory Approach to Data Collection for GIS for

Flood Risk Management in Informal Settlements of Cape Town, AfricaGEO 2011

Conference Proceedings.

Musungu, K., Motala, S. & Smit, J., 2012a. Using Multi-criteria Evaluation and GIS for Flood Risk

Analysis in Informal Settlements of Cape Town: The Case of Graveyard Pond, South

African Journal of Geomatics, Vol. 1(1) pp 77-91.

Musungu, K., Motala, S., Mancitshana, B., 2012b. Maps and Blocks: Using GIS to enhance

community participation in planning informal settlements, Proceedings of the GISSA

Ukubuzana, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Project Preparation Trust (PPT): “PPT Profile: Participatory Community Action Plan (Sustainable

Livelihood Focus) for Informal Settlements at Kenville (Mysore and Temple) and Redcliffe

in eThekwini Municipality”, November 2011. Accessed on 8 September 2012 at:

http://www.pptrust.org.za/livelihoods-economic-development/view-category.html under

„Participatory Community Action Plans Case Study‟

Slum Dwellers International (SDI) 2009, Joe Slovo Household enumeration report, Langa, Cape

Town, Viewed on 20 December

2010.http://www.sdinet.org/static/upload/documents/JSEnumeration.pdf.

Slum Dwellers International (SDI), 2011, Langrug Settlement enumeration report, Franschoek,

Stellenbosch. Accessed on 3 July 2012 at:

http://sasdialliance.org.za/wpcontent/uploads/docs/reports/Enumerations/Langrug_Enumera

tion_Report.pdf.

Turner II, BL, Kasperson, RE, Matson, PE, McCarthy, JJ, Corell, RW, Christensen, L, Eckley, N,

Kasperson, JX, Luerse,A, Martellog, ML, Polsky, C, Pulsipher, A, and Schiller, A 2003,„A

framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science‟,Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 100, pp. 8074–8079.

Tyler, R 2011, Incorporating Local participation and GIS in Assessing Flood Vulnerability in

Informal Settlement: Masiphumulele Case Study, Unpublished MPhil dissertation,

University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

Yahaya, S, Ahmad, N. & Abdalla, RF 2010, „Multi-criteria analysis for flood vulnerable areas in

Hadejia-Jama‟are River basin, Nigeria‟, European Journal of Scientific Research,Vol.42,

No. 1, pp. 71–83.

Yalcin, G & Akyurek, Z 2004, „Analysing Flood Vulnerable Areas with Multi-criteria Evaluation‟,

20th ISPRS Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–23 July.

Wilde, GJS 1994, Target Risk, PDE Publications, Toronto

http://www.pptrust.org.za/livelihoods-economic-development/view-category.html

http://sasdialliance.org.za/wpcontent/uploads/docs/reports/Enumerations/Langrug_Enumeration_Report.pdf

http://sasdialliance.org.za/wpcontent/uploads/docs/reports/Enumerations/Langrug_Enumeration_Report.pdf

participatory mapping: methods, results and lessons from cape … · 2014. 8. 28. · participatory...

Documents