La evolución de la educación

It should be noted that the actual significance of some of these potential causes of flooding cannot be scientifically proven, but were locally perceived and include many drivers that can be dealt with by local action. Both informal dwellings and RDP households identified floods as a major environmental challenge that has affected many households (52% of respondents) within Diepsloot township. The respondents identified households situated on poorly drained areas (floodplains) to be more vulnerable to floods during both the summer and winter seasons (Figure 25 above and Figure 26). Other vulnerable households within this community included those on steeper slopes and those besides poorly constructed storm water drains. Dwelling units located lower than street level and low-lying areas were also identified as being vulnerable to storm water runoff. However, respondents also identified the fact that even within floodplains some households were not damaged as others, as a result of the structural strength of their dwelling units. In this case they identified units with protective walls and raised floors of predominantly concrete or cement to be less vulnerable than shacks built without solid flooring or foundations, made out of predominantly metal sheets and cardboard.

Figure 26: Construction within poorly drained areas in Diepsloot township (Photo credit: Ngie, 2011)

From the above, it would appear necessary to distinguish three types of flooding that occur in Diepsloot township, as identified through local knowledge:

a) Flooding adjacent to water courses, considered as river inundation. It occurs after heavy rainfall, when water levels within courses may rise above the embankments. The water may then overflow into houses.

b) Flooding as a result of enhanced filling from runoff diverted into low-lying, low- slope areas, and in structures below streets (ponding).

c) Flooding of structures built on slopes, resulting from the diversion of storm water by higher-lying structures and infrastructure (in the absence of storm water drainage or diversion).

Insecurity of land tenure combined with social and political factors have further mediated flood vulnerability in Diepsloot township. Due to insecurity of tenure, there was little or no community participation to influence or block policies that were perceived as harmful. This was reported by households especially in the Reception Area and Extension 1 as the reason for temporary dwelling structures, since they could be evacuated to other areas at any moment: “Why should we spend the little money we have on the house structure,

Reception Area. She has been in this area for 11 years, trying to run a tavern business. But with no electricity, sales were not encouraging and during summer seasons completely stopped after heavy rains since the place became flooded. Furthermore, she could not even have a loan to restructure her dwelling as a suitable safe home and business site, since there are no documents that entitle her to the land. So she reported as her greatest desire that “…the government should just sign documents that will assign these stands to us as

permanent, and then meaningful investment would be done to survive challenges”.

Most residents in this area had been evacuated previously from Alexandra to stands provided on an interim basis; dwelling units on these stands have become almost permanent, as some residents reported to have been there for over ten years, but with no further intervention from the municipality. Some households have remained within these conditions in the hope of eventually being assigned to RDP housing. While waiting for this free housing over the years, many households have remained in these insecure dwelling units (poorly constructed shacks), which exposes them to floods, and other hazards, such as fire.

As a result, these people find themselves located in the most vulnerable locations mentioned earlier and to construct dwellings comprised of inferior building materials. These informal dwellers lacked the capacity to undertake any flood mitigation measures. In contrast, those informal dwellers less seriously impacted had undertaken some flood mitigation measures, like using pipes to channel water away from their dwellings, using plastic sheets before cementing their floors and stabilising their roofs. In some instances dwellings had proved more resilient because the occupants had laid concrete floors that reduced ground water seepage, or raised the floor level by a critical few centimetres.

Since the informal dwellings were located in poorly drained areas (adjacent to the water course and low-lying) with high water tables, constructed of poor building materials in an often unstable manner, with a foundation lower than ground level, most of them were affected by flooding, in one or more of three dominant forms: (i) through seepage of ground water, (ii) runoff water; and (iii) rain water leaking through poorly constructed roofs. Runoff water also entered through the doors and in some cases rainwater also entered through walls.

Residents, crossing the central steam from one section of the township to the other on stepping stones, are also exposed to flooding during and/or after heavy rains. People especially children are reported to have been swept by floods as they attempt to use these foot path crossings (crossing from Extension 5 to 7) (Figure 27).

Houses within the higher slope areas also suffer from diverted storm water entering into the dwellings. Mostly affected are RDP houses within Extension 5 (site E), where residents have responded by building diversion embankments upslope of their structures. Furthermore, some backyard shacks have been constructed with doors facing the upslope of the hill, allowing storm water runoff to flow into the dwelling.

