1

ICT-driven projects for Land Governance in Kenya:

Disruption and e-government frameworks

NB: this is an author manuscript published online in GeoJournal on March 22, 2016. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9710-6

Christopher Huggins (corresponding author)a, Natasha Frosinab

aBanting Post-Doctoral Fellow, School of International Policy and Governance, Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Avenue West Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3C5 cdhuggins@gmail.com bResearch Fellow, African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)

Gigiri Court No: 49, Off United Nations Crescent P.O. Box 45917 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya N.Frosina@acts-net.org

Abstract Critical academic research has not yet comprehensively identified conceptual linkages and tensions between information communication technologies (ICTs) and land governance projects. In order to make a contribution to our understandings of these complex fields, this article examines three Kenyan projects to illustrate different aspects of competing theoretical frameworks for ICT-based land rights projects. The projects documented land and property in the informal settlements of Kibera and Mathare in Nairobi, and in the rural community of Lari in Kiambu County. Drawing particularly on conceptual frameworks that emphasize the ‘disruptive’ potentials of ICTs, and frameworks based on e-government models, the article argues that these projects include both disruptive aspects, which work through applying pressure on the state, and more ‘integrative’ approaches which seek to build state capacity. The projects also rely on multiple stakeholders, and cannot be easily categorized within simple narratives of crowdsourcing, for example. Instead the realities are more complex and ‘success’ is difficult to assess, and potential uses of such projects are open and multiple.

Keywords: Information communication technologies; land governance; informal settlements; e-government; Kenya; land rights, disruptive technologies

Acknowledgement:

This research was supported in part by a post-doctoral fellowship from the Netherlands Academy on Land

Governance and Food Security – LANDac www.landgovernance.org

2

Introduction There is currently much academic and professional interest in emerging uses of information communication technologies (ICTs) for improving land governance (Moreri et al, 2015; Lemmen et al, 2015b; Datta, 2015, Makau et al, 2015; McLaren, 2013; Hagen, 2011), partly because of the potentials to make land governance monitoring more participatory. There is an increasingly large technical literature on ICTs in land administration, geospatial technologies in land governance, and related subjects, as well as academic journals devoted to these fields. However, due to the highly specialized types of technical knowledge necessary to use, adapt and update such technologies, as well as the complexity of the land domain more generally, most literature focuses on a narrow topic, rather than providing an overview of potential risks and benefits of specific approaches. In particular, critical theoretical engagements with land governance rarely take ICT innovations as case studies. On the other hand, some of the ICT for development (ICT4D) literature is based on communications theory, which has a critical sociological perspective, but rarely has a well-informed land governance focus. There is a large and fast-expanding literature on interactive geo-spatial systems, including on volunteered geographic information (VGI) and Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) (see e.g. Schroeder, 1996). Some community- and non-profit projects have been studied in the academic literature (e.g. Wayamba, 2015; Hagen, 2011), but as NGO understandings of ICT use ‘emphasizes the technical’ (Seiber, 2006) too much of the non-profit and policy writing on ICTs is uncritical in nature. This paper seeks to bridge the gap between the critical work on VGI and PPGIS and the self-proclaimed interests of NGOs using technologies for very specific goals.

Land Governance and ICTs: brief overview ICT is becoming increasingly important in international development programming. Through combinations of ICT, including mobile phones, internet-connected smartphones, radios, laptop or tablet computers, telecenters, digital scanners, low-cost digital cameras, video cameras and televisions, projects are no longer focused only on ‘information dissemination,’ but provide communities with new ways to generate information, influence policy-making, and demand services. Mobile phones are particularly important in Africa, which represents the world’s fastest growing mobile phone market (Carmody, 2013). Geo-spatial technologies are increasingly used in conjunction with ICTs, particularly through ‘crowd sourcing’ or through uploading data to the cloud. Geo-spatial technologies include remote sensing systems, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) real-time networks (RTN), and the spatial data infrastructure (SDI) that allows users to link and access data from these tools. Geo-spatial technologies are embedded in ICTs such as smartphones, which have GNSS functions and can hence provide GPS data. Part of the interest in ICTs for land governance stems from the nature of key weaknesses in capacities of sub-Saharan African states to provide citizens with formalized land rights which include, first, the weakness in the geo-spatial data related to landholdings, and second, an inability to effectively link geo-spatial data on landholdings with text documents proving ownership (such as ‘title deeds’, attestations from local leaders, witness statements, etc) (Byamugisha, 2013). Large amounts of land in Africa, both in rural areas and informal settlements, remain under customary tenure regimes or are contested, leading to land disputes and insecurity (Ansoms et al, 2014; Byamugisha, 2013). Various kinds of ICTs, when embedded within the necessary information management architecture (which may be software-based and use the cloud), can enable a link to be made between documents and geo-spatial data. One of the benefits of working through ICTs in sub-Saharan Africa is that it can be cheaper than pre-digital land surveying and registration systems. ‘The big shift here… is leveraging the use of mobile devices and cloud infrastructure. We can build systems with limited in-country infrastructure and manage information in the cloud…’ (Brent Jones of Esri, cited in Datta, 2015) which leads to technological ‘leapfrogging’ in

3

countries that have not yet invested in capital-intensive data infrastructure. ICT applications for land governance are therefore rapidly-expanding, though many projects remain at the pilot stage. There are various ways in which ICT platforms can improve land governance, ranging from SMS-based monitoring of land administration processes (where automated systems require civil servants to document their activities by SMS), to informal GIS-enabled photographic documentation of landholdings to guard against land grabbing. Digitisation, mobile devices, and customized software can be used to improve the information flow and day-to-day connections between different actors in the land sector, such as local land offices, surveyors, financial institutions issuing mortgages, and private citizens (Peele, 2015). Consultation over draft land use plans can be facilitated by providing access to them over social media (Tolidis and Dimopoulou, 2013). Mobile internet connectivity provides an opportunity for mobile land information and registration services. In Indonesia, for example, a van serves as a mobile land office that travels to villages to provide property services using internet-connected computers (World Bank, 2011). Land records can be digitized and accessed through mobile phones, using SMS-based information services or the internet if smartphones are widely used (World Bank, 2011). When making transactions related to land (including payment of land taxes or other fees to government agencies), citizens can include their mobile phone number in a government database. Government personnel can then call a random sample of these citizens to check if they were asked to pay a bribe; a system which reduces corruption in the land sector (Economist, 2009, cited in World Bank, 2011). Online communities allow local organizations to share ideas and build their capacity to advocate for their land rights and improved land governance. In Latin America, Mercycorps created an online social networking platform, Red Tierras ("land network") for people who had been trained on land rights and natural resource governance for indigenous groups. Users interact online in order to share experiences (Mercycorps, 2015). In Bolivia, Mercycorps has linked the network to a mobile-phone based system for sending land rights information to a cadaster, allowing for land rights formalization (ibid.). However, none of these technical improvements will work without the political will to make them effective and sustainable. Much of this depends on state bureaucrats. Because ICT-based systems can increase accountability, those benefitting from corruption have a vested interest in seeing such systems fail. Some systems seek to improve the efficiency of land administration systems, implicitly assuming the ‘good intentions’ of government personnel running such systems; others seek to assist advocacy for land rights through a more ‘disruptive’ model. In the latter case, the implicit assumption is that the state will not provide land rights or other land-related services to certain populations unless pressured to do so.

Elements of a Conceptual Framework for ICTs in Land Governance In many cases, discussions of the benefits and risks of using ICTs for land governance are not informed by an explicit conceptual framework. There has been a recent ‘paradigm shift’ in understandings of land rights, based largely on the idea of a continuum of land rights approach, which recognises different kinds of claims over land and property (from informal through to formal). This has led to the development of the Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM), a pro poor land information tool championed by UN-Habitat and increasingly influential at national, regional and global levels (GLTN, 2015). The STDM, which includes open-source software to enable documentation of land and property claims, and the related concept of ‘fit-for-purpose’ land administration systems, are encouraging governments to reconfigure land administration systems, including through the incorporation of various ICTs. However, although the continuum of land rights approach is embedded in various global and regional policy documents, land specialists note that, ‘those strategies, guidelines and indicators are however not very specific with regard to the application and use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)’ (Lemmen et al, 2015a). Many governments remain nervous about the overall accuracy and dependability of ICT-based approaches, and are concerned about losing state control over the land registration and related activities. Once again, tensions between state-centric and more ‘disruptive’ models are evident. Researchers and policy-makers from different disciplines and sectors tend to bring very different perspectives to the topic of ICTs for land governance. For example, some may frame ICT interventions for land governance as part

