|
|
|
THE USE OF GIS IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT UPGRADING: ITS ROLE AND IMPACT
ON THE COMMUNITY AND ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AProfessor John Abbott
Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Cape Town,
Private Bag, 7701, Rondebosch,
South Africa.
Tel. ++27 21 650 2605
Email: abbott@ebe.uct.ac.za.
and it has allowed a much wider exploration of the use of space and the relationship between the
informal settlement and the surrounding formal areas.
Key issues underpinning the methodology
The starting point for the discussion is the recognition that large scale, replicable upgrading of
informal settlements is only possible through the use of spatial information technologies. At the same
time, there is the need to recognise that the primary objective of upgrading has to be the social and
economic development of the community. Therefore, if GIS is to be used effectively, it has to support
this process. It is not simply a technical tool to underpin physical development. In fact, were this to be
its sole function, it would have failed. Rather, it should be seen as a tool that liberates local authorities,
communities and professionals from the constraints of paper-based space, and allows for the
interaction between the spatial and physical elements on the one hand, and the social and economic
opportunities on the other, in a three-dimensional virtual environment. This then allows all parties to
work in a much more interactive way to address the multi-faceted nature of informal settlements.
In an upgrading project there are two major groups of actors, the local authority and the community to
be upgraded. There are then other actors who may have an interest (surrounding communities, utility
companies, professionals, NGOs). In looking at decision-making in this broad context, there are two
sets of determinants that guide the choice. The first determinant is the nature of the decision-making
process. This methodology uses Abbott’s model of community participation (1996), which divides
participatory decision-making into four categories, of which two are relevant here. The first category
is termed consensus decision-making and, as the term implies, covers those issues where more than
one party has a stake in the outcome of the decision, and where all parties should share the same
opinion on the outcome. The second category, which operates within what is termed the arena of
inclusion, covers those decisions that really affect only the community, and hence where it is the
community that constitutes the primary decision-making body.
The second determinant is that of scale, and the underlying hypothesis is that the different types of
decision-making will be appropriate at different scales. In this project there were four broad levels of
scale. The first, or ‘highest’, level deal with the integration of the settlement into the surrounding area,
and seeks to address the critical issue, raised by the Recife Declaration (UNCHS, 1996), of the
integration of the informal city into the formal city. The second level is that of the settlement as a
whole. The third level is that of the small neighbourhood within the settlement, and derives from the
recognition, deriving from this project, that informal settlements cannot be treated as homogeneous
entities. Finally the fourth level is that of the individual family. In reality, these are not discrete levels,
and operate rather on a continuum. Nonetheless they provide a useful framework for analysis.
A critical component of the Cape Town methodology is the application of different decision-making
(organisational and institutional) structures to the upgrading process. At the same time, and linked to
this, there is a wider issue of long-term sustainability in respect of the settlement. This is a process
whereby an attempt is made to create a long-term vision for the settlement, whilst ensuring that the
upgrading is not turned into a physical planning exercise. The integration of these three factors (a
multi-scalar approach, different decision-making structures and planning for sustainability) can only
be achieved through the use of GIS and through the creation of a well-constructed spatial database
management system.
Thus geospatial information management becomes a key component of the wider methodology. Given
the nature of the conference, it is this component that is covered in depth here. More wide ranging
discussions of the methodology may be found elsewhere for those interested (Abbott and Douglas,
2001).
In choosing this approach, a central question needs to be addressed upfront. And this is whether it is
really necessary to use such complex technology in areas where access to, and understanding of, such
technologies is likely to be extremely limited. Is it not just another example of either top-down
planning or development specialists using technology for its own sake? This paper would argue not.
|
|
|