URBAN PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
This brief looks at some of the issues of participatory planning in general and what differences might be found between urban participatory planning and rural participatory planning.
The urban poor in an increasingly urban ised world
In 2011 world population reached 7 billion people and is projected to surpass 9 billion by 2050 (UNDP 2009a.). With an urban population of 3.3 billion in 2008, the proportion of people living in cities reached the 50% mark, and by 2030 the urban population is expected to expand to 5 billion. The towns and cities of the developing world are expected to contain up to 80 per cent of the 5 billion urban population. In particular it is predicted that Africa and Asia will see their urban populations double by 2030 (UNFPA 2007). Almost all of the world’s population growth over the next 30 years is likely to be concentrated in urban areas (UNFPA 2008). Urban environments present many opportunities on both an individual, and an institutional level (Sattherthwaite 2007) in terms of improving livelihoods, as well as in the sustainable distribution of and access to resources (Jenks et al 2000). However, the management of the pattern of urbanization and the development of cities can have profound effects on h ow equitably and sustainably these opportunities and resources may be shared, and how their positive and negative effects impact on the population (Sattherthwaite 2007, Graham and Marvin 2001, Castells 2009). The urban poor remain a largely underrepresent ed and misunderstood section of the poor community (Patel and Mitlin 2002, d’Cruz and Sattherthwaite 2005, Jones and Corbridge 2010), however their continued growth and potential to self -organise (d’Cruz and Sattherthwaite 2005) gives rise to the possibility that, if they were recognized in urban governance processes they could lobby for more equitably distributed rights and access to the resources that urban environments hold.
What does Participation mean? Reengaging with unjust systems of inequality
Participation has been a popular buzzword in development theory and practice since the 1980s, and continues to be so to this day. The concept of participation has its roots in radical grass-roots movements, with the original aim being the transformation of marginalising political and social structures (Leal P.A. 2010). Since its original introduction, the term has grown in popularity in
Figure 1: Community Action Planning Event hosted by Practical Action with Nyalenda, A Neighbourhood Planning Association, Kisumu, Kenya.
Photo credit: Caroline Cage.
Practical Action, The Schumacher Centre, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV23 9QZ, UK T +44 (0)1926 634400 | F +44 (0)1926 634401 | E infoserv@practicalaction.org.uk | W www.practicalaction.org ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Practical Action is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Company Reg. No. 871954, England | Reg. Charity No.247257 | VAT No. 880 9924 76 | Patron HRH The Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB
Urban participatory planning
Practical Action
mainstream development theory and practice (The United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS) declaration (1976) in Vancouver, and the Earth Summit (1992) in Rio are among the major world conventions that gave significant impetus to participatory planning approaches). A number of participatory approaches have been developed in an effort to ‘standardize’ and institutionalize participation in development practice. For example, Participatory Urban Appraisal (PUA) methodologies; Rural Rapid Appraisal (RRA) techniques; Participatory Learning Methods (PALM); Micro-planning; Planning for Real; ZOPP and UNCHS (Habitat) Participatory Urban Decision Making; Community Action Planning (CAP) among others. In particular Participatory Urban Appraisal (PUA) has been used in many urban settings to identify the needs and priorities of communities, often in combination with Community Action Pla nning, in order to develop a series of actionable ideas for the implementation of community development. At the city level City Development Strategies (CDSs) have enabled city residents to participate in the prioritisation of city development projects while participatory budgeting has enabled residents to influence the planning and spending of municipal budgets, and at the national level new policy models such as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) aim to institutionalise participatory processes. However, in recent years there has been much criticism and debate over the concept of participation. It has been argued by some scholars that since the adoption of the concept of participation into mainstream development practice it has become co-opted and ‘modified, sanitised, and depoliticised’ (Leal, P.A. 2010 :95) as a tool to better serve the dominant neoliberal agenda in order to maintain rather than challenge the status quo and current inequities. Many civil society organisations, wanting to remain neutral in their interactions, are reluctant to get involved in local politics, however through their processes and interventions it would be unavoidable not to have an effect on existing power structures and hierarchies. The tools that have been developed often tend to address either sectoral or specific development issues in specific countries, and many of the broader participatory methodologies, having originally been developed in the North, and often also developed in rural environments may not be suitable for addressing the complexity of urban life. Thus many existing approaches oversimplify the concept of ‘communities’ and the political, social and cultural context in which they and the groups and individuals that constitute them form and are formed by. In response to the perceived lack of engagement with the power struggles and inequalities associated with participation, there has been a substantial amount of debate on how participation can reengage with its transformative roots (see for example Cook and Kothari 2001 followed by Hickey and Mohan 2004 for some of the discussion). It is argued that a development intervention should not only aim to understand existing power structures both internal and external to the ‘community’ in which it is Figure 2: Ladies from Gonda Nguono Self-help Group working, but also aim to build collecting water from a shallow well, Manyatta A ward, the capacity of those who are Kisumu, Kenya marginalised to engage with Photo credit: Caroline Cage those in positions of power, as well as to create secure and inclusive spaces where this can take place. The poor should not be seen solely as participants in the design and implem entation of development activities, but also as partners and active agents of change within themselves. In this way participation may give the opportunity for a longer-term, more meaningful involvement of marginalised members of that society.