4

of a broader ‘e-government’ agenda (see e.g. Macueve, 2011; Tolidis and Dimopoulou, 2013), which Sæbø (2012) argues is an under-theorized field. E-government research is influenced by the ‘good government’ concept (UNDP, 1997), which positions the state at the centre of governance. Much of the e-government literature contends that e-government is established in four phases: web presence (presentation of information without interactivity), interaction (limited interactivity, such as downloading of application forms), transaction (services are automated and can be delivered online) and transformation (where multiple government institutions are connected and all services can be provided electronically) (Layne and Lee, 2001; Bhatnagar, 2004; Siau and Long, 2005, cited by Macueve, 2011). The emphasis is on the state setting the direction and pace of change. Other frameworks include a theory of first, second and third order impacts of ICTs in government activities. First order impacts involve substitution of old technology with new technology in order to do the same kind of work as before, second-order impacts involve government agencies being more productive and effective, and third-order impacts involve ‘new processes and new ways of working’ as a result of the use of ICTs (Sæbø, 2012). The e-government literature has been criticized for technological determinism, although the extent of technological determinism in frequently-cited papers has reduced in recent years (Madsen, et al, 2014). The extent of optimism about the impacts of e-governance in frequently-cited papers has also reduced (ibid) and ‘there is recognition that many e-government initiatives fail altogether’ (Klopp et al, 2013). This analysis reflects a broader skepticism in much of the development community regarding techno-optimism, in a situation in which the ‘top-down, expert-led approach to development remains entrenched’ (Flint and Natrup, 2014). The e-government literature sometimes acknowledges that adoption of ICTs can increase control of systems by certain actors, resulting in ‘concentration of power’ (Sæbø, 2012, citing Schuppan, 2008). Other influences on the understanding of power within ICT-enabled networks include Amartya Sen’s theory of ‘development as freedom’ (Sen), where ICTs enable citizens to have more agency (Kyem, 2001), and to become part of a more informed public debate about governance (Graesholm, 2012; Spence and Smith, 2010). Such ideas of information flow in ‘public spaces’ allowing for more deliberative and inclusive decision-making also stem from Habermas (1991, cited in Young and Gilmore, 2014). Many scholars and agencies implicitly or explicitly contend that, ‘access to computer tools and digital data forms an essential part of an informationally enabled democracy’ (Seiber, 2006: 491). However, analysis of Sen’s argument shows that he emphasizes a need for ‘basic economic entitlements (through education and training, through land reform, through availability of credit’ to be in place in order for development to happen. By themselves, ICTs cannot provide these entitlements, which require change of a more structural nature (Alampay, 2006, cited in Carmody, 2012). In other words, ‘technology can disseminate information and organize crowds, but it cannot replace physical infrastructure such as roads, food, and other goods’ (Moon, 2014). Furthermore, critics argue that the assumption that ICTs bring empowerment ‘distracts grassroots groups and others from proven activist strategies such as protest and retreats from questioning the overall framework of policymaking and distribution of power’ (Seiber, 2006: 491). Understandings of empowerment, of course, vary according to their underlying theories of power (Kyem, 2001: 8). An example of power differentials in ‘e-government’ land administration comes from Karnataka, India, where an online digital land records system was praised for having simplified land registration and reduced corruption (World Bank, 2004, cited in Bertot, et al, 2010). However, later research found that digitization and access to records (provided for a small fee at computer kiosks) benefited companies, and wealthier and more powerful individuals at the expense of the poor, who were then disadvantaged in property disputes (Benjamin et al, 2007). As a result, researchers argue that, there is a “need to replace politically neutered concepts like ‘transparency’, ‘efficiency’, ‘governance’, and ‘best practice’ with conceptually more rigorous terms that reflect the uneven terrain of power and control that governance embodies’ (Benjamin et al, 2007: 3). In general, the e-government literature has not been well integrated with discussions of ICT for land governance in less-developed countries, partly because effective land governance in LDCs requires significant structural, legal, administrative and other reforms prior to any e-government approach to land administration becoming effective. There is more engagement with land issues in the literature on geo-spatial technologies. Internet-based mapping systems include Open Street Map and Wikimapia. The public can easily contribute to these and similar systems, leading scholars to see them as ‘democratization of GIS’ (Butler 2006), or the ‘new information commons’ (Berdou,

5

2012: 15). Terms for these phenomena include ‘DigiPlace’, ‘mapping 2.0’ or the ‘geospatial web’ (Abend and Harvey, 2015, citing Zook and Graham, 2007; Gartner 2009, and Scharl and Tochtermann 2007). Users can combine different sources of digital information in a single map (superimposing layers of geo-referenced information on top of each other), hence creating ‘mash-ups’ of different sources and types of data (Goodchild, 2007). Some systems use information from multiple sources, including social media, cellphone ‘text messages’, and aerial photography (Burns, 2015). Navarra (2011) discussed three different perspectives in ‘Geo-ICT’ interventions. The first perspective, the ‘urban and regional economics’ perspective, ‘sees Geo-ICT as a public good which can be used to bring a sense of discipline into the spatial structure of the urban economy by ‘optimising' the spatial distribution of natural, economic and social activities.’ The second perspective, which takes a ‘techno/legal/managerial' position, ‘sees Geo-ICT primarily as a standardisable, formal and quantitative way of mediating geo-information with the aim of making space controllable, measurable and quantifiable’. This perspective looks at the efficiencies brought about by the interoperability of different systems, which can reduce redundancies and transaction costs. Both these approaches tend to ignore the political and social context, including the institutional politics of the agencies using ICTs (Navarra, 2011). They therefore tend towards technological determinism. By contrast, a third perspective, ‘based on geographic and information systems sciences’ does not assume that Geo-ICTs act neutrally, ‘but are prone to manipulation by humans displaying diverse values and interests’. Here, attention is paid to the ways in which different actors access the technologies and influence the development of the systems. Georgiadou and Stoter (2010) critically discusses assumptions that geo-spatial technology represents a ‘standardizable, formal, quantitative, mediator of spatial knowledge’; assumptions which have been challenged by Poore and Chrisman (2006), Harley (1989 and 1990), and others. Critical work on GIS has examined the ontological foundations of interactive GIS and the power relations between designers, users, and other actors (Sieber, 2006; Obermeyer 1998). The ‘disruptive’ claims of some PGIS activities refer to the ‘counter-mapping’ concept (Hodgson and Schroeder, 2002; Neville and Dauvergne, 2012; Wainwright and Bryan, 2009; Peluso, 1995), which involves the production of maps through alternative institutional structures, and alternative ontological frameworks, to those deployed by the state and/or powerful actors. Another conceptual framework focuses on the evolving and overlapping roles of contributors and users in the ‘geospatial web’. Literature describes the ways that roles (such as producer and consumer of information) are combined or blurred, using terms such as ‘‘prosumer’’, ‘‘prosumption’’ and ‘‘produsage’’ (Bruns 2008; Tapscott and Williams 2006; Tapscott 1995, Toffler 1980, all cited in Li, 2011). Such analyses, particularly when they concern open source technologies which are themselves constantly evolving due to user input, emphasize the transparency involved and the ‘democratic’ nature of the enterprise, which does not necessarily require the vetting by any central organization (Li, 2011). These are often seen as ‘disruptive’ to existing systems of state and corporate power. There are many perspectives within this broad literature. First, financial/economic assessments emphasize the potentials of a new ‘sharing’ economy in which freeware, creative commons licenses, and other legal-technical-financial arrangements have ‘loosened the relationship between work and wages’ (Mason, 2015) potentially facilitating a collaborative, non-hierarchical, postcapitalist economy (Mason, 2015; Hardt and Negri, 2011). Such perspectives have slightly different implications in low-income African contexts, where the vast majority of work is in the informal, unsalaried sector, and the daily search for income to fulfil fundamental needs (food, shelter, education, healthcare etc) may not permit much in the way of ‘free time’ for investment in other activities. Those on the margins of the world economy will engage with ‘postcapitalism’ in different ways from those at the centre. Second, some studies examine the ways in which the products of the collaborative, ‘prosumer’ model evolve over time (Li, 2011). This perspective places emphasis on the ability and willingness of the ‘prosumers’ to adapt and maintain systems in order that they continue to remain accurate and useful. There are tensions when applying such models to land governance activities, as the ‘prosumer’ model tends to assume that information is an inherent ‘good’ (i.e. an end in itself) rather than an instrument for social change (i.e. a means to an end). Once again, the role of the state as ‘guarantor’ of land tenure security is significant. As an example, we can compare the most well-known ‘prosumer’ model, Wikipedia (and its numerous imitators), with a hypothetical databank of

6

landholdings. An online wiki is a source of entertainment and information, actively and continuously used by community members; a landholdings databank is unlikely to be regularly used (i.e. browsed) by community members except as part of an advocacy strategy to secure land rights, social services, or similar rights provided by the state. In this context, the concept of ‘user’ must be critically interrogated. Third, scholars have compared highly participatory forms of knowledge production (such as participatory GIS) with crowdsourced mechanisms which are not as interactive or accountable to users (such as some Volunteered Geographical Information Systems). Attention is paid to the extent that contributions are voluntary and how informed interaction may be increased over time, in preference to systems which envisage ‘citizens as sensors’ (Johnson et al, 2015), which are linked to ‘surveillance and governing control’, as in the case where digitized land information helps the state to ‘see’ informal areas and hence increase its control (Donovan, 2012; Graesholm, 2012); or which leverage ‘a cheap labour force providing data for information-crunchers, whether government or commercial’ (McAll et al, 2015). Graesholm argues that the ‘framing’, and hence ‘control’ of communities through ICTs is not just related to the state, but to NGOs as well, as they ‘envision social reality in a way that corresponds to standardized technical language’ that is used by donors (Graesholm, 2012; 239). This literature focuses attention on how, and by whom, the data is controlled and used.

Background to the case studies

Land Governance in Kenya Systems of ownership and access to land in Kenya are multiple and often overlapping and contested. Indeed,

contested ownership of land has been one of the root causes of large-scale violence in the country

(IDMC/NRC/KNCHR, 2014; Wakhungu et al, 2008), and politicians have supported the violent eviction of people

who held land title deeds, but were nonetheless targeted for ethnic cleansing for political gain (Onoma, 2008:

152). Kenya has a long history of land grabbing, especially of public land, and grabbing by powerful political figures

(as well as politically-connected business-people) remains a significant issue. Land grabbing accelerated in the

1990s, as ruling elites used land as currency to secure political support in multiparty politics. Klopp (2010),

characterizes this as a ‘land-grabbing mania’, involving ‘privatization of prominent public sites, including schools,

bus stations, roads, parking lots, markets, police stations, forests, mortuaries, cemeteries, and public toilets’ (pg 8).

