GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
DOI 10.1007/s10708-016-9710-6
ICT-driven projects for land governance in Kenya:
disruption and e-government frameworks
Christopher Huggins . Natasha Frosina
Published online: 19 March 2016
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract Critical academic research has yet to com-
prehensively identify conceptual linkages and tensions
between information communication technologies
(ICTs) and land governance projects. In order to make
a contribution to these complex research fields, this
article examines three Kenyan projects to illustrate
different aspects of competing theoretical frameworks
for ICT-based land rights projects. The projects docu-
mented land and property in the informal settlements of
Kibera and Mathare in Nairobi, and in the rural
community of Lari in Kiambu County. Drawing partic-
ularly 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.
C. Huggins (&)
School of International Policy and Governance, Wilfrid
Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada
e-mail: cdhuggins@gmail.com
N. Frosina
African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi,
Kenya
e-mail: N.Frosina@acts-net.org
Keywords Information communication
technologies
Land governance
Informal
settlements
E-government
Kenya
Land rights

Disruptive technologies
Introduction
There is currently much academic and professional
interest in emerging uses of information communica-
tion technologies (ICTs) for improving land gover-
nance (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 gover-
nance, 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
123
644
well-informed land governance focus. There is a large
and fast-expanding literature on interactive geo-spa-
tial 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. Wayumba et al. 2015; Hagen
2011), but as NGO understandings of ICT use
‘emphasizes the technical’ (Sieber 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 technolo-
gies 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, tele-
centers, 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 2012).
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 Infor-
mation 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 smart-
phones, 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 formal-
ized 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 land-
holdings with text documents proving ownership (such
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 and Hilhorst 2014; Byamugisha 2013). Var-
ious 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 informa-
tion in the cloud…’ (Brent Jones of Esri, cited in Datta
2015) which leads to technological ‘leapfrogging’ in
countries that have not yet invested in capital-intensive
data infrastructure. ICT applications for land gover-
nance 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 mort-
gages, 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.
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 Amer-
ica, 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 (Mercy-
corps 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 cor-
ruption 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-
645
purpose’ land administration systems, are encouraging
governments to reconfigure land administration sys-
tems, 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 dis-
ciplines 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 of a broader ‘e-government’
agenda (see e.g. Macueve 2011; Tolidis and Dimo-
poulou 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 inter-
activity), interaction (limited interactivity, such as
downloading of application forms), transaction (ser-
vices are automated and can be delivered online) and
transformation (where multiple government institu-
tions 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
123
646
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 acknowl-
edges 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 them-
selves, 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-govern-
ment’ 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
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 becom-
ing 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 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; Scharl
and Tochtermann 2007). Users can combine different
sources of digital information in a single map (super-
imposing 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 perspec-
tives 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-infor-
mation with the aim of making space controllable,
measurable and quantifiable’. This perspective looks
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 techno-
logical 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 tech-
nologies and influence the development of the sys-
tems. 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, 1990), and others. Critical work on GIS
has examined the ontological foundations of interac-
tive 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; Wain-
wright and Bryan 2009; Peluso 1995), which involves
the production of maps through alternative institu-
tional structures, and alternative ontological frame-
works, 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 ‘‘pro-
dusage’’ (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
647
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
landholdings. An online wiki is a source of entertain-
ment 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 informa-
tion helps the state to ‘see’ informal areas and hence
123
648
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. Wakhungu et al.
2010), 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 (2000), charac-
terizes 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 doc-
umentation 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
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 2005), weak municipal gov-
ernments 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 owner-
ship 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 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
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 2000: 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 2000: 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 decen-
tralized governance (Munya et al. 2015) the Consti-
tution 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 consid-
erable opportunities, especially given the comprehen-
sive nature of the reforms outlined in these documents.
Unfortunately, the process of developing legisla-
tion 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 Com-
mission Bill) were not made available to civil society
prior to expert consultations, and consultations con-
ducted 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 con-
sistent 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
649
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; 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 respon-
sible 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 engage-
ment 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
1
Interview with employee of a United Nations Agency, 2nd
November 2015, Nairobi, Kenya.
123
650
Mapping for Change conference in 2005. The Govern-
ment of Kenya has invested heavily in data infras-
tructure 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 polit-
ical 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-govern-
ment platforms (Salome 2015) with some arguing
that the government has held back information
(Benequista 2015; Graesholm 2012). The govern-
ment 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 technolo-
gies, 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.
