









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
14

1

American Journal of  
Geospatial Technology (AJGT)

Geospatial Technology and Building permits Issuance and Management of  Informal 
Settlements:  Kigamboni, Tanzania
Nickson Alnkiza Ernest1*, Charles Allan Mtambo1

Volume 4 Issue 1, Year 2025
ISSN: 2833-8006 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajgt.v4i1.4675
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: April 13, 2025

Accepted: May 16, 2025

Published: September 22, 2025

This research investigates the application of  Geo-spatial technology in enhancing the 
management of  building permit allocation and addressing the proliferation of  unplanned 
settlements. The study sought to evaluate the existing procedures for issuing building 
permits, identify the key challenges affecting applicants, and propose a geospatial framework 
to improve operational efficiency and regulatory compliance. Adopting a descriptive 
research design, the study combined both qualitative and quantitative approaches to gather 
comprehensive data. Field measurements using GPS, analysis of  scanned cadastral maps, 
Landsat satellite imagery, document reviews, structured questionnaires, and interviews 
with key informants constituted the primary data collection methods. Spatial data analysis 
was performed using ArcGIS and QGIS software, incorporating overlay techniques 
and reduction mapping to understand patterns and trends, while qualitative responses 
were analyzed through content analysis and summarized using basic statistical tools. 
The results indicate that a significant proportion of  respondents, over 75% of  the 159 
surveyed, encountered delays in permit processing exceeding two months. The primary 
factors contributing to these delays were identified as bureaucratic inefficiencies (48.43%), 
insufficient public awareness of  permit procedures (14.46%), and the high costs associated 
with application processing (12%). Additionally, the study highlighted that the continued 
dependence on manual record-keeping and paper-based systems exacerbates the occurrence 
of  unplanned settlements, with notable cases observed in areas like Rancheria. These 
findings emphasize the need for modernization in permit management to address both 
administrative bottlenecks and uncontrolled urban expansion. The study concludes that the 
integration of  geospatial technology can substantially enhance the transparency, efficiency, 
and responsiveness of  urban planning authorities. By maintaining regularly updated spatial 
databases, local authorities can monitor settlement growth, streamline permit issuance, and 
enforce compliance more effectively. Such systems would provide urban planners with real-
time spatial intelligence, facilitating evidence-based decision-making, timely intervention, 
and sustainable settlement management. Ultimately, adopting Geo-spatial technology in 
building permit administration can reduce delays, minimize unauthorized construction, and 
support systematic urban development, ensuring that growth aligns with strategic planning 
objectives and community needs.

Keywords
Building Permit, Geospatial 
Database, Geospatial Technology, 
Informal Settlements

1 University Of  the West indies ,Mona (Caribbean), Jamaica
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: ernestnickson1997@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION.
The persistent growth of  informal settlements in urban 
areas underscores significant administrative inefficiencies 
and highlights the disconnect between urban governance 
structures and the lived realities of  low-income 
populations. In many developing countries, including 
Tanzania, the continued reliance on outdated, manual 
processes for issuing building permits characterized 
by physical documentation, in-person interactions, 
and poorly maintained archives has perpetuated 
delays, escalated costs, and contributed to widespread 
unauthorized construction. This system disadvantages 
both applicants, who face procedural and financial 
burdens, and urban authorities, who struggle to maintain 
accurate records and enforce planning regulations 
(Alnkiza, 2024;Omar,2018).The informal subdivision 
of  land often emerges as a response to increasing 
urbanization pressures and growing housing demand, 
particularly among low-income earners. However, the 
absence of  municipal oversight and strategic planning 
in these developments leads to uncoordinated urban 

expansion. As a result, such areas often lack access to 
essential services, including water, sanitation, electricity, 
waste management, and transportation infrastructure. 
Moreover, the lack of  a clear land tenure framework 
exacerbates legal uncertainties, deters private investment, 
and limits residents’ ability to leverage their property as 
collateral for financial services (Olsson,2018; Ernest & 
Kyengya, 2025).While initiatives like Tanzania’s Integrated 
Land Management Information System (ILMIS) aim to 
modernize urban planning through digital platforms, 
their full potential remains unrealized. The system is 
frequently underutilized due to limited institutional 
capacity, inadequate training, insufficient funding, and 
a lack of  integration with other urban planning and 
construction approval mechanisms. Consequently, 
planning efforts remain reactive rather than proactive, 
and urban authorities continue to operate without reliable, 
up-to-date data to support informed decision-making 
(Lionardo, 2020; Kyengya et al., 2025).The solution lies 
in establishing a comprehensive Geo-spatial framework 
that integrates land-use planning with the building permit 



Pa
ge

 
14

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

application and approval processes. Such a system would 
centralize data, eliminate administrative bottlenecks, and 
enhance transparency. By adopting digital tools such as 
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote 
sensing technologies, urban planners and municipal 
officials can monitor land-use changes in real time, process 
permit applications efficiently, and enforce compliance 
with zoning and building codes (Oldenhuizing,2004; 
Kyengya et al., 2025).Furthermore, implementing a 
centralized and accessible online platform would enable 
applicants to submit documentation remotely, track the 
status of  their applications, and receive timely feedback 
electronically. This reduces the need for physical visits, 
minimizes opportunities for corruption, and promotes 
a fair, accountable permitting process. In the long term, 
such a system would also enhance urban resilience by 
enabling data-driven planning, targeted infrastructure 
development, and more effective service delivery tailored 
to the needs of  growing populations.
Addressing the rise of  informal settlements requires not 
only technical innovation but also strong political will 
and institutional reforms. Strengthening inter-agency 
coordination, building local capacity, and fostering 

community participation are essential to ensure that urban 
development is inclusive, sustainable, and responsive 
to the needs of  all residents. By leveraging geospatial 
technologies and streamlining administrative processes, 
cities can transition toward more orderly and equitable 
growth, curb the expansion of  informal settlements, and 
improve the quality of  life for their urban populations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
The area of  Study
Kigamboni is located in the southeaster portion of  Dar 
es Salaam, falling within the geographical coordinates of  
approximately -7.230° to -6.780° latitude and 39.270° 
to 40.350° longitude. It is bordered to the east and 
north by the Indian Ocean, which also hosts the Dar es 
Salaam harbour (refer to Figure 1). The district shares its 
southern and south-western boundaries with Mkuranga 
District, while its western edge borders Temeke District. 
Key administrative wards within Kigamboni—such as 
Kigamboni, Vijibweni, Tungi, Mjimwema, Kibada, and 
Somangila—are interconnected by major coastal roads, 
facilitating transport and communication. Other wards in 
the district are linked through a network of  secondary 

