ESSENTIALS FOR THE SOCIAL PRODUCTION OF THE HABITAT
This handbook forms part of the independent learning course ‘Challenging Practice: Essentials for the Social Production of Habitat’, first launched by ASF-International in 2012.
Challenging Practice was developed because ASF-International strongly believes that the production of cities that are inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable—as defined by the UN Sustainable Development Goal 11—requires a broader approach from built environment professionals.
Today the majority of us are living in urban areas, and the UN estimates that “one in four city dwellers—more than 1 billion people—live in precarious conditions, without access to basic services or adequate housing and are excluded from health, education, and livelihood opportunities”1. People living in informal settlements are also the most vulnerable to climate change. The demand for suitably skilled professionals who can work alongside local communities to tackle together the social and environmental challenges they face is increasingly evident. At the same time, mainstream education and practice in architecture and urban planning tend to, above technical and aesthetic aspects, focus more on commercial profits. Social and environmental concerns and a broader understanding of professional responsibilities are too often overlooked. Research into technical, aesthetic and economic means of reducing the costs of construction for the majority remains important, but does not address the pressing need to promote inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities for all.
ASF-International created the course Challenging Practice and this handbook to challenge built environment professionals’ existing knowledge and perspectives, and to enable us all to gain an understanding of some of the complexities of this field, so that we can better engage in the pro-
duction of habitat with and for the world’s most vulnerable people.
We hope that the course will build on existing skills and experience, and will contribute to shifting the focus that built environment students and professionals are often encouraged to accept during their studies and working lives, towards a much deeper engagement with questions of equity, inclusivity, participation and resilience.
Each urban context, from the global north to the global south, is unique and particular to its history and location. This course has therefore been developed to help built environment professionals explore and develop principles of engagement and analysis, rather than give answers to specific problems or concerns. The goal is to widen the scope of built environment practice so that it becomes more of a gathering of knowledge that allows one to make cities fair and sustainable for all, rather than a limited sector dedicated to planning, designing and building for the creditworthy. There is nothing fundamentally new in this approach, but an important shift in the way we position ourselves.
1. Castan Broto V., Osuteye E. and Westman, L. (2022). One billion of the world’s most climatevulnerable people live in informal settlements – here’s what they face. The Conversation [online]. Available at: https://theconversation. com/a-billion-of-the-worlds-most-climatevulnerable-people-live-in-informalsettlements-heres-what-they-face-178116
The handbook is meant to support learning both in preparation for and during the course. It presents an ensemble of short modules that provide an initial overview of the knowledge that might be required of built environment professionals who want to support more inclusive and collaborative forms of city making, particularly in informal, contested, or fragile urban environments. The modules are organised into five sections: Introduction, Challenges, Contexts, Principles and Tools. Apart from the introductory ones, the remaining modules are not intended to have any form of hierarchy in how they are approached.
All the modules aim to give an introduction to a range of topics and have been written by a wide range of experts in different fields from across the globe. To supplement the short texts, we suggest some key readings or films, which form an essential part of the module. All the core resources listed in the modules are freely accessible on the internet: if the links provided should be no longer active, learners are invited to look for them on the internet by means of typing their titles into any search engine.
ASF-International, 2022
Urban Context
Theoretical Frameworks
CHALLENGES
Social Exclusion
Conflicts
Disasters and Climate Change
Migration
CONTEXTS
Informal Settlements
Heritage
Inner City Areas
PRINCIPLES
Ethics in Built Environment
Practice
Participation
Community Resilience
TOOLS
Partnerships
Participatory Design Tools
1. To gain a preliminary understanding of the complex linkages between urban development, informal urbanisation and their nested social, spatial and political ramifications.
2. To identify the main historical and contemporary approaches of the different disciplines (built environment professions, and design specifically) within the process of scalar intervention in urban transformations.
Across the globe, urban poverty and its spatial manifestations are intrinsically linked to the social production of cities. These factors cannot be addressed without engaging with local and global economic trends, and their embedded sociopolitical contexts. According to the renowned 2003 UN report, The Challenge of Slums, “urban populations have increased explosively in the past 50 years, and will continue to do so for at least the next 30 years as the number of people born in cities increase, and as people continue to be displaced from rural areas that are almost at capacity” (United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2003, p.xxxi). At the time of The Challenge of Slums report, rapid urbanisation was seen as a predominately Global South issue. However, international development discourse has since moved on to reflect a universal set of challenges for ensuring global sustainability - most recently illustrated by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include a specific goal (Goal 11) for achieving sustainable cities. (United Nations, 2015)
Subsequent to the SDGs in 2015, United Nations member states agreed the next 20-year international agenda for urban development –the New Urban Agenda (Habitat III) – a universal agreement highlighting the importance of supporting more sustainable and equal cities. (UN-Habitat, 2016) However, today, economic competition is one of the chief forces driving urbanisation and its extraordinarily unbalanced growth, leading to increasingly unequal cities. (Beard, Mahendra and Westphal, 2016) As a result of the increasing pressure on land, and the growing range of contestations that complement it, cities in both the global ‘North’ and ‘South’ can be increasingly viewed as critical arenas where contrasting forces and agendas compete for spatial and environmental resources, and economic opportunities.1 As Susan Fainstein highlights, decisions concerning land management, infrastructures, and the location of facilities are often warped by considerations of their economic,
as opposed to their social, impacts. (Fainstein, 2010) Urban development projects are largely expected to generate business opportunities and to create profitable conditions for private investments, while often ignoring the needs of, and exacerbating the disadvantages suffered by, the politically and economically weak. The development of cities across the globe illustrates how easily this inequality has been designed into the fabric of cities, persisting for decades if not centuries.