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 discus-
sions (FGDs) with project participants (i.e. those using
or ‘benefiting’ from the projects but not affiliated to
them), members of locally-based organizations unaf-
filiated 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,
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
rendering 2000 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 years, 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 expe-
rience started to work with Kenyan tech specialists and
local organizations, through connections with Kenyan
organizations including the Social Development Net-
work, (SODNET) and Kibera Community Develop-
ment Agenda (KCODA);linked to the University of
North Carolina (Hagen 2011). The project was also
inspired and assisted by USHAHIDI, the user-gener-
ated 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
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
2
Interview with staff of Map Kibera February, 2015.
651
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 environ-
ment, 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 (Fig. 1).4
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 interop-
erable 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 2015b). 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 2015b). 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 (Fig. 2).
The project is often understood as a ‘public
participation GIS’ initiative (Williams et al. 2014),
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.
123
652 GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663

Fig. 1 Screenshot from OpenStreetMap at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-1.3128/36.7883, accessed via Map Kibera

website

Fig. 2 Security Map painted on wall. Source www.mapkibera.org/blog. Reproduced with permission

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 profes-
sionals (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

123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
2012: 16), which were acknowledged, though not
explained in detail, by former 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 gov-
ernment 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 vio-
lence, 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
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.
653
website and twitter account remain active; but accord-
ing to a local organization, the hand-over of manage-
ment 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 inaccu-
rate 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 impor-
tance 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 pro-
cess.’’ (GROOTS-Kenya 2015). GROOTS Kenya
helps women to organize themselves into land and
property Watch Dog Groups (WDGs), informal insti-
tutions that carry out ‘policy advocacy at the grass-
roots level alongside the formal justice system’
(GROOTS 2011).
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
8
Interview with NGO, Kibera, February 2016.
9
Ibid.
10
Much of this case study is based on an interview with staff of
GROOTS Kenya, July 2015, and FGDs with GROOTS
123
654
hoped that land would then be protected from further
encroachment or grabbing. Furthermore, they hoped
the data could be used to pressure the local govern-
ment 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 differ-
ences 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 presen-
tation 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
Footnote 10 continued
mappers, Kiambu County, July 2015. Other sources are indi-
cated below.
11
Email communication with GROOTS staff, November 18,
2015.
12
Interview with senior staff of Lari Sub-County administra-
tion, February 2016.
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 (Fig. 3).
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 down illegal
fences.16 Additionally, the maps arebeing used by
community members to lobby the county govern-
ment 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-
13
Interview with senior staff of Lari Sub-County administra-
tion, February 2016.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
Fig. 3 GROOTS public meeting on the mapping exercise. Source GROOTS Kenya. Reproduced with permission
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 opera-
tional in its efforts to protect public land, GROOTS
intends to involve it as a stakeholder as well.
18
Ibid.
19
Email communication with Staff of, GROOTS-Kenya, 23
October 2015.
655
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 destruc-
tion of property.20 There 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
20
Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, February 2016.
123
656
governance environment (Weru 2004). Initial enu-
meration 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 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 deter-
mine 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
21
Interview with staff of UN-Habitat, Nairobi, July 2015.
22
Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February
2016.
23
Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February
2016.
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 com-
puters, 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 selec-
tively 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 contin-
uum through documentation of their property owner-
ship or tenancy status. Community members visit the
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.
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 compen-
sated 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
(Fig. 4).34
After project data was presented to the Govern-
ment, 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 addi-
tion, 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 com-
munity in Mashimoni is currently involved in nego-
tiations 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
33
Interview with staff of Pamoja Trust, Mashimoni, February
2016.
34
Interview with UN-Habitat staff, Nairobi, February 2016.
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.
657
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 ‘misdi-
agnosing a wicked problem (Kibera’s poverty and
marginalization) as a tame one (insufficient informa-
tion availability),’ (Donovan 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
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.
123
658
Fig. 4 GLTN and Partners: Beneficiaries’ Data matched to Spatial Unit on the Map. Copyright Muungano Wa Wanavijiji. Reproduced
with permission
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
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 (Donovan 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 Pro-
gram’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,
40
Interview with NGO, Kibera, February 2016.
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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’ asso-
ciations in Nairobi (Butcher and Frediani 2010). The
different working styles may also reflect the institu-
tional composition of the organizations (an organiza-
tion composed partly of expatriates and non-
slumdwellers), which differ from that of the typical
slumdweller association. The approach is also, implic-
itly, 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
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 2015a).
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. Mul-
tiple organizations (public and private) may be involved
at different points in the process. Furthermore, ‘commu-
nities’ include many different kinds of actors, institu-
tions, 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 commu-
nity 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 inhab-
itants 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.
659
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 trans-
parency 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 (Makau et al.