Figure 1: Kigambon municipality

and feeder roads, ensuring accessibility across the region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study adopts a structured exploratory framework 
that integrates both qualitative and quantitative research 
methods to deliver a comprehensive and multidimensional 
analysis. By employing a mixed-methods approach, the 
research seeks to gain a holistic understanding of  the 

procedures and challenges involved in issuing building 
permits within informal settlements, while also exploring 
the applicability of  geospatial technologies as a potential 
solution to improve these processes. The qualitative 
component is used to investigate and contextualize 
existing permit issuance systems, uncovering procedural 
inefficiencies, institutional barriers, and their broader 



Pa
ge

 
14

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

implications for urban planning and regulatory 
compliance. In parallel, the quantitative dimension—
primarily leveraging geospatial tools and techniques—
is aimed at enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and 
accuracy of  permit allocation as part of  a modern 
development control framework.
The overarching objectives of  the study are fourfold: (1) 
to systematically document the current building permit 

issuance practices, (2) to identify and analyze key challenges 
that hinder effective permit management, (3) to assess the 
outcomes and limitations of  current approaches, and (4) 
to develop and recommend a geospatially model  enabled 
permit issuance model that can serve as a robust tool for 
reinforcing planning regulations and fostering orderly 
urban development.
The study concentrated on analyzing the process of  

Table 1: Collected Data along with its results
Data Data Type Data Source Purpose 
Building permit forms 
Master plan -Detail plans 
Surveys image

Structured 
questionnaires

Government documents 
open source  (Google 
Earth, open street map)

-Process, procedures

Questionaires Questionnaires -on-site Surveys and Key 
respondents

identify the type of  
obstacles faced in the 
process

-geospatial vector file, 
feature properties  -space 
– based imagery visual 
representation 

-Master plan Town   
drawings -Surveys, 
physical infrastructures

Online government 
services, geospatial imagery 
(Google Earth, open 
street map), public sector 
network as well as public 
services providers   

-designing the digital permit 
approval system

building permit issuance and identifying the underlying 
challenges associated with granting construction licenses, 
particularly in informal settlements. To achieve this, both 
spatial (geographical) and non-spatial data were utilized, 
enabling a multidimensional understanding of  the permit 
system and its spatial implications. Spatial data processing 
began with the collection of  diverse source materials, 
including high-resolution satellite imagery, detailed town 
planning drawings, existing master plans, and topographic 
survey maps. These resources were initially available in 
varying digital formats, such as JPEG and PDF. In order 
to standardize these inputs for integration into ArcGIS, 
all documents were converted into JPEG format using 
a simple image editing too, ensuring compatibility with 
GIS software for further processing. Subsequently, the 
images and cartographic documents were imported into 
ArcGIS for spatial referencing. This was accomplished by 
assigning four dereferencing control points—based on 
known Easting and Northing coordinates—to align the 
scanned materials accurately with real-world coordinates. 
Once spatially aligned, these geo-referenced images served 
as the foundation for the digitization process, during 
which key physical features such as roads, buildings, and 
plot boundaries were traced and transformed into vector 
data formats (lines and polygons).
In parallel, GPS coordinate data derived from building 
permit application forms was compiled and initially 
organized using Microsoft Excel. These coordinates were 
then exported in CSV format and imported into ArcGIS as 
discrete point data. Each point corresponded to a specific 
construction site or issued permit within the informal 
settlement areas. Through spatial analysis, these points 
were connected to form polygons, representing the spatial 
footprint of  each permitted structure or parcel. This step 

allowed for the creation of  a geospatially accurate map 
of  issued building permits, offering valuable insights into 
spatial patterns, permit coverage, and potential regulatory 
gaps within unplanned urban areas.By integrating spatial 
and attribute data in a GIS environment, the study not only 
documented the physical extent and distribution of  issued 
permits but also highlighted procedural inefficiencies and 
potential areas for intervention. The outcome provides a 
foundation for proposing a more streamlined, geospatially 
enabled permit issuance framework to support urban 
planning and development control in rapidly growing 
informal settlements.

The Non-Spatial Data Analysis 
Data from structured surveys and key informant 
interviews were analyzed using descriptive statistical 
methods. The challenges reported by permit applicants 
were categorized to identify recurring trends, and these 
trends were then represented in various visual formats, 
including tables, charts, and other statistical presentations, 
for greater clarity and ease of  understanding.Figure 2 
provides a visual summary of  the data analysis workflow. 
Several key improvements were implemented to enhance 
the overall process: redundancy was minimized (for 
example, the phrase “saved as JPEG” replaced the 
previous wording “spared into JPEG designs”), and the 
overall structure was improved by clearly separating the 
sections dealing with spatial data from those focusing on 
non-spatial data. This adjustment made the methodology 
more reader-friendly and intuitive.
Furthermore, technical terminology was simplified 
for clarity. For instance, the phrase “extracted from 
the application form” was replaced with the more 
straightforward “extracted from permit applications,” 



Pa
ge

 
14

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

and the overly complex “The GPS coordinates extricated 
from the permit forms were handled” was revised to the 
clearer “The GPS coordinates were processed.” These 

adjustments helped streamline the explanation without 
compromising technical accuracy.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 2: process and procedure of  data analysis

The data collected in the study—including GPS 
coordinates, site images, and sketches—was evaluated 
by municipal technical officers in accordance with 
Kigamboni’s development plans. This evaluation was 
crucial step, as the permit process can only proceed once 
the assessment confirms that the proposed construction 
aligns with the municipality’s planning guidelines. To 
ensure a thorough understanding of  the permit issuance 
process, the study also involved conducting in-depth 
interviews with key stakeholders who are directly 
responsible for the approval of  building permits within 
the Kigamboni Municipality. The data obtained from 
these interviews was analyzed in a structured manner. 
Each research objective was independently assessed using 
a variety of  analytical methods, including tables, charts, 
bar graphs, maps, and photographs, alongside descriptive 
techniques. These visual and statistical tools enabled 
a clearer representation of  the key findings, offering 

valuable insights into the complexities and obstacles that 
stakeholders face in the building permit process.
A core objective of  this research was to explore the 
procedures and criteria involved in granting building permits 
in informal settlements. The study found that three primary 
stakeholder groups play significant roles in the process: 
applicants who seek permits, local government officials 
who oversee the approval process, and municipal technical 
officers who assess the compliance of  proposed projects 
with urban planning standards. Each group holds distinct 
responsibilities when it comes to reviewing and processing 
applications. To provide a comprehensive understanding 
of  the roles of  these stakeholders, Table 2 outlines their 
specific duties and functions in detail. It highlights how each 
group contributes to the overall permit approval system and 
the challenges they face while ensuring that development 
complies with local regulations and planning frameworks.
From the study the findings revealed that building permit 