2
Urban participatory planning
Practical Action
What does participation mean in the urban context? Complexity and diversity
As the world demographic has shifted from being more rural to more urban , the focus on participation in urban settings has also intensified. However, while there is increasing focus on urban environments, there is still debate as to what differences should be recognised as significant in the transition from rural to urban, and in turn what effect this should have on the processes and techniques used in participation at an urban scale, and whether it is appropriate to use or adapt processes that were initially developed for use in rural environments . While some have argued that there are few significant differences between rural and urban environments in terms of participatory processes (Mitlin 1995), there are a number of key factors that become at least more significant in urban environments, and will therefore need to be taken into consideration in the participatory approaches used (Sahley and Pratt 2003): Defining community : Many of the participatory approaches designed in rural areas were developed for use at the household or community level. However, the use of the word ‘community’ has been widely criticised in terms of the underlying assumptions in defining those who live in a particular geographical area as likely to be homogenous and cohesive in nature. Even within the smaller ‘communities’ in rural environments this is unlikely to be true, but even more so within the dynamic social environment of urban settings. While some people may have lived in the same area for many years, a large proportion of the population is likely to be made up of a fluctuating number of migrant workers and tenants, there is also likely to be much more diversity as people from many different areas, backgrounds and cultures come to take advantage of the opportunities of urban environments. “The reality in urban areas is that even people living on the same street can have little in common, either socially or economically: beyond sharing a few basic services” Sahley and Pratt (2003:31) The lives and livelihoods of the poor are often made up of a complex web of connections and interactions (Nabeel Hamdi (2004) cites five types of overlapping ‘communities’ that people are often simultaneously connected to) that become even more complex in urban environments. The increased heterogeneity can mean that there is greater potential for the divisions and inequities between groups experienced in small pockets elsewhere to become much more apparent, and potentially volatile in the densely populated and overlapping environments in urban areas. However, there is also a greater potential for changes in traditional hierarchies and social norms and thus greater potential opportunities for those who are traditionally marginalised in soc iety, such as women. Scale: The increasing scale of urban environments means not only that ‘communities’ within themselves have become more complex, but also that their population mass and density as well as in the complexity of how they fit into the urban fabric and the relationship between areas of poverty and the urban environments in which they are located is also changing. While some settlements, ‘informal’ or ‘formal’ have been in existence for many years, others are emerging all the time, as official and unofficial approaches to Figure 3: Mathare informal settlement, Nairobi, Kenya dealing with the urban poor are Photo credit: Caroline Cage changing. It becomes much harder to define a community when the face of poverty within the city is constantly shifting. However, while the scale of urban poverty is often overwhelming to local and international institutions alike, the numbers and density of the poor in urban environments can also present new opportunities in terms of the potential scale at which the poor can act collectively. Thus, while 3
Urban participatory planning
Practical Action
the heterogeneity of populations may mean that forming alliances can be complex, where they are built the voice of people living in poor environments can potentially be much more powerful and influential. Institutional complexity : Sahley and Pratt (2003:32) identify some of the variety of institutions that exist in urban environments: Community Based Organisations, workers’ cooperatives, trade unions, Non-Governmental Organisations, the local state, the local government, public institutions or quangos, political parties, and a host of other intere st groups. Not to mention private investors, local service providers and other international agencies etc. that may also be very influential in urban environments. Thus there are a wide variety of institutions, public, private and civil society, all with their own levels of influence, approaches and objectives. This has led to a much more complex and politicised institutional environment in urban areas, with a range of actors with varying levels of control over