|
|
|
Opportunities for enhancing communication settlement upgrading
with GIT based support tools
that did not relate well to the different development models 1 found in planned and unplanned
development (Abbott 2001).
The inability of implementing agencies and governments to create sustainable and replicable
settlement upgrading programmes contributed to reduced interest in continuing to finance
such approaches in the 1980’s. The following period saw a concerted and coordinated shift
by major international agencies such as the World Bank, UNCHS and UNDP in the Urban
Management Programme (UMP). Central to this effort was the realization that urban areas
are of fundamental importance in economic development and hence poverty alleviation. The
UMP’s initial substantial emphasis on land management, infrastructure, finance and the
environment included support for the selective deregulation of planning and development
control processes and a shift toward an enabling role for the public sector and
decentralization (Clarke 1991; Mattingly 1994; Wegelin 1994). The UMP approach has also
been the subject of critical comment on its ideological linkages with neo-liberal thinking and
practical considerations related to the devolution of responsibility without power and
resources or pseudo-devolution (Werna 1995). According to Bu ek and Smith (2000, pg. 5)
experience shows that to be successful decentralisation must be “..combined with
democracy, accountability and responsibility at the local level leading to effective
participation”, underlining the importance of governance in contemporary urban management
within which settlement upgrading is an essential component.
The latest urban management approaches have responded by advocating more collaborative
planning processes (Healey 1997) such as found in UNCHS’s Sustainable Cities
Programme. Collaborative planning styles are promoted on the grounds that they are
inclusive and provide opportunities for all voices to be heard. In practice the results may
depend much on the attitudes of key actors, the level of foreclosure imposed by binding laws
and regulations and the institutional complexity associated with vertical and horizontal
collaboration between various actors and actor groups (Tewder-Jones 1998). An increasingly
important role in collaborative planning is also seen for community groups and voluntary
agencies, as key agents in urban development; groups that are believed to be critical to more
open and inclusive governance systems, in particular for the most vulnerable and
marginalized groups. Here it is important to realise that such bodies are not a priori models of
good governance as they are also subject to problems such as internal power struggles, lack
of accountability and lack of capacity that typify organisations in other sectors (Fowler 1997;
Bûcek and Smith 2000).
Settlement upgrading
The upgrading of informal settlements is generally executed on a project by project basis,
with each project phased over a number of years. The project model suggested by Davidson
and Payne (2000) groups tasks into 5 main stages: Feasibility Studies, Detailed Studies,
Developing Project Options, Detailed Development Proposals and Project Implementation. In
each phase there are requirements for spatial information that present opportunities for the
adoption of Geographic Information Technologies.
Conventional approaches to upgrading
In a conventional approach, such as was common in the 1970’s, a special unit would be
established, usually within a government organisation or ministry, as the lead agency for a
specific project. This unit would be responsible for overall project management and the
coordination of the inputs of other agencies and organizations. Although most projects
included elements of participation with community members, the level of participation was
often relatively low and perhaps limited to their being informed about project progress or
1
The term development cycle refers to the development models proposed by Baross. The
development sequence in sites and service schemes being Planning-Servicing-Occupation and
Building (PSOB) as against Occupation-Building-Planning and Servicing (PBPS) that relates to
informal development and in-situ upgrading.
|
|
|