Table 2: Roles of  Key Actors in Building Permit Processing
No Actors Roles And Responsibilities
1 Applicant

Dully fill the building permit application form and attach all documents mentioned.
2 At the Local Government Office

a)Sub-ward Officers/
Sub-ward Chairman

Checking if  the applicant is within administrative boundaries also proof  of  land sale 
ownership 

b) Ward-Officer Checking the proof  of  land sells ownership
3 At the Municipality Level

a)Land Surveyor Assess the encroachments of  the building permit against existing surveys
b) Town Planners Responsible for examining the conformity of  building permits to existing land-use 

plans 
c) Land Officer Assess all attached documents of  the applicants including national identity, land sale 

agreements, and applicant neighbouring form



Pa
ge

 
14

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

d) Head of  
Department

Overall, in charge of  making decisions after reading the comments of  the technical 
officers

e) Municipal Engineer Assess the architectural drawings  
f) Building permits 
Register

Prepare building permit bills and custodian of  building permits at Municipal

g) Municipal 
Accountant

Generates control numbers for building permit payment of  bills

h) Urban Planning 
Committee

Discuss and approve building permits

process in Kigamboni Municipality starts with applicants 
seeking approval at the sub-ward level. In accordance with 
regulations, applicants—whether individuals, businesses, 
or institutions—must first obtain and complete a specific 
application form from the District Office. As noted by 
Omar (2018), this process is entirely manual and requires 
in-person submission, reflecting the traditional practices 
still in place in Kigamboni District. The application 
form requests detailed personal information, such as 
the applicant’s name, contact information, the property’s 
location, and the proposed use of  the building (whether 
residential or commercial). Applicants must also indicate 
whether the building will be a single-store or multi-store 
structure. This data allows local authorities to assess 
the application before moving forward with the permit 
process.
Also, Applicants are required to carefully fill out the form 
and submit various supporting documents, including 
a passport-sized photograph, a national ID to verify 
citizenship, land ownership documentation, and approved 
architectural plans. These requirements are consistent 
with broader procedural practices in similar permit 
systems, as highlighted by Elizabeth and Africa (2005), 
who emphasize the role of  the applicant in ensuring that 
all necessary documentation is provided.

Submission and Verification Stage
Once the application is completed, it is submitted to ward 
and district authorities for review. This stage serves to 
verify the land’s ownership and ensure that the proposed 
construction is within the correct jurisdiction. Applicants 
must provide the site’s name and geographic coordinates, 
helping to clarify which administrative boundaries apply. 
However, the manual nature of  this process often causes 
delays. According to a Kibugumo sub-ward officer, the 
lack of  a digital verification system leads to the risk of  
issuing multiple permits for the same plot of  land.
Local officials cross-reference applications with municipal 
development plans to ensure compliance with planning 
regulations (Ponnewitz & Bargstaedt, 2019). The 
responsibilities are divided among several specialists: 
Municipal Land Officers are tasked with receiving 
applications, verifying coordinates, and initiating the review 
process. Land Surveyors conduct site visits to evaluate 
the current conditions of  the applicant’s land and nearby 
properties. Using GPS devices (configured to the WGS 84 
Zone 37 coordinate system) or smartphone applications, 
surveyors gather coordinates, create sketches of  the site, 
and photograph the location to support the permit review
Figure 3 illustrates the workflow used to assess land 

Figure 3: Process of  Land Parcels by Land Surveyors



Pa
ge

 
14

6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

parcels applying for building permits in Kigamboni 
Municipality, with a particular focus on reviewing spatial 
data, mapped zones, and physical infrastructure. In the 
figure, land parcels being evaluated are highlighted in 
yellow, while previously surveyed plots are marked in red.
Once an application is submitted, it undergoes an 
initial review by a land surveyor, who is responsible for 
identifying any discrepancies such as encroachments, 
overlaps, or deviations from the approved boundaries. 
The surveyor achieves this by comparing the application 
against established survey records. As noted by the 
surveyor, “Applications are rejected if  the land divisions 
violate the predefined boundaries.” If  no violations are 
identified during this stage, the application is cleared to 
proceed to the next phase, where a town planner conducts 
a more detailed review of  the proposal.

Town Planner’s Role 
The study revealed that ,a town planner plays a critical 
role in evaluating building proposals by ensuring they 
comply with the municipality’s overarching development 
plans. This includes aligning the proposals with the area’s 
master plan, which sets the long-term vision for urban 
development, as well as detailed zoning schemes, urban 
design blueprints, and the existing infrastructure—such as 
roads, utilities, and public services. The master plan acts 
as a guiding framework, dictating zoning classifications 
that designate land for specific uses, including residential, 
commercial, industrial, or mixed-use areas. This zoning 
system is designed to optimize land allocation, streamline 
urban growth, and promote efficient land use, all 
while maintaining a balance between development and 
sustainability. By carefully reviewing each application, the 
town planner ensures that proposed developments do not 

disrupt the intended land-use patterns, as outlined in the 
development plans. This evaluation process serves as a 
safeguard against the misuse of  land that has been reserved 
for specific functions, such as green spaces, public facilities, 
or conservation areas. In this way, the town planner helps 
maintain the integrity of  the municipality’s urban fabric, 
supporting organized, well-planned growth that is in line 
with the community’s needs and long-term vision.

Challenges in Compliance
Omar (2018) observes that nearly 80% of  building permit 
applications do not fully comply with approved planning 
schemes, with non-compliance being the primary 
reason for delays or rejections. This high rate of  non-
conformity points to significant challenges in the permit 
approval process. Town planners stress that deviations 
from established zoning regulations or infrastructure 
requirements—such as road access, utilities, or other 
public services—are the most common causes for stalled 
applications. These violations create obstacles that 
prevent applications from moving forward, ultimately 
delaying the progress of  development projects.The 
recurring issue of  non-compliance highlights the critical 
need for applicants to strictly follow municipal guidelines 
and planning frameworks. Town planners argue that 
a more rigorous adherence to zoning regulations and 
infrastructure standards is necessary to streamline the 
approval process. When developments are aligned with 
these plans, it not only facilitates smoother permit 
issuance but also supports organized and sustainable 
urban growth, ensuring that the development process is 
efficient, predictable, and in line with the broader goals 
of  the municipality.
Figure 4 demonstrates an example of  the building permit 

Figure 4: Land Parcel Utilization Assessment by Town Planners



Pa
ge

 
14

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

evaluation process carried out by town planners. The 
diagram uses zoning map overlays to assess land use for 
a specific plot. In the illustration, red parcels represent 
building permit applications that are pending approval 
in informal settlements, while yellow areas denote 
surveyed and approved zones.A town planner clarified 
the evaluation process, stating, “If  the application aligns 
with the designated land use (indicated by the arrow), the 
officer endorses the form with comments, instructing 
both the applicant and permit reviewer to comply with 
the 60-meter right-of-way (ROW) requirement for 
TANROAD infrastructure during construction. The 
application is then forwarded to land officers for further 
review. However, proposals that fall within reserved road 
corridors are automatically rejected.”

