Synopsis of Spatial Mapping and Planning

Synopsis of Spatial Mapping and Planning

Since the 1980’s, spatial mapping as a form of redevelopment planning for sub-standard housing developments has grown in popularity. The use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) presents a rich medium for both technical experts and community members alike. It is believed that the first use of GIS in informal settlement upgrading was in Brazil, and since then it has been used numerous times not only in third-world countries but also in the United States and Europe (Abbott, 2003). In the context of our project, many different organizations have been referring to GIS maps since 1996 to test the applicability of the approach taken in Brazil in other settlements such as the ones in South Africa (Abbott, 2003). The maps are used both with co-researchers and with the community as a communication tool because they are so effective from a planning standpoint.

An interesting part of spatial planning is that there is no single, standard way of doing it. Our project is unique in that much of its design is based on input and feedback from the community. Some people have taken a more logical, and mathematical approach to spatial mapping.


Figure 1: Spatial Planning vs. Procedural Analysis (Glass, Morkel, & Bangay, 2006)

Figure 1: Spatial Planning vs. Procedural Analysis (Glass, Morkel, & Bangay, 2006)

The method of procedural mapping is an interesting topic in computer science and mathematics that can be applied to generating roads for informal settlements using mathematical equations. It is a process that “eliminates the need for direct human interaction” (Glass, Morkel, & Bangay, 2006). A computer program scans an aerial map of an informal settlement and finds the optimal road layout using various mathematical procedures that can provide nearly infinite possibilities, shown in Figure 1. There are some pros and cons to this approach. The pros are that a computer program is doing all of the hard work for you and it can come up with endless possibilities by only tweaking a few simple user settings. The cons are that the process does not take into consideration community involvement at all, which is extremely important to our work.

In the past, many people have taken a method-based approach to settlement upgrading, with varied success. John Abbott defined such an approach as “a structured and inter-related set of actions that have a logical framework and an internal cohesion, and which lead to a defined outcome” (Abbott, 2001a). In a study done by the University of Cape Town, they determined that there are three main approaches to informal settlement upgrading (Abbott, 2001a):

  1. An incremental approach to physical provision
  2. Micro-planning at a community level
  3. The creation of an holistic plan

Each method has its pros and cons; however, the first method is the most popular. Unfortunately, this method tends to put too much emphasis on building infrastructure, and thus makes the planners forget about the other important things in informal settlement upgrading such as community involvement and flexibility. The second method is something that we will be doing a lot of, as specified later in our methodology. Micro-planning is a useful tool because it allows for the creation of an upgrading process or prototype in a relatively small area that can be replicated across a larger area. By developing small sections of the park at a time, it greatly reduces the complexity of the redevelopment process and makes it much more manageable and flexible on a case-to-case basis. Ideally, we will strive to create a holistic approach to urban planning taking into consideration the needs of the residents, organizations, and the city.

A major problem with informal settlements that planners have to deal with is how to handle space during redevelopment. A balance must be made between public spaces and private spaces, which is not an easy goal to achieve. Well-maintained roads are very important to emergency vehicles and sanitation services, but at the same time you can’t compromise too much space so that all the residents can no longer comfortably fit into the new settlement design. Things such as this introduce a sense of vulnerability, which can happen if the planning process focuses too heavily on only one or two elements and ignores the rest of the factors that need to be considered. John Abbott proposes the following list of concepts that should be taken into consideration while proposing improvements to informal settlements (Abbott, 2002):

  • Physical risk associated with the site
  • Personal risk
  • Livelihood
  • Ability to withstand shocks
  • Ability to withstand negative trends
  • The recognition of intangible assets
  • The social value of tangible assets
  • The social value of communal assets
  • The impact on informal sector activity
  • Spatial relationships

It is obvious that there is always a certain level of risk when entering into a project this large, thus this risk must be kept to a minimum through careful planning. The livelihood and strength of the community is something that is especially important, as is their culture and their understanding of the work we do. It is important that we help the residents understand the big picture of what we envision while at the same time adhere to their suggestions and cultural standards. Understanding the impact that infrastructure development, especially roads, has on business is also extremely important. Community centers such as the one at the Indlovu Center and the safe nodes proposed by the VPUU are examples of recognizing the social value of communal assets.