Only limited areas in Kenya have been surveyed and registered, and there are major problems with double-

registration or fraudulent documentation in the government land registry. Many of the existing land records are

damaged, or lost, and, ‘the existing land administration and land rights delivery systems are bureaucratic,

expensive in terms of transaction costs, undemocratic and prone to abuse’ (Mbui et al, 2012).

Urban areas in Kenya are characterized by large informal settlements (Otiso and Owusu, 2008), with more than 134 informal settlements in Nairobi (UNEP, 2006, cited in Wakhungu et al, 2010), which are mostly located on state-owned land. Such land is often zoned for industry or other non-residential purposes and has not been properly surveyed or mapped. For these and other reasons, inhabitants of informal settlements do not have formal land rights, which has led to them being denied adequate provision of services, such as water, sanitation, and electricity. (Tannerfeldt and Ljung, 2006). The size and population density of urban informal settlements in Kenya is a factor not only of economic inequalities but also a lack of comprehensive urban planning policies (Otiso, 2010), weak municipal governments and problematic land tenure systems (Otiso and Owusu, 2008), and corruption in the land sector. While many of those who have built structures in informal settlements lack documents, in other cases ‘administrative officials have allocated ‘structure owners’ counterfeit, verbal or quasilegal land ownership deeds, often distributed through patron–client relationships’ (Butcher and Frediani, 2014: 123). Settlement patterns and landlord-rental relationships demonstrate patterns and logic based upon political patronage and (related) ethnic networks. For

7

example, disputes between landlords and tenants over rental rates are arbitrated by government-appointed Chiefs, who tend to side with people (whether landlords or tenants) of their own ethnicity (Marx, et al, 2015). However, in places such as Kibera, youth gangs, such as the Kamkunji gang, comprised of ethnic Luos (Joireman and Vanderpoel, 2011) are influential and limit the abilities of Chiefs to collude with landlords (ibid.) Politically connected bureaucrats and business people living outside of the informal settlements have irregularly accessed settlement land and properties, becoming slum landlords. A survey of Kibera from 2002 found that more than 80% of landlords lived outside of the slum and 57% were public officials (Syagga et al, 2002; cited in Joireman and Vanderpoel 2011). In such situations, landlords may see data-collection (seen as a prelude to slum upgrading or land distribution) as a threat to their profitable rental businesses (Karanja, 2010). If mapping is poorly done, it may serve to legitimize injustices around property in the informal settlements. During the 1990s, many civil society activists focused their attention on contesting slum clearances and land-grabbing, through advocacy, litigation and other means (Weru, 2004). Organizations such as with Muungano Wa Wanavijiji (a local federation of slum dwellers, and a member of the wider network Shack/Slum Dwellers International) combatted grabbing and forced evictions, framing these abuses as threats not just to the ‘rule of law’ but also to the socio-political character of the country, and its ‘moral economy” that holds the community responsible for all its members including the poor’ (Klopp, 2010: 22). The work of such organizations therefore represented ‘an important step towards establishing a more democratic practice in which Kenyans assert their right to inclusion in wider decision-making processes about their national resources’ (Klopp, 2010: 23). After President Moi’s regime ended in 2003, many former leaders of civil society organizations, with backgrounds in the human rights and democratization movements, became part of government agencies, and slum upgrading and land tenure reform moved up the state’s agenda. The government has reformed the legal and policy frameworks around land (see e.g. Ministry of Lands, 2009), partly in response to sections of the 2010 Constitution. In addition to mandating decentralized governance (Munya el al, 2015) the Constitution also creates new categories of land, including community land (Republic of Kenya, 2010: Article 63), and Public land (Article 62). The Constitution and the Land Policy benefitted from the extensive inputs of Kenyan experts on land tenure, and represent considerable opportunities, especially given the comprehensive nature of the reforms outlined in these documents. Unfortunately, the process of developing legislation to implement the reforms called for in the Constitution and

Land Policy was seriously flawed. Draft versions of the laws (such as the Land Bill, the Land Registration Bill, and

the National Land Commission Bill) were not made available to civil society prior to expert consultations, and

consultations conducted in each of Kenya’s 47 counties were so short they, ‘allowed little scope for meaningful

discussions with members of the public’ (Manji, 2014: 119). Many Kenyan experts objected to the new laws on the

basis that they did not reflect the approaches called for in the Constitution and Land Policy, and presented a

consistent and clear set of comments (ibid), The radical forms of decentralized governance and redistributive

priorities laid out in the Constitution were absent from the Bills; instead, market-based approaches were

emphasized. Nevertheless, government personnel made only slight changes to the Bills, which were approved on

April 26, 2012. In addition, efforts to operationalize these reforms have been hindered by divisions within Kenya’s

political elite. Sections of the political elite in Kenya have long been involved in land grabbing and are widely

blamed for the delays and obstacles. Most notably, although, a new National Land Commission (NLC) was

established, whichhas started to develop an inventory of public land and plans to evict those found to have

‘grabbed’ it illegally,In 2015, an ‘Omnibus’ Bill was formulated, incorporating several land-related Bills, which has

been heavily criticized by civil society members and members of the NLC for annulling several existing provisions

on land, allowing re-recentralization of power (Anonymous, 2015, Hakijamii, 2015; Muhamed, 2015). The NLC is

tasked with about 80 per cent of the responsibilities previously held by the Ministry for Lands (Dolan, 2014), but is

severely under-funded. There is also a lack of cooperation between the NLC and the Ministry for Lands;

8

anddisconnects between the Ministry of Land and the Counties.1 County governments, created in the last few

years in Kenya, have not been fully included by central government in some programmes, even though Counties

are responsible for many activities according to the Kenyan Constitution. The Counties are engaged in much day-

to-day management of issues around land.

The state of land governance in Kenya therefore raises important questions about strategies for engagement land

governance projects. On the one hand, there are many competent and well-intentioned individuals in government

agencies, and the legal and institutional framework still has some progressive potential. An optimist, therefore,

would recommend engagement with government in good faith. On the other hand, given the extent to which the

land reform process has been ‘sabotaged’ by political elites (Manji, 2015), it could also be argued that it would be

more productive to use the disruptive potentials of ICTs to gain leverage in negotiations with the state.

Background to ICT adoption in Kenya

Kenya is widely seen as a leader amongst Sub-Saharan Africa countries in digital entrepreneurship, including online

mapping efforts; for example, it hosted the Mapping for Change conference in 2005. The Government of Kenya has

invested heavily in data infrastructure and e-government services, including an Open Data Initiative. Internet is

increasingly available in Kenya though the current challenge, as in other African countries, is to provide more

citizens with access to broadband internet (Cheneau-Loquay, 2007).

Researchers have identified three important political economy factors behind Kenya’s digital growth (Stuart et al,

2015, citing Frosina, et al, 2015). The first is a supportive government that promoted the laying of fibre optic

cables, expansion of telecommunications technology, and supported ICT and innovation policy. Second, is the high

rate of mobile phone penetration among the Kenyan population (see also Graesholm, 2012). Third, is the growth

of technology innovation spaces, which have fostered the establishment of data driven social enterprises and

businesses (Frosina, et al, 2015).

Nevertheless, some observers have questioned the effectiveness and accessibility of Kenya’s e-government

platforms (Salome, 2015) with some arguing that the government has held back information (Benequista, 2015;

Graesholm, 2012). The government could consider providing full autonomy to the Kenya National Bureau of

Statistics, increasing investment in data collection and capacity building, creating data standardization policies, and

promoting open data.

In terms of ICT for land governance, the Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development developed a National Land Information Management System (NLMIS) in 2009, based largely on digital technologies, but it has yet to be fully implemented (Makoro, 2015). Poor cooperation between records management officers and information and communication officers is a reason for its incomplete implementation, in addition to technical reasons (Makoro, 2015 and Nyongeza, 2012).

The state-managed Land Information for Informal Settlements (LIIS) project, initiated in 2005, used geo-spatial technologies to map informal settlements. However it has been criticised for its insufficient use of existing data, and its failure to identify systematic forms of data collection that could be coordinated with, the formal land tenure database structure (Mwathane et al, 2012). This failure partly explains optimism around more citizen-based geo-spatial approaches.

1 Interview with employee of a United Nations Agency, 2nd November 2015, Nairobi, Kenya

9

Other ICT-related land sector initiatives overseen by the government, include digitization of topographic maps, establishment of an Automated Land Rent Information Database System, establishment of a national spatial data infrastructure (with support from JICA), and the establishment of a file-tracking system at the Ministry of Lands (Mbaria, 2015).

Methodologies

Following a desk-study of existing academic and policy literature on ICT platforms in Kenya, three projects were selected on the basis that they were well-established (and hence impacts and social dynamics were already visible), and covered different land tenure situations (informal settlement in urban areas, and public land in a more rural area). We selected both urban and rural case studies to understand how ICT and land governance is operating and affecting rights in both settings. Interviews were conducted with key actors in land governance in Nairobi (including personnel from government, NGO, UN and other agencies), along with visits to the project sites. Information provided by project personnel (staff and volunteers) was triangulated with information gathered through interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) with project participants (i.e. those using or ‘benefitting’ from the projects but not affiliated to them), members of locally-based organizations unaffiliated to the three case study projects, as well as secondary data (both grey and published). A total of 29 people participated in interviews or FGDs, of which 6 were not affiliated with the projects.

