Participatory Mapping: Methods, Results and Lessons from Cape … · 2014. 8. 28. · Participatory Mapping: Methods, Results and Lessons from Cape Town FIG Congress 2014 Engaging
Post on 31-Aug-2020
30 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
Participatory Mapping: Methods, Results and Lessons from Cape Town
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
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
Participatory Mapping: Methods, Results and Lessons from Cape Town
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Figure 13. Colour-coded crime hotspots in 2004
3 LESSONS
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
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
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
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
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
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
top related