2015). GLTN is therefore seeking to change the structural
conditions of land administration in Kenya, and leverag-
ing 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-gov-
ernance 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 com-
munity 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
123
660
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 differ-
ent 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 pre-
sentation of the data, and also the conceptual frame-
work, 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 therefore shows the posi-
tive impacts of multi-level institutional partnerships as
41
Email communication with staff of Technical University of
Kenya, 12th November 2015.
42
Interview with senior member of Land and Tenure Section,
UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, 1st November 2015.
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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.
Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by a
post-doctoral fellowship from the Netherlands Academy on
Land Governance and Food Security—LANDac.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest Chris Huggins declares that he has no
conflict of interest. Natasha Frosina declares that she has no
conflict of interest.
Informed consent All procedures followed were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human
experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki
Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was
obtained from all respondents for being included in the study.
References
Abend, P., & Harvey, P. (2015). Maps as geomedial action
spaces: considering the shift from logocentric to egocentric
engagements. GeoJournal (published online September
25. 2015).
Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capa-
bilities 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 January 25, 2016, at https://
www.standardmedia.co.ke/m/story.php?articleID=2000
180309&story_title=Land%20Commission%20raises%
20alarm%20over%20Kenya%EF%BF%BDs%20new%
20Land%20bill.
Ansoms, A., & Hilhorst, T. (Eds.). (2014). Losing your land:
Dispossession in the great lakes. UK: James Currey.
Benequista, N. (2015). Journalism from the ‘Silicon Savannah’:
The vexed relationship between Nairobi’s newsmakers and
its ICT4D community. Stability International Journal of
Security and Development., 4(1), 1–16.
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
Benjamin, S., Bhuvaneswari, R. & Bhoomi, P. R. (2007). ‘E-
Governance&, Or, an anti-politics machine necessary to
globalize Bangalore? (Rep. CASUM, Jan. 2007), Accessed
online on October 27, 2015, at http://casumm.files.
wordpress.com/2008/09/bhoomi-e-governance.pdf.
Berdou, E. (2012). Mediating voices and communicating real-
ities, (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.
Bertot, J. C., Paul, T., & Grimes, J. M. (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(3), 264–271.
Burns, R. (2015). Rethinking big data in digital humanitarian-
ism: practices, epistemologies, and social relations. Geo
Journal, 80(4), 477–490.
Butcher, S., & Frediani, A. A. (2014). Insurgent citizenship
practices: The case of Muungano wa Wanavijiji in Nairobi,
Kenya. City, 18(2), 119–133.
Butler, D. (2006). Virtual globes: The web-wide world. Nature,
439(7078), 776–778.
Byamugisha, F. (2013). Securing Africa’s land for shared
prosperity: A program to scale up reforms and investments.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Carmody, P. (2012). The informationalization of poverty in
Africa? Mobile phones and economic structure Volume 8,
Number 3. Information Technologies & International
Development, 8(3), 1–17.
Cheneau-Loquay, A. (2007). From networks to uses patterns:
the digital divide as seen from Africa. GeoJournal, 68(1),
55–70.
Datta, M. (2015) All for a win-win relationship. GeoSpatial World.
Accessed on March 17, 2016 at http://geospatialworld.net/
uploads/magazine/March-2015-Geospatial-World-Magazine/
files/24.html.
Donovan, K. (2012). Seeing like a slum: Towards open, delib-
erative development. Georgetown Journal of International
Affairs, 13(1), 97–104.
Economist. (2009). A Special Report on Telecoms in Emerging
Markets, The Economist, Sep 24, 2009.
Ekdale, B. (2014). ‘‘I Wish They Knew That We Are Doing This
for Them’’ Participation and resistance in African com-
munity journalism. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 181–196.
Frosina, N., Wanda, S., & Mungwanya, R. (2015) Kenya Case
Study. Unpublished background paper prepared by the
African Centre for Technology Studies.
Flint, A. & zu Natrup, C. M. (2014) Ownership and Participation
Toward a Development Paradigm based on Beneficiary-led
Aid. Journal of Developing Societies 30, (3): 273–295.
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., & Stoter, J. E. (2010). Studying the use of
geo—Information in government : A conceptual framework.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34(1), 70–78.
Global Land Tools Network (GLTN). (2014). The implemen-
tation of the Social Tenure Domain Model in Mashimoni.
Accessed online on October 1, 2015, at http://www.gltn.
net/index.php/our-news/gltn-news/497-the-implementation-
of-the-social-tenure-domain-model-in-mashimoni-new.