Case Study One: Map Kibera Kibera is one of the largest slums in Africa, and is known for its high population density (Wakhungu et al, 2010). Much of the land is state-owned, and the area is not zoned for housing. Due to its ‘illegal’ nature, basic services such as water, sewers, security, electricity and education were not provided by the state, but rather created by residents in an ad hoc fashion. It has been affected by evictions of tenants and destruction of property by the state; for example, in February 2004, Raila village in Kibera was demolished, without official notice being provided, rendering 2,000 people homeless (Klopp, 2008). It is characterized by ethno-political divides, occasional violence against persons and property, and diverse formal and informal, state and non-state leadership structures, which add up to ‘a dense web of institutions and actors, with multiple agents claiming authority within the space of the slum’ (Graesholm, 2012: 232).

Although well-known internationally, it was until recent year,s an empty space on many printed maps and was not included in online maps. Furthermore, basic demographic statistics for the slum were not collected. Population estimates for Kibera ranged between 200,000 and 1 million people (Graesholm, 2012). However, the situation before Map Kibera started was not quite as unknown as is often thought. Data on residence and housing structures had already been collected and used in negotiations with state actors (Karanja, 2010). However, these data were not put into digital or visual form, and were not well known, whereas Map Kibera has become very widely known.

Map Kibera started in late 2009 when a small group of expatriates with significant geo-spatial ICT experience started to work with Kenyan tech specialists and local organizations, through connections with Kenyan organizations including the Social Development Network, (SODNET) and Kibera Community Development Agenda (KCODA);linked to the University of North Carolina (Hagen, 2011). The project was also inspired and assisted by USHAHIDI, the user-generated map system. The goal of Map Kibera was ‘to make the invisible visible’ through collecting basic demographic and social service data on Kibera.2 One of the implicit assumptions of this approach was that increased visibility of data would help advocacy for improved governance and provision of public and

2 Interview with staff of Map Kibera February, 2015

10

private services, such as schools, toilets, and clinics. Furthermore, the project sought to prevent evictions and property destruction through advocacy. Thus, Map Kibera has therefore been described as ‘a nascent form of peer-production of human rights reporting’ (Land, 2016: 405). Map Kibera has used its blog to lobby against the destruction of ‘informal’ private schools and to disseminate guidelines on how to report land-grabbing, for example (Ogure, 2015a), an issue that has also featured heavily in video reporting by its affiliate, Kibera news Network (see below). Therefore, although it is a multi-dimensional entity, Map Kibera incorporates land governance, broadly defined, as one of its objectives.

The Map Kibera team trained local Kibera residents to use GPS units to record aspects of their environment, and to use open street map. All five villages within Kibera were covered.3 The data-collectors spent time recording the locations of paths, roads, toilets, schools, water kiosks, particularly ‘risky’ places, and other aspects of their environment (Kovačič and Lundine, 2014). The data points were mapped using OpenStreetMap.4

Figure 1: screenshot from Map Kibera website

Maps were then produced for various sectors including health, education and security. The maps were made available online, distributed as printed flyers, and painted on walls in central locations. Maps are available online in an open source format interoperable with other data sources. Online, users can disaggregate the maps to only see certain layers, creating for instance security, health, or education maps. Maps can also be downloaded to smartphones. A disaggregated security map for instance, contains the distribution of security lighting, facilities that offer gender based violence support and HIV testing, “black spots” where criminal activities are prevalent, police posts, and where private security firms are deployed.

Map Kibera also has voice and video components, enabling Kibera residents to report on events in their community (Map Kibera, 2015c). Residents can send text messages on mobile phones, reporting on local issues. These reports are then uploaded onto a Wordpress blog and geotagged on the map. Videos, under the title of Kibera News Network (KNN), are uploaded to Youtube. Such activities, because they are entirely managed by Kibera citizens without external facilitation, are said to “represent the citizens” (Map Kibera, 2015c). Research into community geo-spatial projects suggests such projects ‘adopt approaches that strengthen social networks among individual members of society’ (Kyem, 2001) in order that they become more effective at advocacy.

Figure 2: Security Map Painted on wall. Source: www.mapkibera.org/blog. Reproduced with permission.

The project is often understood as a ‘public participation GIS’ initiative (Williams et al, 2014), but it is useful to unpack some of the assumptions implicit in such terms. The project was not based on completely voluntary and unmediated crowdsourcing, but relied on trained individuals who received modest incentives. Those more deeply embedded in Map Kibera Trust tend to mediate contributions by others. Those contributing often described themselves not as ‘citizen scientists’ or amateurs, but rather as professionals (Berdou, 2012), to be paid as soon as possible, and positioned themselves in ‘the emerging hierarchy of the Trust’ (Berdou, 2012; 16).

This hierarchical management structure has led to challenges. Because the organization provided small incentives to mappers, other contributors expected incentives (Musyoki 2010, cited in Benequista, 2015), leading to sustainability issues. Moreover, relations between the mapping and ‘voice’ activities were characterised by some institutional friction (Berdou, 2012: 16), which were acknowledged, though not explained in detail, by former

3 Interview with former staff of Map Kibera, February 2016 4 For analysis, Map Kibera uses QGIS and ARCHGIS software and Tile Mill and other MapBox products to make the maps look better online.

11

staff.5 Furthermore, some residents questioned why they should be interviewed for a video that they may never see due to lack of internet access, while others demand payment to feature in reports (Ekdale, 2014). It is paradoxical that Kibera residents make videos and upload them to the internet, permitting access by people outside of the settlement, whereas residents may never see the videos.(ibid.) This is a critique sometimes heard about the mapping project more generally; one former mapper told a researcher, ‘only people outside Kibera and Kenya use services like Map Kibera. It is not useful for people here’ (Graesholm, 2012: 235-236). This comment again raises the question around who are the ultimate consumers of such data. The idea behind Map Kibera is that maps enable citizens to hold their leaders accountable and advocate for state services (Nelson, 2011). For example, the local government used Map Kibera to help determine in which areas to install security lights and establish police posts (ibid.). In another example, Map Kibera created special maps during the 2013 Presidential elections, which highlighted areas vulnerable to political violence, as well as police stations, security firms etc. The security maps were distributed to state security agencies, displayed in strategic locations, and placed online. The Inspector General of Police requested them to help him determine where to deploy security officers during the election.6

However, some respondents disputed how useful or representational the maps actually are, stating that the maps used outdated names for areas of the settlement: ‘People know places by different names,’ they stated going on to say that they mapped what the outsider saw, not what the locals saw. Today you come one way and the next day you come the next day- things are constantly changing’.7 Kibera is a multicultural, multi-generational and fairly fluid environment and maps should reflect that and be updated regularly, though this is not necessarily the case.’

Another key issue is the sustainability and long-term impact of the Map Kibera operations. The website and twitter account remain active; but according to a local organization, the hand-over of management responsibilities to local staff (as the key figures moved on to other projects) was not well-implemented.8 On-the-ground activities are therefore limited, and map updates are not occurring. The same source argues that, because maps have not been updated through surveys, ‘these maps are so inaccurate they can’t even direct fire trucks during a fire’.9 The maps painted in public places have largely been worn away by the effects of the weather. Nevertheless, the online Openstreetmap versions continue to be updated.

The project has expanded to generate maps and data on two other informal settlements in Nairobi, Mathare and Mukuru. Project methodology was adapted for Mathare, with greater emphasis on inviting engaged involvement of local inhabitants in mapping (i.e. crowdsourcing) and analysis. The project based itself in different physical locations around the settlement to reach a wide sample of residents (Kovačič and Lundine, 2014), which indicates the continued importance of face to face interaction and ‘physical’, rather than virtual, venues.

Case Study Two: GROOTS Kenya The Kenya chapter of Grassroots Organizations Operating Together in Sisterhood (GROOTS), GROOTS-Kenya works directly with women across Kenya with the goal of empowering women to have, “direct participation in (the) decision making process.” (GROOTS-Kenya, 2015). GROOTS Kenya helps women to organize themselves into land and property Watch Dog Groups (WDGs), informal institutions that carry out ‘policy advocacy at the grassroots level alongside the formal justice system’ (GROOTS, 2011).

5 Interview with former staff of Map Kibera, February 2016 6 Interview with staff of Map Kibera, April 2015 7 Interview with NGO, Kibera, February 2016. 8 Interview with NGO, Kibera, February 2016. 9 Ibid.