Verification and Approval Workflow  
Upon receipt of  the building permit application, the 
land officers are responsible for thoroughly reviewing 
and verifying the submitted documents. These include 
the applicant’s national ID card, signed neighborhood 
boundary agreements, and land sale contracts. The land 
officer’s first task is to ensure that the documents are 
authentic and complete, as any missing or fraudulent 
documents could result in delays or the rejection of  the 
application. The officer also ensures that the submitted 
documents align with local regulations, confirming that 
the applicant has proper legal standing and authorization 
to apply for the permit.Once the land officer has validated 
the documents, the application is either approved or 
rejected. If  the documents are complete and valid, the 
land officer will approve the application and forward it 
to the department head for further review. If  there are 
issues, such as discrepancies in the documentation or 
failure to meet initial requirements, the officer will reject 
the application, providing a detailed explanation and 
justification for the decision. This rejection may include 
recommendations for the applicant to rectify any errors 
before reapplying.
After the application is submitted to the department 
head, it undergoes a thorough review of  all technical 
assessments, comments, and feedback provided by 
the land officer and other relevant stakeholders. The 
department head evaluates the overall compliance of  
the application with municipal regulations, development 
plans, and zoning requirements. In particular, the 
department head focuses on whether the proposed 
project meets the broader urban planning objectives, such 
as ensuring proper land use, preserving environmental 
integrity, and maintaining public safety. Based on this 
evaluation, the department head makes the final decision 
regarding the application. If  approved, the application 
moves to the next stage; if  rejected, the applicant is 
informed with a clear justification.If  the application is 
approved by the department head, it is then forwarded 
to the municipal engineer for a detailed architectural and 
structural review. The municipal engineer ensures that the 
architectural plans conform to the established municipal 

guidelines, which include assessing the design’s structural 
integrity, compliance with zoning laws, alignment with 
the city’s infrastructure capacity (e.g., roads, utilities, 
drainage), and adherence to safety and environmental 
standards. The engineer also evaluates the impact of  
the proposed building on the surrounding infrastructure 
and its compatibility with neighboring developments.
This stage of  review is crucial, as the engineer’s approval 
ensures that the construction project can be safely 
integrated into the existing urban environment. If  the 
plans meet all technical and regulatory requirements, the 
municipal engineer signs off  on the application, which 
then proceeds to final approval?

Building Standards Review and Fee Payment  
The municipal engineer plays a central role in the building 
permit approval process by thoroughly reviewing site 
plans, construction guidelines, and technical specifications 
provided with the application. In addition to evaluating 
the proposed project’s design and compliance with 
zoning regulations, the engineer also establishes 
specific conditions for site inspections, ensuring that 
the construction meets the safety, environmental, and 
infrastructure standards set by the municipality. The 
engineer further determines the appropriate permit 
fees, which are calculated based on factors such as the 
size of  the construction, the complexity of  the project, 
and its impact on surrounding infrastructure. These fees 
help cover the costs of  administering the permit process 
and conducting necessary inspections throughout the 
construction phase.
Once the municipal engineer completes their review 
and sets the inspection conditions, the process moves 
to the municipal accountant, who assigns a payment 
reference number for the permit fees. The applicant is 
required to pay the fees, and once payment is received 
and confirmed, the accountant issues a receipt. This 
payment confirmation is a necessary step in finalizing 
the application. The receipt, along with the completed 
permit application, technical documents, and any other 
required paperwork, is then submitted to the building 
permit committee for final evaluation and decision-
making.The building permit committee is composed 
of  professionals from various departments who assess 
the application in greater detail. The committee reviews 
the application based on technical input from the 
municipal engineer, land officers, urban planners, and 
other relevant experts. These professionals examine the 
application for compliance with municipal development 
plans, environmental standards, zoning regulations, and 
infrastructure compatibility. The committee’s primary 
objective is to ensure that the proposed development will 
contribute positively to urban growth while adhering to 
the municipality’s planning framework.
After reviewing the application, the committee can 
approve, reject, or defer the decision. In instances where 
there are unresolved issues—such as discrepancies in 
the application, insufficient supporting documentation, 



Pa
ge

 
14

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

unclear boundaries, or the need for additional site 
inspections—the committee may decide to defer its 
decision until the next meeting. During this period, 
further clarifications are sought, additional site visits may 
be conducted, or the applicant may be asked to provide 
further information or revised plans. As the committee 
chair explained, “Unresolved issues may delay approval 
until the next meeting, after which the permits will be 
processed.” This reflects the committee’s commitment 
to ensuring that all necessary aspects of  the application 
are thoroughly examined and any concerns are addressed 
before final approval is given.Once the committee resolves 
any outstanding issues and clarifications have been made, 
the application is either approved or rejected. If  approved, 
the permit is officially issued, and the applicant is notified. 

The approval also triggers the necessary preparations 
for inspections during the construction phase to 
ensure compliance with the original permit conditions. 
If  rejected, the applicant is provided with a detailed 
explanation outlining the reasons for the rejection, and 
recommendations for resubmission, if  applicable.

Processing Timeline
According to the urban planning office, permits 
typically take 2–5 days to issue, pending plan reviews, 
fee processing, and committee meetings held weekly. 
Delays often arise from manual document handling and 
multi-stage reviews. Figure 5 summarizes the timeframes 
applicants face during permit processing. 
According to interviews with applicants, among 159 

Figure 5: Building Permit Processing Duration

respondents asked about the time required to obtain 
building permits, 56 (35.23%) reported a processing period 
of  two weeks. Additionally, 39 respondents (24.51%) 
stated the process took one week, while 29 (18.24%) 
experienced a three-week wait. A further 22 respondents 
(13.82%) noted completion within four weeks, and the 
remaining 13 (8.17%) faced delays exceeding one month 
at Kigamboni Municipality. Processing times varied due 
to challenges such as bureaucratic hurdles, limited public 
awareness, high fees, corruption, ambiguous sub-ward 

regulations, and land-use conflicts.  