661
Global Land Tools Network (GLTN). (2015). The continuum of
land rights. Policy Brief: March 2015. Accesed on
November 25, 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.
Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of
volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.
Graesholm, E. (2012). Making slums governable: Integration
and resistance In A Nairobi slum. The Journal of Politics
and Society, 23(1), 218–251.
GROOTS-Kenya. (2015). GROOTS Kenya. Webpage accessed
on October 26, 2015 at http://www.groots.org/members/
kenya.htm.
GROOTS Kenya. (2011). Complementing the State: the Contri-
bution 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.
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), 69–94.
Hakijamii. (2015). Draft Law a Threat to Land Reforms.
Accessed online on January 25, 2016, at http://www.
hakijamii.com/index.php/8-hakijamii/54-media-article-draft-
law-a-threat-to-land-reforms.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2011). Commonwealth. Harvard: Har-
vard University Press.
Harley, B. J. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica,
26(2), 1–20.
Harley, B. J. (1990). Cartography, ethics and social theory.
Cartographica, 27(2), 1–23.
Hodgson, D. L., & Schroeder, R. A. (2002). Dilemmas of
counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania.
Development and Change, 33(1), 79–100.
Johnson, P. A., Corbett, J. M., Gore, C., Robinson, P., Allen, P.,
& Sieber, R. (2015). A web of expectations: Evolving
relationships in community participatory Geoweb projects.
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geogra-
phies., 14(3), 827–848.
Karanja, I. (2010). An enumeration and mapping of informal
settlements in Kisumu, Kenya, implemented by their
inhabitants. Environment and Urbanization, 22(1),
217–239.
Klopp, J. (2000). Pilfering the public: The problem of land grab-
bing in contemporary Kenya. Africa Today, 47(1), 7–26.
Klopp, J. (2008). Remembering the Muoroto uprising: Slum
demolitions, land and democratization in Kenya. African
Studies, 67(3), 295–314.
Klopp, J., Marcello, E., Kirui, G., & Mwangi, H. (2013). Can the
internet improve local governance? The ongoing case of
the municipal council website in Ruiru. Kenya. Informa-
tion Polity, 18(1), 21–42.
Kovačič, P., & Lundine, J. (2014). In Steven Livingston &
Gregor Walter-Drop (Eds.), Bits and atoms: Information
and communication technology in areas of limited state-
hood (p. 2014). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kyem, P. A. K. (2001). Public participation GIS applications
and the community empowerment process: A review of
concerns and challenges. Cartographica, 38(3&4), 5–17.
(published 2004).
123
662
Land, M. W. (2016). Democratizing Human Rights Fact-Finding.
In P. Alston & S. Knuckey (Eds.), The transformation of
human rights fact-finding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lemmen, C.H.J., Augustinus, C., du Plessis, J., Laarakker, P., de
Zeeuw, K., Saers, P. & Molendijk, M. (2015a). The oper-
ationalisation 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, March 23–27, 2015, Washington DC, United
States.
Lemmen, C., Bennet, R., McLaren, R, & Enemark, S. (2015b).
A New Era in Land Administration Emerges. GIM Inter-
national, January 2015.
Li, Y.-W. (2011). A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap
making. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia,
17(1), 5371.
Lundine, J. (2010). Mapping mathare—The beginnings.
Accessed online on October 27, 2015, at http://www.
mapkibera.org/blog/2010/10/04/mapping-mathare-the-
beginnings/.
Macueve, G. (2011). Influence of the e-government imple-
mentation process on outcomes: case study of the Land
Management Information System in Mozambique. In T.
M. Waema & E. O. Adera (Eds.), Local governance and
ICTs in Africa: Case studies and guidelines for imple-
mentation and evaluation. IDRC: Ottawa.
Madsen, C.O., & Berger, J. P. & Phythian M (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 Janssen, M., Scholl, H. J., Wimmer, M.
A., & Bannister, F (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(1), 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 25, 2016, at http://www.
africaresearchinstitute.org/publications/whose-land-is-it-
anyway/.
Map Kibera. (2015a). Citizen Advocacy: Improving and
Advancing our core work in Nairobi’s slums. Accessed
online on October 27, 2015, at http://www.mapkibera.org/
work/methods/.
Map Kibera. (2015b). Voice. Accessed online on November 5,
2015, at http://www.mapkibera.org/work/tools/#voice.
Marx, B., Stoker, T. M., & Suri, T. (2015). There is no free
house: Ethnic patronage in a Kenyan slum. Working Paper.
123
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Michigan Institute of Tech-
nology (MIT).