12

Recognizing that there existed no geo-spatial registry of public land in Kenya, GROOTS developed a participatory program to have women in Lari Sub-County map public land.10 The program specifically targeted the mapping of public land because it was hoped that land would then be protected from further encroachment or grabbing. Furthermore, they hoped the data could be used to pressure the local government to ensure that public land is productively used for social service delivery such as school, health centers, and conservation sites etc. GROOTS chose Lari Subcounty for this intervention because of their existing relationship with a local partner organization, Kijabe Environment Volunteers (KENVO) that gave them an ‘entry point’ to work with community members. 11 Mapping activities commenced in 2012 (after consultations with the local administration)12 with an initial survey carried out to gauge the community’s level of understanding of land rights and public versus private land. Following the survey, GROOTS Kenya conducted trainings with local women on the differences among the three categories of land established in the 2010 Constitution. As a point of policy, GROOTS-Kenya ‘didn’t bring in experts’, preferring to train women directly (WTV, 2015). Some local women, youth and men were trained to carry out GIS mapping using tablets and smartphones. The smartphone app enabled them to geo-locate parcels of public land which included, ‘public learning institutions, water bodies, road and road reserves, market centers, health facilities, parking areas, club areas, forests, and cemeteries’ (GROOTS Kenya, 2012: 32).The women also collected data on original vs current acreage of land, original intended purpose vs current use and the most current pictorial presentation of the land. Volunteers were provided with lunch, transport and communication costs by the project. In addition to field mapping, GROOTS-Kenya used existing paper maps, testimony of former civil servants, and other informants to identify public land (WTV, 2015). A digital map of Lari Sub-County was created, with all public land demarcated and its specific current uses noted. These maps then underwent a validation process where over 50% of the community (not just women) and government stakeholders provided input. Importantly, face-to-face communication was also crucial: the local administration held ten meetings with local residents to discuss, validate, and disseminate the findings of the project.13 The final maps and a digital inventory were then made available as a download for smartphones and on a public website. While some citizens have downloaded maps onto smartphones, most visit the administrative offices to view hard copies.14 Further, the project assisted in printing physical maps that made widely available to the National government, County government and National Land Commission as well as the general public. Figure 3: GROOTS public meeting on the mapping exercise. Source: GROOTS Kenya. Reproduced with permission. The community has used the maps to help identify where people have encroached and settled on public land. Through public pressure, individuals who had illegally settled on public land have voluntarily surrendered public land. GROOTS argues that the maps discourage further grabbing of public land, as they have increased knowledge amongst community members of what existing land is public or private. Lari Sub-County personnel state that since the mapping project, the number of cases of land grabbing has reduced.15 Moreover, administration personnel report that based on the maps, local citizens have mobilized to combat land-grabbing; for example by tearing

10 Much of this case study is based on an interview with staff of GROOTS Kenya, July 2015, and FGDs with GROOTS mappers, Kiambu County, July 2015. Other sources are indicated below. 11 Email communication with GROOTS staff, November 18, 2015 12 Interview with senior staff of Lari Sub-County administration, February 2016. 13 Interview with senior staff of Lari Sub-County administration, February 2016. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.

13

down illegal fences.16 Additionally, the maps arebeing used by community members to lobby the county government of Kiambu for the establishment of more social service delivery points. The county officials have stated that they have used the maps in consultation with community members to identify unused public land for construction of social service delivery points like playgrounds, public toilets, and county offices. 17 Nevertheless, the identification of public land did not immediately resolve all cases of land grabbing. For example, there are still areas in the sub-County, which have been occupied for decades by hundreds of low-income households, who may not have been aware, in the past, of the land tenure status of their settlements. These cases cannot equitably be resolved by simply evicting the ‘squatters’.18 The project benefitted from a long term working relationship between GROOTS Kenya and KENVO, which has an established presence in the area. Building on the success of the project, GROOTS Kenya has since produced a handbook outlining the step by step process of mapping public land for future replication. At the present, GROOTS Kenya has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Murang’a County government to replicate this model. The county has committed to providing GIS software and GIS mapping equipment, while GROOTS Kenya will support the training of women to lead the project. The women who conducted the public land mapping in Kiambu are serving as the lead resource persons.19 As the National Land Commission becomes more operational in its efforts to protect public land, GROOTS intends to involve it as a stakeholder as well.

Kenya Case Study Three: Global Land Tenure Network, Pamoja Trust, and partners The Global Land Tenure Network (GLTN) of UN-Habitat partnered with the local NGO Pamoja Trust and other actors to map the informal Mashimoni settlement in Nairobi. The mapping used the Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM), a pro-poor land information and mapping tool developed by GLTN. The mapping in Mashimoni was the first pilot of the STDM tool in Kenya. The Mashimoni settlement, a former quarry of about ten acres, was settled informally in the 1950s once quarrying ceased. After independence, the land came under ownership of the Ministry of Defense. Despite this, people continued to settle, and have lived continuously on the land without formal land titles. Mashimoni was the site of several attempts to forcibly evict inhabitants, including through arson and destruction of property.20There are approximately 900 households in the settlement. Over the last few decades, community members have formed or joined several community-based organizations to lobby the government to give the community formal land rights. The Pamoja Trust, an informal settlement advocacy organization, was set up in 2000 amid a repressive governance environment (Weru, 2004). Initial enumeration projects by Pamoja Trust in other informal settlements led to death threats against the Trust’s leadership (Weru, 2004), showing the nature of the high stakes involved. In 2010 the Pamoja Trust partnered with UN-Habitat to use the STDM tool to map all structures within the settlement using GIS, identify the structure owners and tenants, the number of people living in each structure, and the location of social service delivery points.21 To complete the mapping, several community members, selected in conjunction with Muungano Wa Wanavijiji (the federation of slum dwellers) were trained by Pamoja Trust on how to use STDM and carry out the mapping survey (Makau et al, 2015). Some of the enumerators were also trained in GIS.22 Muungano Wa Wanavijiji was successful in mapping almost all the area, but as in the Map Kibera case, the mapping was not completely ‘participatory’. Only a minority of the inhabitants had joined Muungano wa Wanavijiji

16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Email communication with Staff of, GROOTS-Kenya, 23 October 2015. 20 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, February 2016 21 Interview with staff of UN-Habitat, Nairobi, July 2015 22 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February 2016

14

by 2011, and many of the local community groups were not allied with it (Butcher and Frediani, 2010). While Muungano pushed for smaller organizations to align with their plans, observers worried that, ‘continued emphasis on integration might marginalize voices outside of Muungano leadership’ (Butcher and Frediani, 2010: 126). The enumerators received a small stipend.23 During the mapping, when visiting a structure, a complete household survey was undertaken to determine the number of people living there, ownership of the structure, the identity of any tenants, and the nature of the tenancy agreement. A unique code was then assigned to each structure that identified the cluster where it was located, the structure owner, and the structure. The surveyor mapped the location by its number using GIS, and then provided a receipt proving that the structure had been mapped. A photo was then taken of the structure owner in front of the structure with the number on the receipt visible. Finally, GPS data was superimposed over a satellite image of the settlement, so that each building and parcel could be identified spatially. All survey data was collected, analyzed, and stored on a computer at a community center operated by Pamoja Trust.24 The database was stored on this single, rather old computer for years; in early 2016, UN-Habitat provided several new computers, as well as up-to-date software. Over three years, the team surveyed over 80% of the settlement population.25 The enumeration data collected by Pamoja Trust was later converted to be STDM-compatible.26 Technical University of Kenya was involved in further data collection and mapping (Wayumba et al, 2015), with support from Indian firm Voyants Solutions.27 The data, including GIS data and structure numbers, was then transformed into a map demarcating structures, as well as social service delivery points including water points, latrines, and schools. Once compiled, the maps were validated at a community meeting and then presented to the local government, as part of the community’s lobbying efforts to gain formal land ownership.28 Maps were not distributed to inhabitants of Mashimoni because it was feared that they might be used to ‘grab’ properties or more generally cause disputes in the community.29 However, a single printed map is on display at the community centre.30 Maps have been shared selectively with service providers such as the Nairobi Water Company, following consultation with community members. This has, according to Pamoja staff, led to better provision of water services.31 Pamoja staff also credit the mapping exercise with encouraging the construction of other infrastructure: for example, in 2003 there was only 1 toilet in the entire slum area, but now there are close to 50.32 In terms of the land tenure continuum (GLTN, 2015) community members began moving along the continuum through documentation of their property ownership or tenancy status. Community members visit the Pamoja Trust community center to register changes in tenancy or ownership of structures. The information has been used in the resettlement of inhabitants made homeless by housefires, (GLTN, 2014); as well as in the construction of a community centre (the data ensured that local structure owners could be compensated as necessary.33 If changes are made to buildings within the project area, additional information was hand-written onto paper maps at the community centre, and added to the excel spreadsheet that houses the data. Currently however, following the provision of new computers and training from UN-Habitat, changes can be made directly to digital maps.34

23 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February 2016 24 FGD with Mashimoni Community Members, July 2015 25 FGD with Mashimoni Community Members, July 2015 26 Email communication with staff of Land and GLTN Unit, UN-Habitat, November 9th, 2015 27 Email communication with staff of Technical University of Kenya, 12th November 2015 28 FGD with Mashimoni Community Members, July 2015 29 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February 2016 30 Pers. Obs. Mashimoni July 2015 31 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February 2016 32 Ibid. 33 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February 2016 34 Interview with UN-Habitat staff, Nairobi, February 2016

15

Figure 4: GLTN and Partners: Beneficiaries’ Data matched to Spatial Unit on the Map. Copyright Muungano Wa Wanavijiji. Reproduced with permission After project data was presented to the Government, the Ministry of Defense officially acknowledged that it no longer uses the land. Pamoja Trust and partners believe that the government will transfer the land from the Ministry of Defense to the County Government of Nairobi. Once that transfer has been made, official certificates of occupancy (with the County Government seal) will be distributed to the inhabitants (both structure owners and tenants).35 Community members stated that their hope is that informal recognition of their housing rights will make any future formal land registration easier.36 In addition, the digital project data is interoperable with that currently used by the Kenyan cadastral services. This has enabled the data to be used by the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP), a government programme involving the World Bank and other major organizations including UN-Habitat. The community in Mashimoni is currently involved in negotiations with KENSUP over the potentials for slum upgrading, and the project information is key to this negotiation.37 According to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat, the government has given ‘a commitment to formalization’ of the land and property claims in the settlement.38