planning decisions. The overlapping of old and new systems of governance has led to increased complexity in the policies and regulations that regulate urban planning, so there may be a number of overlapping policies and underlying and explicit influences that affect urban planning decisions. Economic, livelihood and tenure diversity: In comparison to communities that largely rely on agriculture in rural environments, the diversity of employment opportunities within urban environments means that there is also a range of levels of income within communities, leading to increased heterogeneity of urban poor populations (Sahley and Pratt 2003). To further complicate this diversity, the majority of urban growth in developing countries is also characterised by “informality, Figure 4: Artisans Women’s Group, Nyalenda A, Kisumu, Kenya
Photo credit: Caroline Cage
illegality and unplanned settlements” (UN Habitat
tenure categories…from pavement dwellers to freehold owners”
2008:30) and thus in the majority of cities there is a “continuum of
(Payne, G. 2001:1) with associated levels of relative security. Particularly where a settlement is well located there is likely to be a large proportion of slum tenants, often paying very high rents proportionate to their income. For example in a 2008 study of tenure in Nairobi’s slums it was found that 92% of the households are rent-paying tenants (Gulyani and Talukdar 2008:1921). So within any one poor neighbourhood there may be pavement dwellers, tenants, structure owners, and landlords, Figure 5: Risper Ongwang selling mandazi at the road all with very different livelihood side in Manyatta A ward, Kisumu, Kenya opportunities, and all with very Photo credit: Caroline Cage. different levels of assets. Thus it becomes even more important that participatory approaches in urban areas take into account the range of influences over potential livelihood and shelter opportunities for the different sections of the urban poor, and how this 4
Urban participatory planning
Practical Action
impacts on their position within the economic hierarchy.
Putting urban poverty in context: Where do the urban poor fit in the institutional web?
Many of the community level tools listed in the first section of this paper are useful for providing a snapshot of the make-up of a particular community as perceived by those who live there. However, as noted above, urban environments tend to be much more heterogeneous, and often involve a far more complex network of relationships. Thus existing participatory approaches that try to build consensus within communities may be more problematic in urban areas and may potentially serve to strengthen and mask power relations, rather than address underlying inequalities. Instead, some have argued that a more appropriate approach is one that sees participation as an evolving process which recognises differences, seeks to engage different actors at different moments, and allows for both conflict and consensus within this process:
“In a context of inequality, every citizen must also be empowered to participate, and that entails treating them differently both because their power resources are unequal and because, without adopting a misplaced essentialism, they often have different needs. The process should provide resources and opportunities to engage at every stage and to put new issues on the agenda.”
(Silver, H et al, 2010:472), This should include processes to engage members of the population who do not normally participate (women, youths and other marginalised members of the population) either through their perceived role wit hin society, or restrictions imposed on them by other members of society. In urban environments it becomes increasingly important to understand the wider dynamics of power relations both internal and external t o the community. A number of tools are now emerging which aim to help practitioners to visualise the interplay of power relations at the macro-level of society in relation to the different actors, institutions and networks that operate and have influence over the social and economic powers that shap e urban environments. Often these tools or approaches have been developed from tools that seek to place the marginalised actors within the institutional web (see for example Caren Levy’s web of institutionalisation (1996)), and are also often based on a systems theory approach that recognises the fluctuating dynamics of the urban institutional context (for example the use of Outcome Mapping is increasing in popularity as a more dynamic approach to monitoring and evaluation of projects (Earl et al 2001)).
FFigure6: Caren Levy’s web of institutionalisation (1996) adapted for aaworkshop by Architecture igure 6: Caren Levy’s web of institutionalisation (1996) adapted for workshop by Architecture Sans Frontiers – UK outlining some of the issues affecting a slum 5community in Nairobi, Kenya
Credit: ASF-UK, Change by Design Workshop, 2011 (Report forthcoming)
Post a Comment