

Crowdsourcing 2.0: Why Putting the Slum on a Map Is Not Enough - edward
http://ced.berkeley.edu/bpj/2014/03/crowdsourcing-2-0-why-putting-the-slum-on-a-map-is-not-enough/

======
personlurking
Having lived in Brazilian slums, it really is just a matter of memorizing
one's way through the mazes of sidestreets, alleys, etc. It's very hard for me
to imagine maps taking hold with the residents themselves, though with the
gentrification that's happening in "famous" favelas, maybe maps will be useful
after all for the foreigners moving in.

What slightly worries me are recent efforts like those of Google and Microsoft
[1] in some of Rio's favelas where these tech giants have the population do
the work for them, via local NGOs and community associations, in order to
later serve advertisements.

There's a quote that basically says that "only intellectuals are interested in
poverty; the poor, however, just want to consume." One problem I saw firsthand
just after the favela pacification process in Rio was how many services and
businesses were entering these areas, hungry for new clientele while getting
them all used to the idea of credit (and, later, debt). Not to mention, the
government coming in with the offer of national IDs (read: "the better to
start taxing you with!")

Slum politics and culture are never simple to explain as there are always many
ways to effectively discuss them.

1 - [http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/09/google-and-microsoft-
put...](http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/09/google-and-microsoft-putting-rios-
favelas-on-the-map/380826/)

------
chippy
The slum mapping projects are not really "crowdsourcing", although there are
elements of it.

They are primarily participatory mapping exercises, the visible digital output
at the end is the map. The participants are primarily those who live in the
slums. Public participatory mapping projects have happened for decades now,
often happening without computers and more tied into the planning side of
things. The article is quite correct, for these types of mapping projects, the
map is a visible end result, not the intended object. The planning part of the
process is required and needed.

What the confusion with "crowdsourcing", humanitarian mapping and public
participation mapping is with OpenStreetMap - anyone can contribute from
anywhere to anyplace, therefore it's crowdsourcing. And with the recent Ebola
humanitarian mapping, anyone can trace aerial imagery and add in whole towns
that were never mapped before ever to a map for use by aid organisations
primarily. So they both use the same stack, they both are in developing
countries, but the people doing the mapping are different. local people
mapping their own area and it being used not mainly by aid organisations for
humanitarian purposes, and international (the true, faceless crowd) people
mapping crises areas and it not being used by the local people for local
planning.

All this doesn't contradict what the article states. It's even more important
that these mapping projects are being used for local planning. But it's
important to see that OpenStreetMap mapping in developing countries is not all
crowdsourced mapping.

------
EGreg
What do you think will happento the favelas in the next 5-10 years? And is it
desirable?

~~~
personlurking
Well, they've been on a growth trajectory since the late 1800s (at least in
Rio), and their official numbers within and around the city are not even
known. The 2010 census says there's 763, but the unofficial number is likely
to be over twice that.

I don't even see gentrification holding in the 5 (or so) favelas that are home
to the largest groups of foreigners.

And if we're talking pacification, recent local news of shootouts shows peace
is not a sure thing (just in the first few months of 2014, 7 of the 40+
pacified favelas broke out in shootouts/violence). Most favela residents in
the several favelas I've lived in are also divided as to whether it's actually
positive or not. For instance, there used to be something loosely known as
"favela law" which meant that inside the favela one does not steal, cheat,
harm or kill others who also live there. Because, if you did, there'd be
severe consequences, enforced by the favela bosses. Now that the drug lords
are hiding or gone (usually operating from other locations but maintaining the
same flow of trade and distribution), bad actors can do what they please
without reprimand from their own community.

Anyways, I don't see much happening with favelas, aside from more growth, in
the next 5-10 years.

~~~
EGreg
Do you think it's desirable to get rid of the favelas, or people who live
there (some of which moved specifically there) prefer to have this "free
society"?

That's what I want to know about. Is it something to be preserved, or is it
something no one really wants but is forced to live in?

~~~
personlurking
That's definitely a good question, and a hard one. No one there due to having
a low socio-economic status wants to live there but they can't afford other
places that would give them the same access to work (and even leisure).
Location-wise, it's extremely practical to live in a favela (and it's
interesting that in California, for example, the rich people generally live on
the hills, whereas that's not the case in Rio).

There are several prime cases of favela removal in Rio (Pinto, Catacumba,
Esqueleto) in and around the 1960s and 70s. The residents were removed to City
of God, and some run-down areas near the international airport (Complexo do
Maré, etc). Also, in the first few years of the 20th century, there was a
large mandate to destroy and remove favelas in downtown Rio (called the "bota-
abaixo") which did beautify these areas, allowed for sanitary services to be
installed, etc. Most of these residents just moved to other places like
Rocinha and Vidigal on the other side of the city. So, even if they're
"removed", they end up equally poor in a less desirable (to them) location in
the same city.

At this point, as it has been for a long time, favelas are just part of
Brazilian life and they've grown to have their own culture, social norms,
vocabulary, etc. So, if favelas are to be done away with, it will have to be
done with sufficient resources, extreme care and to the liking (can't think of
a better word) of the residents themselves.

While they live in favelas, they want dignity, respect, and access to basic
services (ex, Rocinha has an open sewer at the bottom of the hill). So these
things will have to exist where they end up living, and during the transfer
process.