Conclusions The conceptual framework section highlighted various theoretical perspectives on the use of ICTs for improved land governance. Our analysis of the case studies suggests how they implicitly or explicitly reflect some of these theoretical perspectives. Some ICT actors see themselves primarily as ‘disruptors’, and may not prioritize cooperation with government agencies, preferring a model of external ‘pressure’ and advocacy. Others seek to cooperate closely with government. The decision of whether to work more or less cooperatively with the state should take the context into account. In Kenya, given the intertwined nature of political power, personal wealth, political violence, forced displacement and ethic patronage, land governance is intimately linked with politics at every level. The difficult politics of land ownership in informal urban settlements, where politicians and their close supporters sometimes own properties, and where political violence has often taken place, are part of the reason that the government has yet to transfer land in informal settlements, such as Kibera or Mashimoni, to community members. At the same time, new institutional and legal arrangements do provide opportunities for change, if political will can be galvanized. Map Kibera, which started out with a broadly ‘disruptive’ approach, has been criticized for ‘misdiagnosing a wicked problem (Kibera’s poverty and marginalization) as a tame one (insufficient information availability),’ (Donocan, 2012).39 As noted above, some information on housing and services had already been collected in Kibera; the project assumed that the mapping, video and other ‘visibility’ aspects would have greater impact than those earlier efforts. Unlike the other case studies in this article, Map Kibera didn’t initially have any direct government involvement or support, but it was successful because it leveraged an already-high level of international awareness about Kibera, and existing networks of community activism. It also benefitted from a swell of interest in ICTs. This

35 Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, February 2016 36 FGD with Mashimoni Community Members, July 2015 37 Interviews with staff of Pamoja Trust, February 2016; and senior members of UN-Habitat, November 2015. 38 Presentation by Dr. Joan Clos, Executive Director of UN-Habitat, at the Land and Conflict Forum Developing an issue-based coalition 1-2 November 2015, Nairobi, Kenya 39 Wicked problems, using terminology developed by Rittel and Webber (1973) are complex, often dynamic, and linked to open systems which make them very difficult to conclusively resolve.

16

visibility was key to its disruptive strategy, but may have been lacking if it had started out in a smaller, less well-known settlement. Map Kibera has been praised for having ‘admirably grown beyond a reductionist approach’, - i.e. an assumption that mapping activities were inherently empowering - through putting in place institutional structures for formal engagement with the state and other potential collaborators (Donocan, 2012). Map Kibera has been successful in ensuring that its resources are used by the state; for example, police, education, and health agencies have all used the data. However, unlike the Pamoja Trust/GLTN maps of Mashimoni, Map Kibera’s maps have not been integrated with the Kenya Slum Improvement Program’s maps.40 There are also criticisms on the basis that some maps have not been updated. It is of course difficult to gauge ‘success’ in such a case; for example, data on schools has been used as an advocacy tool by the Map Kibera team, but this has not prevented the demolition of private schools (Ogure, 2015b). There may be many decisions made by residents everyday based on use of the maps (such as the safest way to walk at night; the best place to set up an informal business) but these are undocumented. Potential uses of the maps, texts, video reports and other aspects are open, contingent, and diverse. In a follow-up to the Map Kibera work in Mathare valley, Nairobi, one of the first activities was a meeting with the local authorities (Lundine, 2010). This is in contrast to the more forceful language and combatitive approaches sometimes used by ‘slumdweller’s’ associations in Nairobi (Butcher and Frediani, 2010). The different working styles may also reflect the institutional composition of the organizations (an organization composed partly of expatriates and non-slumdwellers), which differ from that of the typical slumdweller association. The approach is also, implicitly, a result of the belief that both organizations have in the power of information to change things, without recourse to civil disobedience or similar strategies. The question of where this power comes from is important. Information, of course, can only have value through communication within networks of actors. Map Kibera has increasingly used a strategy of forming coalitions of community-based and civil-society groups, drawing up action plans in conjunction with residents, and negotiating with state actors once an action plan, set of positions, and evidence-base has been built and widely shared, within and outside the area (Map Kibera, 2015b). The political question of government engagement is the last step in a long process. This approach has been developed over time. While some analysis of ICT projects tends to reduce them to the technologies and primary stakeholders, we have noted how activities built upon existing institutions, acknowledging that ICT initiatives are ‘inserted into complex and dynamic forces operating in localities with established social, political, and economic structures’ (Kyem, 2001: 7). In some cases, such as the activities in Mashimoni, data was collected, processed or digitized in an incremental fashion. Such an incremental approach can be used to ensure that most community members are involved, or at least aware of the process, and hence to improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of community-based organizations. Multiple organizations (public and private) may be involved at different points in the process. Furthermore, ‘communities’ include many different kinds of actors, institutions, and perspectives. Particularly in informal settlements, projects are faced with difficulties in achieving consensus around project approaches – an impossible goal. Even while recognizing diversity of opinion, however, land mapping initiatives include validation exercises involving members of the community and/or local government. These processes are noted as being key to ensuring the accuracy of maps and securing ‘community acceptance’ (at least at a symbolic level) for project data. However, it is important to ask who is representing the ‘community’ in such meetings. This question has several dimensions including gender, age, socio-economic status, and ethnic identity. There may be historical land grievances – including violent evictions over rent disputes or political violence - and the expectations of profit from slum upgrading or land tenure regularization processes may cause some inhabitants to intentionally marginalize others. In enumeration efforts in Kenyan slums, for example, organizations have found that, ‘in all settlements, there are groups and sub-groups and complex micro-politics that may act to exclude or hide some of the poorest households’ (Weru, 2004: 54). Validations need to work to ensure that the opinions and rights of all inhabitants are respected.

40 Interview with NGO, Kibera, February 2016.

17

The GLTN/Pamoja Trust project aims to deliver land and property rights to inhabitants of Mashimoni; though it acknowledges the importance of a phased approach to reaching that goal. It can therefore be described as following an ‘empowerment’ approach, but in a more targeted way than the initial Map Kibera activities. The approach taken in Mashimoni relied upon existing institutional strengths (such as those of the Pamoja Trust and Muungano wa Wanavijiji) and less upon transparency and visibility: the maps were not made publically available, for example. The maps and data are very much the property of the community (with Pamoja Trust managing them) and are distributed only selectively. Where Map Kibera relied heavily on a high public profile, implicitly following a ‘disruptor’ model, the Mashimoni project emphasized local relationships. It also differed from the other projects in Kenya by documenting individual, private land and housing claims (instead of only community services for example). For such projects, global access to project data is not ethically appropriate and would violate rights to privacy. GLTN and its partners have relied heavily on the broader influence of the STDM model, which is being promoted through ‘success stories’ from around the world (Makua et al, 2015). GLTN is therefore seeking to change the structural conditions of land administration in Kenya, and leveraging projects such as the Mashimoni mapping initiative to do that. While approaches based on negotiation and provision of data to government agencies has been criticised for ‘challenging the terms of engagement with authorities, but not the control over urban planning these authorities have’ (McFarlane, 2004: 910 cited in Butcher and Frediani), the Mashimoni case study, in particular, demonstrates that the ‘disruptor’ models and the e-governance concepts are not mutually exclusive. Initiatives that seek to influence land governance at a structural level – i.e. through legitimizing progressive concepts and approaches - are disruptive even though they privilege government as the arbiter of land rights. GROOTS-Kenya had a more narrowly targeted objective than the other cases. Although project data was available online, it did not seek to gain leverage through making data globally available. Local community members and government actors were the main target audiences. The success of its initial project has led to replication, even though it has attracted much less attention than, for example, the Map Kibera or GLTN work. This case study demonstrates that notions of transparency and interoperability should be tailored to the objective – projects do not need to be prioritise national- or international ‘visibility’ to be successful. It has protected public land without a high-profile advocacy campaign (such as a ‘naming and shaming’ approach), which would have had implications for social and political relations in the project area. Engaging with different actors, and ensuring that data is useful across sectors, depends upon making data available in universal or diverse formats, which are fully searchable. However, sharing data in different formats may have risks. The projects examined here have taken different approaches to this question. GROOTS had a two-pronged approach to data presentation, in line with its targeted strategy for advocacy. Focusing on the County, and local citizens, as the key users of the information, GROOTS presented the project data in the form of maps in printed or pdf formats as well as downloadable digital maps and inventories, though the interoperability of these was limited. As GROOTS engages more with the National Land Commission, interoperability between government agencies, County systems, and other institutions may become more important. The data from Mashimoni is managed by Pamoja Trust. Most of the data was originally included in an excel spreadsheet which allows for searching and some limited processing of the data. There is also a more complex set of visual data that was more recently compiled and is being provided to the Ministry of Lands.41 In the GLTN case, there are two aspects of interoperability: the mechanism of storage and presentation of the data, and also the conceptual framework, and subsequent categories of ownership and use, that is used to collect and analyze data. The fact that the STDM model has much broader use and influence means that the Mashimoni data may have greater influence than might be expected from a simple spreadsheet and map. Moreover, the digital data is interoperable with Kenyan cadastral systems, although land and property claims in Mashimoni do not yet have the legal status necessary to be included within cadaster (except for purposes of government planning).42 This example

41 Email communication with staff of Technical University of Kenya, 12th November 2015 42 Interview with senior member of Land & Tenure Section, UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, 1st November 2015.

