GIS Mapping for Social Protection Training Course

Participants can select coordinate systems and assess positional quality for programme data.

• Geographic coordinates, projected coordinates and common coordinate reference systems
• WGS 84 compared with national grids for operational mapping
• Coordinate reference system selection based on extent and analysis purpose
• GPS accuracy, geocoding confidence and address-standardisation error sources
• Check coordinate ranges, duplicates and implausible household locations
• Transformation parameters documented when combining differently referenced datasets

Participants can prepare registry and operational data for reliable spatial use.

• Household identifiers structured for joins without exposing direct personal identifiers
• Data dictionaries define fields, codes, formats and permitted values
• Clean administrative names using reference lists and controlled coding
• Geocode addresses through standardised locality, street and landmark fields
• Join beneficiary tables to boundaries using unique geographic codes
• Validate record counts before and after joins and geocoding
• Missing-location patterns examined by sex, disability, age and geography

Participants can map programme coverage against relevant population denominators.

• Choropleth maps compare beneficiaries, eligible households and total population
• Coverage rates calculated with appropriate denominator definitions and dates
• Administrative boundary joins checked for unmatched and duplicated records
• Classify rates using quantiles, natural breaks and policy thresholds
• Suppress small-area values where disclosure risk affects mapped outputs
• Coverage gaps distinguished from sparse population and incomplete registration

Participants can design clear thematic maps for operational and management audiences.

• Visual hierarchy directs attention toward the programme decision question
• Sequential, diverging and categorical colour schemes matched to data types
• Legend classes, titles and source notes written for nontechnical readers
• Label placement manages dense settlements, facilities and administrative names
• Inset maps, scale bars and north arrows used selectively
• Accessibility checks consider colour vision, print quality and projection

Participants can map geographic targeting criteria while documenting fairness risks.

• Geographic targeting criteria combine poverty, deprivation and service-access indicators
• Small-area estimation results interpreted alongside survey and registry limitations
• Weighted overlay models rank localities using explicit policy weights
• Sensitivity analysis tests how changing weights alters priority areas
• Exclusion and inclusion risks assessed across demographic and geographic groups
• Targeting rules documented with assumptions, thresholds and approval ownership

Participants can assess physical access to programme delivery points.

• Network analysis estimates routes from settlements to service facilities
• Travel-time catchments model walking, road and public-transport assumptions
• Euclidean distance compared with network distance for planning decisions
• Locate-allocation analysis identifies candidate payment-point and registration-centre sites
• Barrier layers represent rivers, seasonal roads, checkpoints and terrain
• Accessibility results segmented by disability, age and household composition

Participants can select appropriate satellite data for social protection questions.

• Satellite imagery resolutions matched to settlement, vegetation and flood questions
• Optical and radar imagery compared under cloud and rainfall conditions
• Spectral bands explain vegetation, water and built-up area signals
• Landsat and Sentinel data sources assessed for coverage and revisit frequency
• Image dates selected to match programme timelines and seasonal patterns
• Remote-sensing outputs treated as indicators rather than household-level proof

Participants can map population exposure to selected hazards for response planning.

• Flood extent layers intersected with beneficiary and settlement datasets
• Drought indicators interpreted using rainfall anomalies and vegetation indices
• Hazard, exposure and vulnerability distinguished within risk assessment
• Overlay analysis identifies enrolled households inside affected administrative areas
• Pre-agreed trigger thresholds linked to programme scale-up decisions
• Uncertainty communicated when hazard boundaries and household locations differ

Participants can combine socioeconomic indicators into interpretable vulnerability maps.

• Multidimensional poverty indicators mapped at available geographic resolution
• Deprivation indices standardised before comparison across local areas
• Z-score normalisation supports combining indicators with different measurement scales
• Composite index construction records weights, directionality and missing values
• Bivariate maps compare programme coverage with poverty or deprivation
• Ecological fallacy avoided when interpreting area-level vulnerability results

Participants can identify and interpret spatial concentration patterns in programme data.

• Spatial autocorrelation measured using Global Moran's I statistics
• Local Moran's I identifies high-high and low-low programme clusters
• Hot Spot Analysis applies Getis-Ord Gi* to concentrated patterns
• Rate smoothing reduces instability in small-population administrative areas
• Cluster results checked against data completeness and reporting practices
• Spatial patterns interpreted with local knowledge before operational decisions

Participants can design location-enabled field data collection for programme verification.

• Mobile survey forms capture coordinates, photographs and validation fields
• KoboToolbox forms apply skip logic, constraints and required responses
• Sampling plans distinguish verification visits from representative household surveys
• Field protocols record consent, accuracy settings and enumerator responsibilities
• Offline collection workflows manage synchronisation, versioning and error correction
• Quality-control dashboards track completeness, location accuracy and duplicate submissions

Participants can apply appropriate controls to sensitive location-based programme data.

• Data minimisation limits location fields to justified programme purposes
• Pseudonymisation separates direct identifiers from mapped analytical records
• Role-based access controls restrict household-level GIS data distribution
• Aggregation thresholds reduce re-identification risk in published maps
• Purpose limitation governs reuse of registry and location datasets
• Metadata records lineage, custodian, update frequency and access conditions

Participants can document repeatable GIS workflows with quality controls.

• Workflow diagrams define inputs, transformations, outputs and approval points
• Standard operating procedures specify recurring mapping and update tasks
• Version control practices preserve source data and reproducible analysis steps
• Quality-assurance checks test geometry, attributes, joins and calculations
• Peer review checklists assess analytical logic, maps and documentation
• Update schedules align geographic datasets with registry refresh cycles

Participants can present spatial findings with clear recommendations and limitations.

• Decision briefs link mapped evidence to specific operational choices
• Map annotations explain priority areas, uncertainty and recommended actions
• Story maps sequence context, analysis, findings and implementation implications
• Executive presentations distinguish observed patterns from causal claims
• Scenario maps compare alternative outreach, payment and expansion options
• Feedback sessions capture field validation before final programme decisions

Participants can build, review and present a complete GIS analysis package for a social protection programme decision.

• Problem statement specifies programme decision, users, geography and timeframe
• Data inventory documents registry, boundaries, facilities, hazards and limitations
• Analysis workflow combines coverage, access, vulnerability and exposure methods
• Map portfolio presents findings through decision-ready thematic and reference maps
• Quality review applies accuracy, ethics, metadata and interpretation checks
• Recommendations prioritise actions, owners, dependencies and monitoring indicators
• Presentation defends methods, findings, limitations and implementation choices