Against this background, the unremitting expansion of ‘slum’, ‘squatter’ or ‘informal’ housing settlements across the Global South, and the increasing scarcity of affordable housing in the Global North, are among the key challenges facing the disciplines of architecture, urban design, and planning. Informal settlements are “urban assemblages that operate outside the formal control of the state”. (Dovey and Rahajo, 2010, p.79) They are the most apparent
outcome of multi-scalar, intertwined dynamics2 including the global phenomena of uneven geographical development,3 localised logics of political domination and structural exclusion, and the unequal distribution of resources and recognition.4 [Link to module 3. Social Exclusion and 7. Informal Settlements]
The main challenges facing lower-income urban dwellers living in these sites are commonly broken down into three major components: (United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2003)
1. Land. Informal settlements face two critical issues. Firstly, many informal settlements have been located in central-city locations that over time increase in value and become desirable sites for formal development by governments. [Link to module: 9. Inner Cities] Secondly, informal settlements are frequently built on high-
risk, marginal land that is formally considered unsuitable for development, and/or prone to hazards such as pollution, flooding or landslides.6 [Link to module 5. Disasters and Climate Change] Moreover, low-income urban households generally cannot gain access to secure land tenure. Their unstable residential status implies that they may continuously face threats of eviction, or find it difficult to secure work and credit/finance mechanisms.
2. Housing. For residents, the limits imposed by overcrowding and the poor structural quality of housing parallel those of the lack of safe and secure land. On the one hand, poor quality housing denies the right to an “adequate standard of living”, as set forth by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ((UDHR) United Nations, 1948). On the other, it may limit further opportunities, such as the freedom to develop income-generating activities, or to gain
a residential address, which often denies, among other things, access to voting rights and, ultimately, citizenship [Link to module 3. Social Exclusion].
3. Infrastructure and amenities. As they are officially defined as ‘illegal’, ‘extra-legal’ or ‘squatter’, informal settlements are largely excluded from state provisions of infrastructural services (water, sanitation) and facilities (ranging from transport to childcare). Even where low-income residents live in more formal settlements, city planning rarely seeks to connect them to basic infrastructure. The subsequent private distribution of services can be considered to be among the causes of prolonged poverty: costs related to water, sanitation, schools, health care, and transport being additional burdens on the lives of low-income urban residents.
Over the past fifty years, a variety of intervention strategies have been formulated to deal with the physical and spatial components of urban poverty, and their relations to informal urbanisation processes. Conceptual understandings have also mutated, as views of informal housing practices have gradually evolved from “abnormal or illegal” to “strategies socially necessary for the poor to survive” (Ramirez, 2010, p.138). Inhabitants have become appreciated as the key “positive force”5 in the process of ameliorating their own living environments [Link to module 2. Theoretical Frameworks].
Such societal transformations, with non-linear courses most evidently reflected in the coexisting/ conflicting ways of naming informal settlements8 , are connected to changing interpretations of both ‘development’ and built environment interventions within the urban development process.7 In general terms, notions of ‘urban development’ have shifted from the 1950s phase of ‘modernisation’ and centralised planning, involving “the parallel provision of everything including sites and services” (Hamdi, 2010, p.10), to a later phase of “urban management, and the targeting of effort
directly on poverty reduction as an objective on its own right” (Hamdi, 2010, p.14). At the same time, the role and scope of built environment interventions have also been subjected to continuous re-formulations.9 Largely emerging from a radical rejection of modernist planning in the 1960s and 1970s, the relatively recent appearance of “informal urbanisation as an object of analysis and as a field of action” (Fiori and Brandão, 2009, p.185) has furthered a comprehensive critique of designbased strategies of transformation. This process has resulted in a deep questioning of the extent to which the occasional physical ‘improvement’ of settlements, and the provision of services, can positively influence the lives of lower-income urban dwellers in the longer term.