Challenges in Building Permit Issuance
The permit approval process faces obstacles impacting 
three key groups: applicants, local government leaders, 
and municipal technical staff. Challenges reported by 
applicants include inefficiencies outlined in Table 4 (not 
shown here), which categorizes difficulties encountered 
during permit processing.
Challenges in issuing time

Table 4: Challenges Faced by Applicants
No: Challenges Sub-Total Percentage
1 Bureaucracy 77 48.42
2 No Challenges 28 17.60
3 Awareness 23 14.45
4 High Fees 19 11.93
5 Corruption 5 3.13
6 Boundary 4 2.52
7 Land Use 3 1
Total 159 100



Pa
ge

 
14

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

Figure 6: Challenges Faced by Applicants

Figure 6, highlights responses from 159 participants 
regarding challenges in obtaining building permits. Among 
these, 77 respondents (48.42%) identified excessive 
bureaucratic hurdles, particularly due to mandatory in-
person interactions, which prolong the process. This 
aligns with findings from Kumasi, Ghana, where 80% of  
permits went unissued between 1990 and 2000 because 
of  inefficiencies like redundant approvals, superficial 
design reviews, and inflated costs (Botchway et al., 2014). 
A key issue is the sheer number of  stakeholders required 
to sign off  on permits including sub-ward officers, town 
planners, surveyors, and accounting departments leading 
to delays and resource strain. In contrast, countries like 
the UK and the Netherlands streamline approvals through 
digital platforms and geospatial tools, significantly 
reducing processing times (Noardo et al., 2022).  

Limited Public Awareness of  Permit Procedures
A smaller group (23 respondents, 14.46%) cited inadequate 
public knowledge of  permit processes. Many applicants 

were unfamiliar with where to apply, which offices 
oversee permits, or the roles of  surveyors and architects. 
This lack of  clarity contributes to delays, as uninformed 
applicants often approach incorrect departments or 
submit incomplete documentation. Improved outreach 
and guidance could mitigate these inefficiencies.  

Financial Barriers to Permit Acquisition
Nineteen respondents (11.94%) raised concerns about 
high permit costs in Kigamboni District. Fees range 
from Tshs. 50,000/= for residential buildings (0–50 
m²) to Tshs. 100,000/= for commercial properties, 
with commercial fees doubling in some cases. Critics 
argue that these charges prioritize municipal revenue 
over equitable urban planning, a trend also observed by 
Fauth & Soibelman (2022) and Lionardo et al. (2020). 
Such financial burdens disproportionately affect smaller 
projects and undermine the permit system’s role as a tool 
for sustainable development.
The fee system demonstrates that costs increase 

Table 5: Building Permit Charges in Kigamboni Municipality
Charges in Tshs.

No. Area (Sq.m) Residential Commercial Public Buildings
1 Area 0--50 50,000/= 100,000/= 40,000/=
2 Area 51--100 100,000/= 200,000/= 80,000/=
3 Area 101-150 150,000/= 300,000/= 120,000/=
4 Area 151--200 200,000/= 400,000/= 160,000/=

proportionally with the size of  the buildable area, prioritizing 
income generation over regulating development. Similar 
observations were noted in a Kibungo-based study, which 
revealed that municipal building permits were primarily 
used as revenue-generating mechanisms rather than tools 
to manage urban growth. Additionally, a small fraction 
of  respondents (3.14%) raised concerns about corrupt 
practices by municipal officers during site inspections. 

They highlighted that the absence of  standardized fees 
for site visits created opportunities for unethical officials 
to solicit bribes from applicants. 
 
Unclear Administrative Boundaries
Issues related to administrative jurisdiction were also 
raised during interviews. Four respondents (2.51%) 
reported challenges when applying for building permits in 



Pa
ge

 
15

0

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

areas bordering sub-wards. This ambiguity in boundaries 
sparked disputes with inspectors and even accusations of  
falsified permit documents, as residents struggled with 
poorly defined sub-ward demarcations.
Moreover, there are other challenges that follow under 

Figure 7: Challenges Arising by Unclear Administrative 
Boundaries

local government category such as

Low public awareness
At the sub-ward level, key actors responsible for 
processing building licenses face a number of  challenges, 
primarily because this is the initial stage of  the application 
process. One of  the most significant issues is the general 
lack of  awareness among applicants regarding the 
required procedures for obtaining a building permit. 
Many applicants arrive at the local government offices 
with little understanding of  the necessary documentation 
or the steps involved in securing a permit.
As the sub-ward officer explained, applicants frequently 
come to the office seeking information about the permit 
process but fail to bring the required documents, such 
as photographs, sale contracts, and national identification 
cards. This lack of  preparedness forces the local 
government officer to spend a considerable amount 
of  time explaining the procedure and educating the 
applicants about the essential documents needed for 
a successful application. In many cases, applicants are 
instructed to return at a later date once they have gathered 
the necessary materials.

This situation leads to several inefficiencies in the 
process. The officer’s time, which could be spent on 
actual application processing, is diverted to educating 
applicants and managing incomplete submissions. This, 
in turn, results in delays as applicants must make multiple 
visits to the office, each time with different documents 
or incomplete paperwork. The cycle of  repeated visits 
not only slows down the application process but also 
leads to an increase in administrative costs. The local 
government must allocate more time and resources 
to assist each applicant individually, further stretching 
limited manpower and resources.
Moreover, this inefficiency also has broader implications 
for the overall permit approval timeline. The repeated 
back-and-forth and delays in document submission 
contribute to a longer wait time for applicants, which 
can frustrate the public and discourage compliance 
with formal permit processes. Additionally, the delays 
may disrupt project timelines for construction and 
development, further exacerbating the challenges faced 
by both applicants and government officers.

Verification of  the applicant documents
Local government leaders face significant challenges 
when it comes to verifying the endorsement of  ownership 
based on land sale agreements submitted with building 
permit applications. These leaders are often compelled to 
approve building permit applications without being fully 
confident in the authenticity of  the documents provided. 
One of  the main obstacles is the lack of  digital record-
keeping systems to store information related to land 
sale transactions within their respective wards. Without 
a centralized database or computerized system, local 
government leaders are unable to easily verify the details 
of  land ownership, leading to potential issues with the 
documentation submitted by applicants.
In addition to this, local government leaders often find 
themselves in a position where they must sign the permit 
application on behalf  of  neighboring property owners 
if  the applicant fails to obtain the required signatures 
from the neighbors themselves. According to the sub-
ward officer, this practice creates several challenges, 
particularly when multiple individuals claim ownership 
of  a single plot of  land. The absence of  clear and 
accurate documentation can result in confusion about 
land ownership, with one parcel of  land potentially being 
attributed to several different owners.
This situation can lead to a variety of  complications, 
including land disputes, conflicts among neighbors, and 
questions about the legitimacy of  property ownership. 
In some cases, local government officers may be unfairly 
accused of  corruption or misconduct, even though 
the issues are often the result of  poor record-keeping 
practices rather than any malicious intent. The lack of  
proper documentation and the reliance on manual, 
outdated systems exacerbate these issues, leading to 
confusion and mistrust among both the public and local 
government officials.



