Review & Revise
Why Review & Revise?
The Review & Revise principle focuses on the challenges brought about by the rapid growth of informal settlements in Kenya, aiming to transform them into opportunities for sustainable and equitable development. Communities in informal settlements face a myriad of problems. While problem-solving is crucial, problem-setting must not fall behind. This means that, in real-life practice, problems do not present themselves to urbanists as givens, but must be named and framed by the communities. Review & Revise, then, refers to the method by which communities and urbanists define the means to be chosen, the decisions to be made, and the ends to be attained.
The Review & Revise Principle comes from a point of awareness that we cannot get it right the first time. In critically scrutinising every step in design and implementation, Review & Revise is a means for robust knowledge development and learning from failure. Review & Revise means taking inspiration from other informal settlement upgrading programmes, while ensuring that the solutions are products of technical and local knowledge encompassing the unique characteristics of the context. This includes examining cases in similar settings around the world and in urban Africa specifically. Only then will infrastructure design and implementation improve the end user experience.
The main objective of Review & Revise is that infrastructure projects use iteration across all stages. The Principle aims at accepting failure as a powerful tool for learning, while continuing to iterate, seeking feedback, and using the newly gained insights to improve the proposed solutions [1].
Planning & Design
The idea of iterative design is central to the Review & Revise principle. Infrastructure upgrading in informal settlements is rarely a straightforward process; it requires constant tweaking, testing, and prototyping. We think of Review & Revise as a way to mould and modify existing and planned infrastructure. This allows for enhanced adaptability, anticipation of new needs, and promotion of the integration of grey, green, and blue infrastructure elements (an approach called “urban tinkering”).
The feedback cycles established through the Review & Revise principle extend beyond the planning and design phase. Based on the lived experiences of the residents, an iterative approach helps harness the innovation potential of informal communities. The transformation of an existing government sewer line in Lindi, Kibera, into a bridge connecting two major access points in the settlement is one of many examples. Had the cycle of reflection, evaluation, and refinement stopped with the planning and design phase, such innovation would never have occurred.
An iterative design approach is particularly useful in the context of informal settlements. Because they are characterised by deep uncertainty and non-linearity, we must continuously review and revise previously held truths. As we encourage “live editing” by residents, we incidentally include feedback from the people the designs were created for, and thus form a basis for future interventions. The Review & Revise principle highlights and helps resolve misunderstandings, expectation issues, and requirement inconsistencies as early in the process as possible.
Source: Pacific Research Laboratories (2020). 5 Advantages of Iterative Design and Prototyping. URL
Own draft based on: Elmqvist, T., Siri, J., Andersson, E., Anderson, P., Bai, X., Das, P. K., ... & Vogel, C. (2018). Urban tinkering. URL
The Review & Revise principle allows us to identify potential challenges as we continue to learn from our intervention proposal or solution. Being aware of the “five i’s” of failed urban design helps us ask critical questions during the implementation and use phase.
Questions that are worth asking include:
-
Does every stakeholder have an equal say? [influence]
-
Is the community involved in adjusting standards for physical and social infrastructure? [inertia]
-
Are the design and implementation methods consistent in incorporating community knowledge and context-specific circumstances? [inconsistency]
-
Does every stakeholder have the same understanding of the issues at stake? [illiteracy]
-
Is the feedback from stakeholders used to learn from past mistakes? [interference]
Testing, getting feedback, and iterating can be time-consuming, but will ultimately lead to better interventions. The Review & Revise principle acknowledges that a solution is never truly finished, particularly in the rapidly changing realities of informal neighbourhoods. Ultimately, iteration helps to ensure that the infrastructure solution is fit for purpose and meets its functionality, usability, and reliability objectives.
Source: Muungano wa Wanavijiji (2021).URL
Implementation & Use
The Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP), launched in 2011, identifies informal neighbourhoods as areas needing substantial redevelopment. In the past, however, the blunt application of national planning standards has, at times, been at odds with local specificities. The implementation of massive infrastructure projects, disregarding iterative design methods, has, at worst, resulted in humanitarian crises. Demolitions in Mukuru Kwa Njenga in late 2021, for example, caused the displacement of 40,000 people. The incident revealed the consequences of ignoring feedback cycles, testing, and prototyping. “Redevelopment” does not work without review and revision.
Development plans therefore must be informed by community aspirations and priorities. Review & Revise processes will provide local administrations or municipal governments with a better understanding of the residents’ needs. In encouraging iteration, residents are empowered to urge their representatives to undertake improvements in a more participatory and inclusive manner. Mapping exercises, for instance, are playful tools to let the community review government plans and provide ideas for amendments.
The community mobilisation carried out for the Mukuru Special Planning Area (SPA) is a good example of the Review & Revise principle in practice. The original city government master plan, while providing schools, hospitals, roads, and other social infrastructure, would have left no room for housing and public space. As the SPA intervention had been a participatory process from the beginning, the initial plan was revised after discussions took place between government and residents. The second iteration would displace 27% of the residents, which was brought down to 12.5% by the third iteration. This feedback cycle continued until no one would have to be displaced. Crucially, the residents continue to “live edit” and suggest modifications in this experiment at scale.
Source: Ram, E. (2021). How Nairobi’s ‘road for the rich’ resulted in thousands of homes reduced to rubble. URL
Source: Muungano wa Wanavijiji (2021). URL