18

therefore shows the positive impacts of multi-level institutional partnerships as well as different forms of information targeted at particular actors at different levels. These case studies include both disruptive aspects, which work through applying pressure on the state, and more ‘integrative’ approaches which seek to build state capacity. The projects also rely on multiple stakeholders, and cannot be easily categorized within simple narratives of crowdsourcing, for example. Moreover, ‘success’ is difficult to assess, contingent and subjective. In addition to online or ICT-focused activities, more traditional, face-to-face forms of communication are also important in all of these projects. Geo-spatial mapping of land and property rights provide multiple opportunities for improving land governance, though progress is often incremental and less visible than the web-pages of high-profile projects.

Bibliography Abend, P. and F. Harvey (2015) Maps as geomedial action spaces: considering the shift from logocentric to egocentric engagements. GeoJournal (published online 25th September 2015) Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capabilities in the information society. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 2(3), 4–22.

Anonymous (2015) Land Commission Raises Alarm over Kenya’s New Land Bill. The Standard (Nairobi), 21 Oct 2015. Accessed online on 25th January, 2016 at https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/m/story.php?articleID=2000180309&story_title=Land%20Commission%20raises%20alarm%20over%20Kenya%EF%BF%BDs%20new%20Land%20bill Ansoms, A. and Hilhorst, T. (eds) (2015) Losing Your Land: Dispossession in the Great Lakes. James Currey. Bertot J. C., Paul T. Jaeger, Justin M. Grimes. (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly 27, 264–271 Benequista, N. (2015) Journalism from the ‘Silicon Savannah’: The Vexed Relationship between Nairobi’s Newsmakers and its ICT4D Community. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, 4(1): 12, pp. 1-16 Benjamin, S., R. Bhuvaneswari, and P. Rajan, Bhoomi (2007) ʻE-Governanceʼ, Or, An Anti-Politics Machine Necessary to Globalize Bangalore? (Rep. CASUM, Jan. 2007), Accessed online on 27th October 2015 at http://casumm.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/bhoomi-e-governance.pdf Berdou, E. (2012) Mediating voices and communicating realities, (Final Project Report, DFID Project PO 40035949), Department for International Development, accessed online on November 5, 2015 at https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IDSMediatingVoicesfinal.pdf Burns, R. (2015) Rethinking big data in digital humanitarianism: practices, epistemologies, and social relations. GeoJournal 80:477–490

19

Byamugisha, F. (2013) Securing Africa's Land for Shared Prosperity: A Program to Scale Up Reforms and Investments. Washington, DC: World Bank Butcher, S. and A. A. Frediani, (2014) Insurgent citizenship practices: The case of Muungano wa Wanavijiji in Nairobi, Kenya. City, VOL. 18, NO. 2, 119–133 Butler, D. (2006). Virtual globes: The web-wide world. Nature, 439, 776–778. Carmody, P. (2012) The Informationalization of Poverty in Africa? Mobile Phones and Economic Structure. Information Technologies & International Development Volume 8, Number 3, Fall 2012, 1–17 Cheneau-Loquay, A. (2007) From networks to uses patterns: the digital divide as seen from Africa. GeoJournal (2007) 68:55–70 Datta, M. (2015) All for a win-win relationship. GeoSpatial World, March 2015 Dimopoulou E. and Tolidis K. (2012). Impacts of Social Media on Land Administration and Management Systems, FIG Commission 3 Workshop, 11/12/2012, Athens, Available at: https://sites.google.com/site/figcom3athens2012/proceedings-1 .(last access: 8/5/2013). Donovan, K. (2012). Seeing Like a Slum: Towards Open, Deliberative Development. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 13(1), 97-104. Economist, the (2009) A Special Report on Telecoms in Emerging Markets, The Economist, Sep 24th 2009. Ekdale, B. (2014) “I Wish They Knew That We Are Doing This for Them” Participation and resistance in African

community journalism. Journalism Practice, 2014 Vol. 8, No. 2, 181–196 Frosina, N., Wanda, S., and Mungwanya, R. (2015) Kenya Case Study. Unpublished background paper prepared by the African Centre for Technology Studies. Global Land Tools Network (GLTN), (2015) The continuum of land rights. Policy Brief: March 2015. Accesed on 25th November 2015 at http://www.gltn.net/index.php/component/jdownloads/finish/3-gltn-documents/2200-the-continuum-of-land-rights-a-brief-eng-2015?Itemid=544 Global Land Tools Network (GLTN) (2014) The implementation of the Social Tenure Domain Model in Mashimoni. Accessed online on October 1st 2015 at http://www.gltn.net/index.php/our-news/gltn-news/497-the-implementation-of-the-social-tenure-domain-model-in-mashimoni-new GROOTS-Kenya (2015) GROOTS Kenya. Webpage accessed on October 26, 2015 at http://www.groots.org/members/kenya.htm GROOTS Kenya (2014) Taking Action: Community-led Participatory Public Land Mapping Process, A Community Reference Guide Book. Nairobi: GROOTS Kenya GROOTS Kenya (2011) Complementing the State: the Contribution of the “Watchdog Groups” in Protecting Women’s Land Rights in Gatundu District, Kenya. Policy Brief, March 2011. http://www.landcoalition.org/publications/policy-brief-complementing-statecontribution-watchdog-groups. Flint, A. and C. M. zu Natrup (2014) Ownership and Participation Toward a Development Paradigm based on Beneficiary-led Aid. Journal of Developing Societies 30, 3 (2014): 273–295

20

Gartner, G. (2009). Web mapping 2.0. In M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, & Ch. R. Perkins (Eds.), Rethinking maps (pp. 68–82). London: Routledge. Georgiadou, P.Y. and Stoter, J.E. (2010) Studying the use of geo - information in government : a conceptual framework + errata. In: Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34 (2010)1 pp. 70-78. Goodchild, M. F. (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69: 211–221 Graesholm, E. (2012) Making Slums Governable: Integration and Resistance In A Nairobi Slum. The Journal of Politics and Society 23 (1) Habermas J (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press Hagen, E. (2011) Mapping Change: Community Information Empowerment in Kibera. Innovations, 6 (1). Hakijamii (2015) Draft Law a Threat to Land Reforms. Accessed online on 25th January, 2016 at http://www.hakijamii.com/index.php/8-hakijamii/54-media-article-draft-law-a-threat-to-land-reforms Harley, B. J. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, 26(2), 1–20. Harley, B. J. (1990). Cartography, ethics and social theory. Cartographica, 27(2) Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2011) Commonwealth. Harvard University Press Hodgson, D. L., & Schroeder, R. A. (2002). Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania. Development and Change, 33, 79-100

Johnson, P.A., J M Corbett, C Gore, P Robinson, P Allen, R Sieber (2015) A Web of Expectations: Evolving Relationships in Community Participatory Geoweb Projects. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 14 (3) Karanja, I. (2010) An enumeration and mapping of informal settlements in Kisumu, Kenya, implemented by their inhabitants. Environment & Urbanization Vol 22(1): 217–239 Kiiru, J. (2015) Community Land: Which Way Kenya? Accessed online at http://www.adaconsortium.org/index.php/283-community-land-which-way-kenya.html Klopp J. (2000) Pilfering the Public: The Problem of Land Grabbing in Contemporary Kenya. Africa Today 47 (1) , pp. 7-26 Klopp, J. (2008). “Remembering the Muoroto Uprising: Slum Demolitions, Land and Democratization in Kenya”, African Studies, 67(3): 295-314 Klopp, J., E. Marcello, Kirui, G. and H. Mwangi (2013) Can the Internet Improve Local Governance? The Ongoing Case of the Municipal Council Website in Ruiru, Kenya. Information Polity 18(1): 21-42. Kovačič, P. and J. Lundine (2014) in Steven Livingston and Gregor Walter-Drop (eds), Bits and atoms: Information and communication technology in areas of limited statehood. Oxford University Press: New York, 2014 Kyem, P. A. K. (2001) (published 2004) Public participation GIS applications and the community empowerment process: A review of concerns and challenges. Cartographica 38 (3&4): 5–17.