Pa
ge

 
15

1

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

Challenges due to proximity administration boundaries
Local government leaders face a significant challenge 
in dealing with unclear administrative boundaries near 
land parcels, which are often vague due to the absence 
of  an integrated geospatial system (Figure 6). This lack 
of  geospatial data creates confusion when determining 
land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries between 
wards. Without a reliable, digital mapping system, local 
authorities struggle to accurately identify the exact 
location of  land parcels and verify the authenticity of  
transactions, particularly in areas where boundaries are 
not well defined.
This situation is further complicated when an applicant 
unknowingly purchases a plot of  land that belongs to 
someone else. Due to the administrative ambiguities, the 
applicant may be advised to visit a neighboring ward to 
have their land sale documents signed and to submit a 
building permit application. In such cases, the leaders 
of  the neighboring ward may not have access to or may 
be unaware of  the land transactions that took place in 
another ward. As a result, they may unknowingly approve 
the building permit application based on incomplete 
or inaccurate information, which leads to the issuance 
of  a permit for land that is not rightfully owned by the 
applicant.
When the permit is issued in this manner, it creates a ripple 
effect that puts local government officials at risk. If  it is 
later discovered that the applicant received the permit for 
a plot of  land that was not legally theirs, the official who 

signed off  on the permit may face allegations of  abuse 
of  office or corruption. These accusations can damage 
the official’s reputation and career, leading to disciplinary 
action or legal consequences. The lack of  accurate land 
records, combined with unclear jurisdictional boundaries, 
makes it difficult for local government leaders to prevent 
such issues from arising.
As explained by a local government officer from 
Kibugumo Ward, this situation often results in 
unnecessary land disputes and confusion. Applicants may 
unknowingly build on land that is under dispute, leading 
to legal conflicts between neighboring landowners. The 
official noted that these disputes frequently escalate 
due to the lack of  a comprehensive geospatial system 
to track land ownership and boundary data. Without 
such a system, local government officers are left to rely 
on outdated or incomplete records, which increase the 
likelihood of  errors in land transactions and building 
permit approvals.
The absence of  a robust geospatial system not only 
increases the administrative burden on local government 
leaders but also undermines the integrity of  the permit 
approval process. It leads to inefficiencies, delays, and 
potential conflicts, further straining local governance and 
creating mistrust among the public. Ultimately, the lack of  
reliable land data and clear boundaries makes it difficult 
to ensure fair and transparent land transactions, putting 
both applicants and local government officials at risk.
Challenges due to instruments errors

Figure 8: Challenges due to reside nearby administrative boundaries

This process entails a detailed examination of  building 
permit records and on-site land surveys to identify 
discrepancies such as encroachments, boundary 
overlaps, and mismatches between surveyed plots and 
approved permit plans. A key challenge arises from 
positional inaccuracies in land parcel geometry caused 
by GPS measurement errors. Land authorities highlight 

that GPS deviations can displace plotted boundaries by 
10 to 15 meters from their true locations. A second 
issue stems from improperly calibrated control points 
used in cadastral mapping (Figure 7). These geospatial 
inaccuracies often interrupt the building permit 
approval workflow, requiring intervention by surveying 
experts to resolve the errors before proceedings can 



Pa
ge

 
15

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

resume. Land uses premises and out-dated plans

Figure 9: Challenges of  Encroachment and Shifting of  Surveys

Figure 10: Challenges Due to Land Use Premises

Municipal planners are tasked with assessing development 
proposals by comparing current site conditions with 
existing zoning plans to ensure conformity. However, 
discrepancies often arise when building permits 
designate land for residential development, while official 
town planning maps allocate the same areas for public 
infrastructure such as schools or clinics (figure 10). During 
site inspections, planners frequently come across privately 
developed properties that do not align with municipal 
plans, creating challenges in granting permits due to 
outdated or inconsistent land use designations. A notable 

example can be seen in Greece, where nearly 25% of  
housing is located in informal settlements. This situation 
stems from outdated zoning laws, inefficient territorial 
controls, and an overly complex legal system (Fauth & 
Soibelman, 2022). These challenges highlight the pressing 
need to modernize urban planning frameworks, ensuring 
regulations are in sync with the evolving needs of  urban 
development, reducing conflicts between formal planning 
and actual on-the-ground practices.
Submission of  Application Forms without Essential 



Pa
ge

 
15

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

Attachments
Land officers assess property ownership by verifying 
documents such as birth certificates, national Ids, and 
signed boundary agreements. Missing documents halt 
evaluations, leading to incomplete assessments. Inaccurate 
permit evaluations due to insufficient documentation may 
result in flawed decisions by town planning authorities.  

Adherence to Building Planning Standards
Civil engineers review structural drawings to ensure 
compliance with regulations. Challenges arise when 
applicants submit generic, low-cost plans that mismatch 
actual plot dimensions (e.g., oversized designs). This forces 
applicants to hire architects for redesigns, increasing costs 
and discouraging permit applications. Delays occur while 
waiting for corrected plans, prolonging permit processing 
times, as noted by municipal engineers.  

Obstacles Related to Operational Equipment 
• Manual Billing and Documentation: The processing 

of  bills and permits remains a manual task, with no 
digital infrastructure in place to improve efficiency. This 
outdated approach slows down the overall system, causing 
delays in processing and a higher risk of  errors in records.

• Resource Deficiencies: There is a critical shortage of  
office resources such as adequate shelving for file storage, 
as well as essential equipment like computers, printers, 
and office phones. These limitations affect the ability to 
manage documentation properly and to maintain effective 
communication with applicants, leading to inefficiencies 
in day-to-day operations.

• Payment System Delays: Instability in the network 
disrupts the generation of  control numbers needed for 
fee payments through mobile or bank systems, causing 
significant delays. This disrupts the payment process for 
applicants, while accounting officers face difficulties in 
tracking payments, creating a sense of  frustration and 
confusion on both sides.
To overcome these challenges, it is strongly recommended 
that the government prioritize investments in modernizing 
infrastructure. Upgrading office equipment, transitioning 
to digital systems, and improving network stability will 
streamline operations, reduce bottlenecks, and ensure a 
smoother, more efficient service for both applicants and 
officials.

Database Challenges and Use of  Geospatial Systems
Local government offices in Kigamboni District are 
hindered by structural and technological limitations that 
significantly affect their efficiency and service delivery. 
One major issue is the lack of  dedicated registry spaces 
and absence of  a digital database system. Approved 
permits, though authorized at the local level, are archived 
physically in register books and file shelves at higher-tier 
administrative offices. This decentralized and paper-based 
storage system not only slows down information retrieval 
but also increases the risk of  misplacement, duplication, 
or loss of  critical documents.

