Strengthening the Knowledge and Information Systems (KIS) of the Urban Poor

From the Summary of research done in Suduwelle, Colombo, Sri Lanka; Epworth, Harare, Zimbabwe; and Cajamarca and Tarapoto, Peru: "A key reason for embarking upon this research was that earlier surveys, evaluations and experience had concluded that development agencies and researchers who possess knowledge on urban development had not been very effective at disseminating that knowledge to the urban [economically] poor, resulting in only limited uptake and impact at the grassroots. There appeared to be various reasons for that: they were not spending enough attention to exploring the information needs and resources of the urban [economically] poor; dissemination was too often top-down and using inappropriate information resources; and, whilst some successful examples existed, participatory communication methods were still to some extent being developed and certainly needed wider replication.

Where most surveys of access to knowledge and information by the urban [economically] poor have looked largely at the supply side, this research project aimed to complement that picture by looking at demand, and how that currently is being met. It explored this through fieldwork in informal settlements in the capital city and at least one secondary town of 3 Third World countries: Peru, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. Local teams of researchers interviewed residents, key informants and information suppliers. 11 cases where local information systems had been strengthened were analysed in more detail. Literature was reviewed, in those countries and beyond, and 600 people participated in a worldwide electronic conference on the issues researched.

In the context of this research, knowledge was defined as information which has been internalised by individuals, a community or a society. Information is different in that it can be shared or transmitted through communication. People often consult different sources of information to develop knowledge. The best way of representing that complexity is through knowledge and information systems (KIS), rather than single flows.

The urban [economically] poor do require knowledge and information to improve their livelihoods. In fact, they often have a complex range of information needs. It is difficult to summarise those, except in rather general or abstract terms, such as income or housing. Their specific needs vary from location to location, and in order for development agencies to respond to them effectively, a certain amount of investigation will always be required. Some of the factors which contribute to the variation in information needs have been identified as: politics and the local policy context; the age or degree of consolidation of a settlement; the size of settlements; urban-rural linkages; and target group characteristics. As to the latter, this report concludes that women are often disadvantaged in terms of access to information compared to men; the needs of other marginalised groups, such as the disabled or homeless, are not well served either.

Social networks are the foremost source of information of the urban [economically] poor. To some extent, this is by default. Yet, it is also a recognition of the fact that the [economically] poor themselves are an important source of knowledge which development agencies should not ignore, but in practice sometimes do. The most important networks are based on kinship, proximity or friendship; more distant ones can be based in the workplace or on association. Individuals who belong to several such networks may be well informed, although there often also is evidence of the information circulating being incomplete, unreliable or otherwise of [economically] poor quality. The [economically] poor are not always able to check this, but even where they do, they sometimes tend to believe people they trust (close friends or relatives, religious leaders, teachers, etc.) rather than perhaps better informed contacts who are more distant to them.

Many networks function on the basis of reciprocity, and those residents who have little to offer in return do risk rejection. Social exclusion is a real problem, also in terms of accessing information. Whilst the internal rules of the game of networking may stimulate exclusion, this can be made worse by external rules or circumstances, e.g. the non-provision of information by the authorities to residents of informal settlements in some countries, an increase in urban violence creating distrust and preventing people to meet, or politics. The development of community social capital can help to overcome this by generating conditions which make it easier for individuals to access information and for a community as a whole to develop its knowledge capital.

Key informants are an important further source. They were defined as people inside, or sometimes outside, a community who are knowledgeable in particular livelihoods aspects, and are willing to share that knowledge. Many key informants are respected and trusted, but not always by everyone; some are known to act as gatekeepers and provide information selectively. It is important to notice that key informants do not have all the answers and that the information provided by them can at times be unreliable. This can become a problem when they are blindly trusted, or when the urban [economically] poor have no way of checking the information provided.