21

Land, M. W. (2016) Democratizing Human Rights Fact-Finding, in Alston, P. and Knuckey, S. (ed) The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding. Oxford University Press, 2016 Lemmen, C.H.J., Augustinus, C., du Plessis, J., Laarakker, P., de Zeeuw, K., Saers, P. and Molendijk, M. (2015a) The operationalisation of the Continuum of Land Rights at country level. In: Linking land tenure and use for shared prosperity, proceedings of the annual World Bank conference on land and poverty, 23-27 March 2015, Washington DC, United States. Lemmen, C., Bennet, R., McLaren, R, and S. Enemark (2015b) A New Era in Land Administration Emerges. GIM international January 2015 Li, Y-W. (2011) A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, Vol. 17, No. 1, April 2011, 5371 Lin, W. (2013) Volunteered geographic information and networked publics? Politics of everyday mapping and spatial narratives. GeoJournal 78:949–965 Lundine, J. (2010) Mapping Mathare – the beginnings. Accessed online on 27th October 2015 at http://www.mapkibera.org/blog/2010/10/04/mapping-mathare-the-beginnings/ Macueve, G. (2011) Influence of the e-government implementation process on outcomes: case study of the Land Management Information System in Mozambique. In Waema, T. M. and E. O. Adera (2011) Local Governance and ICTs in Africa: Case Studies and Guidelines for Implementation and Evaluation. Ottawa: IDRC Madsen, C.O., Berger, J. P. an M. Phythian (2014) The Development in Leading e-Government Articles 2001-2010: Definitions, Perspectives, Scope, Research Philosophies, Methods and Recommendations: An Update of Heeks and Bailur. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, and F. Bannister (Eds.) Electronic Government: 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, Dublin, Ireland, September 1-3, 2014, Proceedings. New York, Philadelphia: Springer Makau, J., Rojas-Williams, S., Dobson, S., Ouma, S., Selebalo, C., Nyamweru, H., Antonio, D., Gitau, J., Njogu, S. (2015) Empowering slum communities through geospatial technologies: experiences from Colombia, Kenya and Uganda. Paper prepared for presentation at the “2015 World Bank conference on land and poverty” Makoro, D. (2015) Use of land management information system (NLIMS). A case study of ministry of land, housing and urban development, Nairobi. Master’s thesis, Technical University of Kenya Manji, A. (2014) The Politics of Land Reform in Kenya 2012. African Studies Review, 57, pp 115-130 Manji, A. (2015) Whose Is It Land Anyway?: The Failure of Land Law Reform in Kenya. African Research Institute brief. Accessed online on January 25th, 2016 at http://www.africaresearchinstitute.org/publications/whose-land-is-it-anyway/ Map Kibera (2015a) Mapping. Accessed online on 27th October 2015 at http://www.mapkibera.org/work/tools/#mapping Map Kibera (2015b) Citizen Advocacy: Improving and Advancing our core work in Nairobi’s slums. Accessed online on 27th October 2015 at http://www.mapkibera.org/work/methods/ Map Kibera, (2015c) Voice. Accessed online on November 5th, 2015 at http://www.mapkibera.org/work/tools/#voice

22

Marx, B., Stoker, T. M., and Suri, T. (2015) There Is No Free House: Ethnic Patronage in a Kenyan Slum. Working Paper. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Michigan Institute of Technology (MIT). Mason, P. (2015) PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future. London: Allen Lane Mbaria, C. N. (2015) Automation of Kenya’s Land Records. Powerpoint presentation, accessed online at http://slideplayer.com/slide/6005827/ Mbui, J.K., T. M. Ng’ang’a, and P. G. Githere (2012) Use of GIS to Manage Community-Based Land Transactions: A Case Study of Kirinyaga Central District. Proceedings of the 2012 Mechanical Engineering Conference on Sustainable Research and Innovation, Volume 4, 3rd-4th May 2012 McAll, M., Martinez, M., de Plank, J., (2015) Shifting Boundaries of Volunteered Geographic Information Systems and Modalities: Learning from PGIS. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2015, 14(3), 791-826 McLaren, R. (2013) Technology to Promote Transparency around Land Acquisitions. Evidence on Demand Helpdesk Report. London: DFID. Mercycorps (2015) Red Tierras. Accessed online at http://www.mercycorps.org/tags/red-tierras Ministry of Lands (2009) Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2009 on the National Land Policy. Nairobi: Government Printers Mohamud, I. (2015) Pending land bills contravene Kenya’s public interest. The Standard (Nairobi) 14th September 2015. Accessed online on 25th January, 2016 at http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000176263/pending-land-bills-contravene-kenya-s-public-interest?articleID=2000176263&story_title=pending-land-bills-contravene-kenya-s-public-interest&pageNo=2 Moon, R. (2014) Steven Livingston and Gregor Walter-Drop (eds), Bits and atoms: Information and communication technology in areas of limited statehood. Oxford University Press: New York, 2014;.Review Article, new media & society 16(8) p.1340-1342 Moreri, K., Fairburn, D. and P. James (2015) Technological solutions for citizens’ participation into cadastral mapping. Paper presented at 27th International Cartographic Conference, Rio de Janeiro Munya, A., Hussain, N., and M. Njuguna (2015) Can devolution and rural capacity trigger de-urbanization? Case studies in Kenya and Malaysia respectively. GeoJournal, June 2015, Volume80 (Issue3) Page p.427-443 Musyoki, S. (2010) Reflection on Map Kibera Methodology from a Participatory Perspective. Nairobi. Mwathane, I., S. Musyoka, and F. Karanja (2012) Pilot Project to establish a Pro-Poor Land Information Management System (LIMS) for part of Thika Municipality. Nairobi: Land Development and Governance Institute Navarra, D. (2011) Perspectives on the Evaluation of Geo-ICT for Land Governance. GIM International, December 19, 2011 Nelson, A. (2011) Ground Truth from the Grassroots: Innovations Case Disscussion - Map Kibera, Innovations 6, no. 1 Neville, K. J. and P. Dauvergne (2012) Biofuels and the politics of mapmaking. Political Geography Volume 31, Issue 5, June 2012, Pages 279–289

23

Nyongeza, L. (2012) GIS –Based National Land Information Management System (NLIMS). Paper presented at FIG Working Week 2012: Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage. Rome, Italy, 6-10 May 2012 Obermeyer, N. J. 1998. The evolution of public participation GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25 (2): 65–66. Ogure, J. (2015a) Occupy Playground results in Title Deeds for Public Schools. Accessed online on 25th January 2016, 2015 at http://www.mapkibera.org/blog/ Ogure, J. (2015b) Kibera Schools Demolished Along Railway Line. Accessed online on October 28, 2015 at http://www.mapkibera.org/blog/ Onoma, A.K. (2008) The Use of Land to Generate Political Support. Africa Development, Vol. XXXIII, No. 3, 2008, pp. 147–155 Otiso, K.M. (2005) Kenya’s Secondary Cities Growth Strategy at a Crossroads: Which Way Forward? GeoJournal Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 117-128 Peele, D. (2015) Formalisation of Land Rights Key to Better Future. Geospatial World, March 2015 Peluso, N. L. 1995. Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode 27 (4): 383–406. Poore, B., & Chrisman, N. (2006). Order from noise: Toward a social theory of geographic information. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 508–523 Republic of Kenya (2010) The Constitution of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printers. Rittel, H. and M. Webber (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, pp. 155–169, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam, Sæbø, O. (2012) E-government in Tanzania: Current Status and Future Challenges in: Scholl, H. J. et al (eds) Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 1th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2012, Kristiansand, Norway, September 3-6, 2012. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Salome, N. (2015) e-Government Platforms in Kenya – Evidence of Change, or ‘Politics for Show’? Accessed online on 3rd October 2015 at http://www.makingallvoicescount.org/blog/e-government-platforms-in-kenya-evidence-of-change-or-politics-for-show/ Scharl, A., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The geospatial web. London: Springer. Schuppan, T. (2008) E-Government in developing countries: Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa. Government Information Quarterly 26(1), 118–127 Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford UP.

24

Spence, R. and M. L. Smith (2010) Reflections From and On the Forum ICT, Development, and Poverty Reduction: Five Emerging Stories. Information Technologies and International Development. Vol 6, Special Edition Stuart, E., Samman, E., Avis, W., and Berliner, T. (2015) The Data Revolution: finding the missing millions, ODI, Research Report 03. Syagga, P., Mitullah, W. and S. Karirah-Gitau. (2002). Nairobi Situation Analysis Supplementary Study: A Rapid Economic Appraisal of Rents in Slums and Informal Settlements Contribution to the Preparatory Phase (January-November 2002) of the Government of Kenya & UN-HABITAT Collaborative Nairobi Slum Upgrading Initiative. Tannerfeldt, G. and Ljung, P. (2006), More Urban, Less Poor. London: Earthscan Tolidis and Dimopoulou, (2013) Social Media and e-Land Governance: An Expert-based Evaluation Model. Paper presented at International Conference Using ICT, Social Media and Mobile Technologies to Foster Self-Organisation in Urban and Neighbourhood Governance’, Delft University of Technology, 16 May 2013 - 17 May 2013 UNDP (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document. New York: UNDP. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2006) City of Nairobi Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP Wainwright, J. and J. Bryan. (2009). Cartography, territory, property: postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies 16:153-178.

Wakhungu, J., Huggins, C., Nyukuri, E. & J. Lumumba (2010). Approaches to Informal Urban Settlements in Africa: Experiences from Kigali and Nairobi. Nairobi: ACTS Wayumba, G., Tiagi, M., Mumo, T., Matata, P., Odongo, M., and J. Kawira (2015) A Methodology for the Enhancement Of Tenure Security In the Informal Settlements In Kenya. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Studies (IJSRES) Volume 2 Issue 7, July 2015 Weru, J. (2004) Community federations and city upgrading: the work of Pamoja Trust and Muungano in Kenya. Environment & Urbanization Vol 16 No 1 April 2004 Williams, S., Marcello, E., and J. M. Klopp (2014) Toward Open Source Kenya: Creating and Sharing a GIS Database of Nairobi. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(1) 2014, pp. 114–130 World Bank, (2004) Making Services Work for the Poor. Washington, DC: World Bank World Bank, (2011) ICT in Agriculture e-sourcebook, accessed online at http://www.ictinagriculture.org/sourcebook/module-14-ict-land-administration-and-management WTV (2015) Groots Kenya Tackles Land Grabbing Solutions. Accessed online on November 4th, 2015 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0f0D71obaA Young, J.C. and M. P. Gilmore (2014) Subaltern Empowerment in the Geoweb: Tensions between Publicity and Privacy. Antipode Vol. 46 No. 2 pp. 574–591 Zook, M., & Graham, M. (2007). The creative reconstruction of the internet: Google and the privatization of cyberspace and DigiPlace. Geoforum, 38(6), 1322–1343.