Figure 27: Crossing streams without bridges increases vulnerability of residents in Diepsloot township (Photo credit: Ngie, 2011)

The erosion scars along the streets in this area (Extension 5 and site E) are evidence of the high volumes and velocity of runoff. This is further proven by the sign post of Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) at this site warning residents of the dangers of storm water (Figure 28). This sign indicates that the authorities are aware of the danger posed to the residents staying within this location. It also is a reflection of the social inequality that instead of fixing the problem through the construction of proper storm water infrastructure,

the Council erects a sign to place the onus on the public, including young children who could not reasonably be expected to comprehend the meaning of the sign.

Figure 28: Johannesburg Roads Agency public notice on the danger of storm water drains in Extension 5 (Photo credit: Ngie, 2011)

However, informal structures were also identified as suitable in this area since occupants easily create holes on their walls to let flood water in and out! This measure, according to them, reduces the retention time and destruction within the households. It is therefore an adaptation measure emanating from local knowledge by the people within this settlement to live with floods.

Poor waste disposal is also a cause for concern, as it blocks storm-water drains, thereby diverting runoff into households (Figure 29). It was also reported by households that the waste along storm-water drains ends up in their houses when it floods. The issue of human waste and associated odours which may last for weeks after flooding within households was common experience. This is a health hazard to household occupants, especially of vulnerable groups like children and elderly (60+).

Figure 29: Waste dumping exacerbates flood vulnerability in Diepsloot township: (a) waste dumping into a storm water drain; (b) waste carried by water runoff from an informal dump across roads and into storm water drains (Photo credit: Ngie, 2011)

The root cause of vulnerability for RDP dwellers was more attributable to poor governance, reflected in poor regulation of building standards and inadequate communication between municipal and district departments. This could be summed as poor integrated planning of the township. The result was that houses were built lower than streets with no or very few drains, which were often blocked. In some cases, dwellings were built directly under the storm water drainage outlets, like in Extension 5. Furthermore, respondents reported all housing (RDP) construction projects were outsourced to private contractors and there seemed to be very little control over their activities (in terms of quality control and adherence to building standards). They are often not held accountable for using the cheapest possible building material and methods which contribute to the poor structural integrity of many of the RDP houses. A respondent in Extension 5 complained of his dwelling always being flooded during heavy rains since it was located on a slope along storm water drains. Another respondent in Extension 2 reported of leaks on his roof which causes damage to his property.

Apart from many people living in floodplains, river floods are further influenced through sealing of surfaces, due to dwelling units without open spaces between, and paved areas, which increase runoff, changing the hazard parameters and extending the flood prone areas

[Rauken & Kelman, 2010]. This is as a result of increase runoff volumes and diversions. Assets that were not originally placed in a flood zone could end up being exposed to floods due to later (unplanned) developments. Other human modification of the natural and built environments, generally through local decision making, contributes to this dynamic pressure that increases vulnerability. Building bridges, filling up stream paths, blocked drainage and vegetation clearing are examples of modifications of local surroundings that could inadvertently increase flood hazards.

The construction of dwelling units on natural storm water channel drains increases their vulnerability to floods (Figure 30). These channels have been used as informal waste dump sites by residents, thereby diverting the flow of water from these drains into homes. Residents as well as the authorities have not adhered to warning signs on storm water drains by Johannesburg Road Agency (Figure 28 above) which was placed as a result of the frequent deaths due to drowning. RDP houses and resulting backyard shacks have been placed adjacent to the warning sign post in Extension 5. Even with the construction of protective walls, the dangers of floods are still glaring through erosion scars left by runoff around these dwelling units (Figure 31). However, these dwellers rejected being interviewed by the research team, maybe for fear of being relocated or evacuated.

Figure 30: Construction of dwelling units on storm water drains in Diepsloot township (Photo credit: Ngie, 2011)

Figure 31: Construction of dwellings around storm water drains (Photo credit: Ngie, 2011)

Because RDP dwellings were poorly constructed and poorly sited with dwellings below street level and sometimes facing runoff tracks, they were affected by flooding. In cases where dwellings had to contend with proximity to storm water outlets, this resulted in runoff also gushing into households, like in Extension 5. The poor quality of construction, accompanied by the inferior quality of building materials, meant that rain water also entered through the cracked walls and poorly sealed roofs.

There also seemed to be a lack of awareness on how to reduce flood vulnerability on individual dwellings, especially among ‘new arrivals’ into the township. So they simply just ‘cope’ with the hazard by using buckets to catch leaking water from roofs or scooping the water out. Some dwellers carve out holes in the wall of their dwelling units to drain out water. This practice in turn makes them more vulnerable especially if heavy rains are received before the hole is repaired, as in the case where the second event occurred soon after the first.