Efficacy in Action: Mobilising Community Participation for Inclusive Urban Development

Abstract

The idea of inclusive development rides high on the international agenda, following publication of the Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015 and the Habitat III New Urban Agenda in 2016. The commitment to 'leave no one behind' in tackling the linked challenges of economic, social and environmental development provides an encompassing statement of intent. However, it also raises a number of important questions about how ideas of inclusivity are translated into practice, in contexts where there are extreme imbalances in resource and power and where established structures of governance marginalise the involvement of the poor in the delivery of development. Drawing on a case study of a SDI affiliate organisations in Harare, Zimbabwe, this paper examines the creation of efficacy among low-income community members as a foundation for inclusive urban development. The case study is used to discuss the importance of building efficacy as a necessary condition for communities to engage in development.

Assessing the state of the art in community engagement for participatory decision-making in disaster risk-sensitive urban development

“…Lack of communities’ knowledge and awareness of urban development plans, formal development procedures, and benefits of community participation [ 5 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ] 13 26% 1 2. Consultation fatigue due to lack of communities’ interest in engagement [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ] 7 14% 6 3. Lack of capacity (individuals’ lack of interpersonal skills and/or self-confidence) within community organisations [ 23 , 33 , 34 , 42 , 43 ] 5 10% 8 4.…”

“…Lack of capacity (individuals’ lack of interpersonal skills and/or self-confidence) within community organisations [ 23 , 33 , 34 , 42 , 43 ] 5 10% 8 4. High levels of poverty that exist within most community members inspire them not to attend in engagement activities [ 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] 5 10% 8 5. Low levels of literacy and numeracy and the dominance of oral culture among communities [ 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 47 ] 5 10% 8 6.…”

“…History of poor relations of communities with decision-makers and urban planners [ 23 , 33 , 34 , 40 , 46 , 47 ] 6 12% 7 3. Community engagement is considered as a threat by communities due to discrimination, fear of exposure to authorities (over drug use, immigration status, or stigmatising illness), and engagement is seen as diverting existing funding into other initiatives [ 33 , 34 , 41 , 51 ] 4 8% 9 4. Communities’ lack of trust, respect, and confidence in the planning system [ 29 , 31 , 37 ] 3 6% 10 5.…”

“…Some community members (political followers) involved in informal political networks to gain own personal benefits rather than having a collective and long-term approach for urban development [ 32 ] 1 2% 12 Organisational culture, attitudes, and knowledge 1. Continuous top-down and centralised management of government authorities [ 6 , 25 , 33 , 41 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ] 9 18% 4 2. Lack of organisational commitment for engaging communities [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 59 , 60 ] 9 18% 4 3.…”

“…In this regard, Protik and Nichols-Barrer [ 30 ] stated that most urban people have no idea about the discernible impacts of community engagement in urban development plans. Consultation fatigue, due to a lack of communities’ interest in engagement [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], is the second top barrier with communities and causes the public to not to take part in decision-making in sustainable development plans. Three further challenges: a lack of capacity within community organisations [ 23 , 33 , 34 , 42 , 43 ]; the high levels of poverty that exist for many community members [ 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ], and low levels of literacy and numeracy and the dominance of oral culture among communities [ 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 47 ] were identified as the next set of barriers hampering community engagement.…”