The lack of  geospatial technologies—such as GIS 
(Geographic Information Systems)—further limits the 
ability of  planners to monitor and enforce land use 
compliance. Without these tools, it becomes difficult to 
detect illegal developments or assess whether approved 
projects align with zoning regulations, increasing the risk 
of  unregulated construction and land mismanagement.
Moreover, several recurring operational challenges 
compound these issues: incomplete application 
submissions from developers, non-compliant or poorly 
prepared building plans, and the use of  outdated 
equipment, including malfunctioning printers, insufficient 
computers, and limited communication tools. These 
bottlenecks are further exacerbated by weak record-
keeping practices, which lead to delays in processing 
permits and increase administrative burdens on staff.
To improve the situation, there is an urgent need for 
comprehensive reforms, including the digitization 
of  records, the integration of  geospatial tools for 
land monitoring, and substantial investment in office 
infrastructure and staff  training. Upgrading the 
technological and institutional capacity of  local planning 
offices would not only streamline permit issuance but 
also enhance accountability, transparency, and compliance 
with urban development standards in Kigamboni District 
(Kahi, 2015).
The reliance on manual storage strategy complicates 

Figure 11: Building Permits File Storage in Shelves

efforts for specialized personnel to retrieve historical 
building license data for evaluation. Implementing a 
geospatial system in municipal offices would enhance 
data retrieval and analysis, contrasting with traditional 
methods that hinder efficiency (Abdel Wahed et al., 2012). 
Without such a system, gaps in permit management 
lead to haphazard issuance and potential duplication, 
exemplified by 96 land conflicts due to overlapping 
permits in informal settlements. Adopting a geospatial 
system would streamline data management, improve 
accessibility, and reduce duplicate permits, mitigating 
applicant confusion and land disputes.



Pa
ge

 
15

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

Addressing Permit Processing Challenges
To overcome the operational inefficiencies inherent in 
the traditional permit handling process within Kigamboni 
Municipality. To achieve this, a preliminary assessment was 
conducted by mapping out the existing permit workflow 
using flowcharts, which served as a foundational step for 
designing a more effective, technology-driven system. 
This mapping exercise helped identify critical bottlenecks, 
redundant tasks, and potential areas for automation.
The introduction of  a geospatial system represents a 
transformative approach to resolving these challenges. 
By enabling automated detection of  inconsistencies or 
non-compliant aspects of  permit applications, the system 
enhances both the accuracy and speed of  decision-
making. It reduces reliance on manual procedures, which 
are not only time-consuming but also susceptible to 
human error, document misplacement, and procedural 
delays (Abdel Wahed et al., 2012). This digital solution 
also addresses long-standing issues such as unclear 
land boundaries, overlapping claims, and inefficient file 
tracking—factors that frequently contribute to project 
stagnation and legal disputes.
Additionally, the system supports anti-corruption efforts 
by minimizing direct human interference in permit 
approvals, thereby reducing opportunities for bribery 
and favoritism. It fosters transparency by allowing real-

time tracking of  application status and clearly outlining 
procedural steps and timelines. Moreover, coupling this 
technology with proactive public engagement—through 
awareness campaigns, user training, and accessible digital 
platforms—can close the information gap that often 
leaves applicants unaware of  procedures, timelines, or 
required documentation.
Transparent and standardized fee structures are also 
essential, as they help demystify payment expectations 
and prevent arbitrary charges. Altogether, these integrated 
measures not only streamline permit processing but also 
enhance public trust, accountability, and sustainable land 
governance in Kigamboni.

Geo-spatial system development structure
The system integrates spatial data (town plans, surveys, 
permits, road networks) and non-spatial attributes 
(applicant details), processed using ArcGIS/QGIS, 
geo-referencing, and digitization. Unlike Omar (2018), 
it incorporates spatial elements. Design hinges on 
understanding roles of  permit actors to determine data 
needs. Components include mobile data collection via 
smartphones, office-based analysis on computers, and 
centralized server storage, facilitating efficient operations 
for applicants, officials, and local governments
Building Permit Application Process for Applicants

Figure 10: Workflow for Building Permit Issuance.

The building permit system operates through an online 
portal where applicants submit their requests digitally. 
To initiate the process, individuals must complete an 
online form, specify the project location, upload essential 
documents—such as property titles and architectural 
plans—and submit the application to the local 
municipality for evaluation. Users must first register on 
the platform by creating a username, typically using their 
email or a combination of  their legal names, and setting 
a password. This account allows them to track the status 
of  their application.

International examples from countries like Sweden and 
the Netherlands show that digital permit applications 
reduce processing times (Elizabeth & Africa, 2005; 
Olsson et al., 2018). Applicants are advised to securely 
store their login credentials to receive regular updates. 
If  additional documents are requested, these should be 
promptly uploaded to avoid delays. Registration requires 
valid national identification information, and applicants 
must link their contact number and email to receive real-
time notifications.
Once logged in, users must enter personal information—



Pa
ge

 
15

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

including full name, ID number, and address—to verify 
their identity and project site. They can then upload 
all required attachments, such as sales agreements, 
identification documents, technical drawings, site 
photographs, and other relevant files. The portal also 
supports editing of  uploaded plans and enables users 
to overlay infrastructure maps, like roads, to assess site 
accessibility. GPS functionality allows applicants to 
pinpoint their land boundaries via smartphones, generating 
polygonal coordinates for the plot. After submission, the 
application is forwarded to local authorities for review.
Local Government Handling of  Building Permits 
Municipal authorities leverage advanced geospatial 
technologies to evaluate applications, ensuring that 
proposed projects align with urban development plans, 
verifying the legitimacy of  land ownership, and assessing 
compliance with zoning laws. Officials then have the 
authority to either approve or reject the permit applications, 
providing a reasoned explanation for their decisions. If  
the application meets all necessary criteria, it is forwarded 
to the appropriate urban planning department for further 
review. The integration of  geospatial tools streamlines the 
decision-making process by combining both spatial and 
descriptive data (Meijer, 2005), making assessments more 
efficient and accurate.Once the initial document review 
is completed, on-site inspections are scheduled, where 
officials use GPS technology to mark precise locations. 
Even applications from informal settlements are subject 
to the same standardized processes, but they benefit 
from the enhanced monitoring capabilities provided by 
geospatial data repositories, ensuring greater oversight.
The online platform offers real-time updates on the status 
of  applications, allowing for better coordination between 
applicants, local authorities, and other stakeholders. By 
overlaying spatial data on zoning maps, surveyors can 
identify any potential conflicts between the proposed 
land use and existing infrastructure, helping to prevent 
encroachments. Applications that do not align with 
regulations or land-use policies are rejected, while those 
that meet the requirements continue through the approval 
process.