In most cases, there is also a wide range of information producers and suppliers, who do so out of duty or desire; we called these infomediaries. There is not always a clear distinction between key informants and infomediaries; some infomediaries go beyond their own initiatives to disseminate information and also act on request; in such cases, their staff is often considered to be key informants. The performance of infomediaries in our research locations proved to be patchy. The public sector is often criticised for selectively refusing people access to information and occasionally for treating them badly; smaller authorities seem to do better than large ones on this point. On the whole, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are considered to perform better than the public sector, but in several locations some were also singled out for gatekeeping, pushing their own agenda, or circulating inappropriate information. Religious organisations are clearly more trusted than others. Some suggest that NGOs [non-governmental organisations] have an important role in improving information flows between communities and authorities, in generally strengthening the KIS of the urban [economically] poor, and in helping to address social exclusion. In our research locations, the private sector did provide information too, but was not perceived to be a key player. It did not particularly focus on the urban [economically] poor, nor always cover their specific needs, though a couple of useful commercial information providers could be identified in Peru.

So far, modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have not played a major role in getting livelihood information to the urban [economically] poor. The [economically] poor rarely have direct access to them, a factor which some think does increase their exclusion. Whilst most key informants are not connected either, most infomediaries do have access to ICTs and global knowledge, but many of them do not make the most of this in transferring information to urban communities. ICTs have worked well in a number of pilot projects, including telecentres, community databases, community videos, radio and television, but many of these were subsidised. The establishment of ICTs that are sustainable remains a real challenge; with the exception of cellular phones, this is likely to take time and considerable effort.

A range of models was developed to represent the information systems analysed, including supply- and demand-led models and a windmill model combining these with the 8 livelihood issues investigated. These were tested, in slightly different ways, in the three countries. The research team concluded that such models did help to identify the various actors involved, the weak and strong linkages, the direction of information flows, and they were useful to start identifying solutions. However, it did not prove to be easy to capture complex systems in generic models, and researchers found that some issues could not easily be expressed. These included for instance political tensions or a lack of knowledge or response by certain actors.

An investigation of attempts by various development agencies to strengthen the KIS of the urban [economically] poor allowed the identification of a number of factors contributing to success. Most prominent amongst those were: the involvement of the [economically] poor themselves as equal partners; building on local knowledge; the use of community based communication methods such as theatre or audiovisual media as well as exchange visits; and building the capacity of CBOs [community-based organisations] and key individuals within them.

The assessment of the impact of information dissemination activities remains difficult, amongst others because information chains tend to be long and it is often difficult to attribute impact to a single intervention, within a systems context. Development agencies should pay more attention to this issue, and keep learning from each other. ITDG [now Practical Action] found that following information trails and interviewing beneficiaries did produce useful qualitative data on impact, but it is a rather expensive method. The cost of impact assessment is a concern, particularly for agencies in the South, and they may have to select more affordable methods, using for instance proxy indicators. The involvement of the urban [economically] poor was again stressed as an important contributing factor in achieving impact, partly because it empowers them, but also because it targets development efforts at real needs and makes them more effective.

Development agencies can undertake a number of activities that would help in making the knowledge and information they hold more suitable and accessible to the urban [economically] poor. These do not always have to be designed as stand-alone dissemination activities; some can be incorporated in existing or future urban development projects. It would also be beneficial for agencies to collaborate on some of the bigger issues, e.g., on establishing sustainable ICTs that do not exclude the urban [economically] poor, or pooling the information they hold to better address the range of needs. Agencies should consider to:

• rethink their information strategies, to ensure that the [economically] poor get equal access to information, treat them as equals who are a source of knowledge too, create two-way communication, and address a range of needs comprehensively. Following on from this, they may also want to rethink their knowledge and research strategies.
• reduce exclusion, by targeting groups of [economically] poor people that have problems in accessing information, and by reducing external factors that increase exclusion such as violence, oppressive politics and illegality.
• support urban communities to build their knowledge and information capital, amongst others by taking stock of existing resources and addressing gaps, building the capacity of key informants, empowering communities, stimulating meeting places and exchange visits.
• improve the attitudes and impact of infomediaries, by sensitising and supporting public authorities, producing appropriate information resources and building capacity, by documenting and sharing good communication practice, and using a range of media including traditional and modern ones.
• invest in developing sustainable ICTs for the urban [economically] poor, which will require research into a number of issues, the inclusion of ICT equipment and training into urban projects, and the production of appropriate information materials for ICTs.
• look at the impact of their information dissemination on the urban [economically] poor, develop additional methods and indicators, as well as more knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of alternative communication methods, and document and share the results of urban development work more widely."