Mason, P. (2015). PostCapitalism: A guide to our future. Lon-
don: 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., Ngángá, T. M. & 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, May 3–4, 2012.
Mcall, M., Martinez, M., & de Plank, J. (2015). Shifting
boundaries of volunteered geographic information systems
and modalities: Learning from PGIS. ACME: An Interna-
tional E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 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 on the
national land policy. Government Printers: Nairobi.
Moon, R. (2014). Livingston, S. Walter-Drop, G. (Eds.), Bits
and atoms: Information and communication technology in
areas of limited statehood. Oxford University Press: New
York, 2014;.Review Article, New Media and Society,
16(8):1340–1342.
Moreri, K., Fairburn, D. & James P. (2015). Technological
solutions for citizens’ participation into cadastral map-
ping. Paper presented at 27th International Cartographic
Conference, Rio de Janeiro.
Munya, A., Hussain, N., & Njuguna, M. (2015). Can devolution
and rural capacity trigger de-urbanization? Case studies in
Kenya and Malaysia respectively. GeoJournal, 80(3),
427–443.
Musyoki, S. (2010). Reflection on Map Kibera Methodology
from a Participatory Perspective. Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies. Accessed on March 17, 2016
at http://mapkibera.org/wiki/images/archive/7/78/201103
16234141!IDS_MediatingVoices_FinalReport.pdf.
Mwathane, I., Musyoka, S., & Karanja, F. (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. Accessed on
March 17, 2016 at http://www.gim-international.com/
content/article/perspectives-on-the-evaluation-of-geo-ict-
for-land-governance.
Nelson, A. (2011). Ground truth from the grassroots: Innova-
tions case disscussion—Map Kibera. Innovations, 6(1),
95–100.
Neville, K. J., & Dauvergne, P. (2012). Biofuels and the politics
of mapmaking. Political Geography, 31(5), 279–289.
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, May 6–10, 2012.
GeoJournal (2017) 82:643–663
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 January 25, 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, 33(3), 147–155.
Otiso, K. M. (2005). Kenya’s secondary cities growth strategy at
a crossroads: Which Way Forward? GeoJournal, 62(1),
117–128.
Peele, D. (2015). Formalisation of land rights key to better
future. Geospatial World. Accessed on March 17, 2016
at http://geospatialworld.net/uploads/magazine/March-2015-
Geospatial-World-Magazine/files/28.html.
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. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning, Policy Sciences, 4:155–169, 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 Inter-
national Conference, EGOV 2012, Kristiansand, Norway,
September 3–6, 2012. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Salome, N. (2015). E-government platforms in Kenya—Evi-
dence of change, or ‘Politics for Show’? Accessed online
on October 3, 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 Infor-
mation 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.
Spence, R. & Smith, M. L. (2010). Reflections from and on the
forum ICT, development, and poverty reduction: Five
emerging stories. Information Technologies and Interna-
tional Development, 6 Special Edition.
Stuart, E., Samman, E., Avis, W., & Berliner, T. (2015). The
Data Revolution: finding the missing millions, ODI,
Research Report 03.
663
Syagga, P., Mitullah, W. & Karirah-Gitau, S. (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 and UN-HABITAT
collaborative Nairobi slum upgrading initiative.
Tannerfeldt, G., & Ljung, P. (2006). More Urban, less poor.
London: Earthscan.
Tolidis, K. & Dimopoulou, E. (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-Organisa-
tion in Urban and Neighbourhood Governance’, Delft
University of Technology, May 16–17, 2013.
UNDP. (1997). Governance for sustainable human develop-
ment: A UNDP policy document. New York: UNDP.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2006). City
of Nairobi environment outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.
Wainwright, J., & Bryan, J. (2009). Cartography, territory, property:
postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in
Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies, 16(2), 153–178.
Wakhungu, J., Huggins, C., Nyukuri, E., & Lumumba, J. (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., &
Kawira, J. (2015). A methodology for the enhancement of
tenure security in the informal settlements in Kenya. In-
ternational Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering
Studies (IJSRES), 2(7), 83–88.
Weru, J. (2004). Community federations and city upgrading: the
work of Pamoja Trust and Muungano in Kenya. Environ-
ment and Urbanization, 16(1), 47–62.
Williams, S., Marcello, E., & Klopp, J. M. (2014). Toward open
source Kenya: Creating and sharing a GIS database of
Nairobi. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-
phers, 104(1), 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 4, 2015, at https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=C0f0D71obaA.
Young, J. C., & Gilmore, M. P. (2014). Subaltern empowerment
in the Geoweb: Tensions between publicity and privacy.
Antipode, 46(2), 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.
123