Land Use and Document Authentication
Urban planners use zoning maps to overlay permit 
boundaries, ensuring the proposed projects align with 
established land-use policies. In informal settlements, 
outdated or incomplete plans can lead to delays (Omary, 
2018). The system also employs buffering techniques 
to identify and assess potential infrastructure conflicts, 
preventing issues that might arise from project overlaps. 
During the document verification process, officials 
confirm identities, validate property rights, and collect 
consent forms from neighboring property owners 
to reduce the risk of  disputes.Once the permits are 
authorized, they are forwarded to department leaders for 
final approval. These officials track the progress of  each 
application, working to resolve any obstacles or delays, 
ensuring the timely processing of  requests. This system 

helps streamline the entire approval process and ensures 
that any issues are swiftly addressed, facilitating smoother 
urban development.

Architectural Evaluation and Payment 
Once permits are approved, they undergo a technical 
review to ensure design compliance. Fees are calculated 
based on the size and type of  the building using 
geospatial tools. An automatic payment reference code 
is generated and sent to the applicant via text message. 
After the payment is made, the permits are forwarded 
to municipal panels for final approval.The system stores 
approved permits in a geospatial database (Oldenhuizing 
& Hoogwout, 2004), providing a resource for oversight 
and assessment in areas like Kigamboni. This facilitates 
informed policymaking by offering clear and accessible 
data for evaluation.

Conclusion   
Permit approval delays often result from manual 
procedures; transitioning to geospatial systems can help 
eliminate inefficiencies and reduce corruption, while 
improving overall transparency. Efforts to educate 
communities and modify pricing structures are essential in 
fostering greater compliance. Future studies should focus 
on the role of  geospatial databases in managing land in 
informal settlements, with an emphasis on planning road 
networks and properly documenting properties, in order 
to strengthen urban management practices.

REFERENCES
Abagissa, J. (2019). Informal settlements in Addis Ababa: 

Extent, challenges, and measures taken. Journal of  
Public Administration, Finance and Law, 15, 7–30.

Abdel Wahed, M. M., El Barmalgy, M. M., & Haggag, 
M. R. (2012). Towards an advanced  mechanism to 
benefit from information systems in the issuance of  
building permits. HBRC Journal, 8(1), 58–63. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2012.08.007

Admin. (2020, September 18). Planning Tank. Settlement 
Geography.  h t t p s : / / p l a n n i n g t a n k . c o m /
settlement-geography/sector-model-hoyt-model

Aronoff, S. (1989). Geographic information systems: A 
management perspective. Geocarto International, 4(4), 
58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106048909354237

Botchway, E. A., Afram, S. O., & Ankrah, J. (2014). 
Building permit acquisition in Ghana: The  situation in 
Kumasi. Developing Country Studies, 4(20), 11–22. www.
iiste.org

Durand-Lasserve, A., & Clerc, V. (1996). Regularization 
and integration of  irregular settlements: Lessons 
from Experience, 6, 113. http://ww2.unhabitat.org/
programmes/ump/documents/wp6.pdf

EElizabeth, P., & Africa, S. (2005). Online building 
permit procedures in the Netherlands : A European 
perspective. Health, Environment and Quality Port 
Elizabeth-South Africa, 17(May), 122–134.

FFauth, J., & Soibelman, L. (2022). Conceptual framework 



Pa
ge

 
15

6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajgt

Am. J. Geo Spat. Technol. 4(1) 141-156, 2025

for building permit process modeling: Lessons 
learned from a comparison between Germany and 
the United States regarding the As-Is building permit 
processes. Buildings, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12050638

Kahi M. R. (2015). An assessment of  development control 
systems in Vihiga town –Kenya.  Unpublished M.A 
Thesis, University of  Nairobi.

Kalugila, S. (2013). Housing interventions and its influence on 
urban development: Opportunities and challenges in mixed 
informal settlements in Dar es Salaam—Tanzania. PhD 
Thesis, Bauhaus University.

Kombe, W. J. (2005). Land use dynamics in peri-urban 
areas and their implications on the urban growth 
and form: The case of  Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 
Habitat International, 29(1), 113–135. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00076-6

Lionardo, A., Kurniawan, R., & Umanailo, M. C. B. (2020). 
An effectiveness model of  service policy of  building 
permit (IMB) based on a green spatial environment in 
palembang city.  Proceedings of  the International Conference 
on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 
0(March), 2588–2596.

Meijer, F (2005). Online building permit procedures in the 
Netherlands: A European perspective. OTB Research 
Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, 
Delft University of  Technology, The Netherlands.

 Msuya, S. C.., & Mosha, P. (2017). The challenges of  
development control of  informal settlements in  Arusha 
city : A case of  Ngaranaro ward. August. https://doi.
org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25203.02084

 Noardo, F., Ellul, C., Harrie, L., Overland, I., Shariat, M., 
Arroyo Ohori, K., & Stoter, J. (2020). Opportunities 
and challenges for GeoBIM in Europe: Developing 

a building permits use-case to raise awareness and 
examine technical interoperability challenges. Journal 
of  Spatial Science, 65(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1
080/14498596.2019.1627253

Mastrolembo Ventura, S., Azenha, M., Olsson, P. O., & 
Senger, L. (2022). Unveiling the actual progress of  
digital building permit: Getting awareness through a 
critical state of  the art review. Building and Environment, 
213(January), 108854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2022.1088543

Oldenhuizing, J. & Hoogwout, M., (2004). Centrale Server 
voor Bouwaanvragen,Vereniging BWT Nederland &n Zenc 
BV (The Hague, 16-6-2004).

Olsson, P. O., Axelsson, J., Hooper, M., & Harrie, L. (2018). 
Automation of  building permission by integration of  
BIM and geospatial data. ISPRS International Journal of  
Geo-Inf.

Omar, H. (2018). Building permit in informal settlements-
:A measure of  development control or source of  
municipal revenue: The case of  Ubungo Municipality. 
Research Journal of  Geography, 5(2). https://doi.
org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27746.89283

Todes, A, 2011. Reinventing planning: Critical reflections. 
Urban Forum 22, 115–133.

Uakarn, C. (2021). Sample size estimation using Yamane 
and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and Green 
formulas and Cohen statistical power analysis by 
G*power and comparisons. Apheit nternational Journal, 
10(2), 76–88.

UUN-habitat. (2015). Conference on housing and sustainable 
urban development -Habitat III. Issue Paper No. 22 on 
Informal Settlements. URT-The Urban Planning Act, 
(2007). Nairobi