The challenges of realising significant built interventions in the context of ‘informal settlements’ remain innumerable. However, it can be argued that drifting away from solely formal and technical preoccupations, and prioritising critical engagement with the social dynamics that are embedded in the production of urban space, are the first steps to pursuing more equitable forms of spatial change in contemporary urban environments. Meaningful engagement with communities and the complex social and political contexts they exist within can co-create interventions that give voice and form to the needs and aspirations of residents, whilst supporting their capacity to modify their own spaces of living. In both physical and socio-political terms, this process gives access to wider rights and improved livelihoods in the city.
This implies that a critical re-positioning of specialised expertise is required across all professions of the built environment; and of professional non-profit organisations such as ASF in particular. Among others, Jeremy Till suggests the concept of ‘Spatial Agency’ as a way to address an expanded definition of architecture, where design and planning experts “are not professionals in the protective sense of the word, or indeed care about this alleged status, but instead engage with the world as expert citizens, working with others, the
citizen experts, on equal terms.” (Awan, Schneider and Till, 2011, p.32) The ‘spatial agent’ defined by Till “is one who affects change through the empowerment of others, allowing them to engage in their spatial environments in ways previously unknown or unavailable to them, opening up new freedoms and potentials as a result of a reconfigured social space.” (Awan, Schneider and Till, 2011, p.32)
This shift in the role of ‘experts’ – suggesting that designers and planners are part of a wider network of individuals and groups who are equally involved in the production of urban space – requires the inclusion of new understandings and operational means in the training and education of built environment professionals [Link to module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice]. Seen in this light, the following texts start to tease the boundaries of traditional professionalism, vis-à-vis the challenges posed by operating within the so-called field of
‘urban development’. There is a primary need for furthering more reflective attitudes toward practice [Link to module 2. Theoretical Frameworks], as well as more in-depth understandings of the historical and material dialectics shaping the city [Link to module 8. Heritage and 9. Inner City Areas]. At the same time, there is an urge to experiment with networked approaches that can overcome the incompleteness and limitations of individual, single-disciplinary ‘authors’ of projects, and help place professional contributions within larger social and political settings [Link to module 13. Partnerships]. Finally, a radical shift from well-established biases in the practice of all design-related disciplines is required, based on the development of participatory approaches to architecture, urban design, and planning. This seeks to establish an inclusion first approach to the design of cities, and therefore requires critical investigation into more socially responsive forms of intervention [Link to module 11. Participation].
Urban poverty: spatial/physical dimensions
UN-Habitat (2015) A Practical Guide to Designing, Planning, and Executing Citywide Slum Upgrading Programmes. UN-Habitat. Available at: https://unhabitat. org/a-practical-guide-to-designing-planning-andexecuting-citywide-slum-upgrading-programmes
As an introduction, read the first chapter of this report by UN-Habitat, it provides a concise summary of the causes and issues related to informal settlements.
McGranahan, G., Schensul, D. and Singh, G. (2016) ‘Inclusive urbanization: Can the 2030 Agenda be delivered without it?’, Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), pp. 13–34. Available at: https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956247815627522
Watson, V. (2009) ‘Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s Central Urban Issues’, Urban Studies, 46, pp. 2259–2275. Available at: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/248974362_ Seeing_from_the_South_Refocusing_Urban_ Planning_on_the_Globe’s_Central_Urban_Issues
Design and planning in development
Patel, S., Burra, S. and D’Cruz, C. (2001) ‘Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI) – foundations to treetops’, Environment & Urbanization, 13(2), pp. 45–60. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/21st_Century/ resources/papers/documents/patel.pdf
This paper describes the formation and development of Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI), an international people’s organisation which represents member federations of urban poor and homeless groups from 11 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It describes the evolution of these national federations and how they grew to challenge conventional development thinking and to develop new, community-directed precedents
for poverty reduction. The paper also describes SDI’s experiences with international agencies, including its involvement in the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure, and the measures taken to ensure that its work with and experience of the ‘global’ benefits and strengthens the ‘local’, adding value to the plans of the urban poor.
Kapp, S., Baltazar, A. P. and Morado, D. (2010) ‘Architecture as Critical Exercise: Little Pointers Towards Alternative Practices’, Field Journal, 2(1), pp. 7–30. Available at: http://www.field-journal.org/uploads/ file/2008%20Volume%202%20/Architecture%20 as%20Critical%20Exercise_MOM.pdf
This paper aims to reframe the operative field of architecture by interpreting it as an event and an open process. This shift in attention, from finished objects towards the whole process of design, building and use, wrests the production of urban space from the clutches of specialists, most notably architects and planners, and places it in a much broader social context. Based on this assumption, the authors ask: what would then be left for architects and built environment professionals to do? The paper argues that professionals should take on three fundamental tasks: a constant and incisive theoretical and practical critique; the production of interfaces or instruments for helping all actors involved to realise their own critical actions on space; and thirdly, any mediation required between the actors themselves and those interfaces or instruments. The paper argues that these proposed practices represent attempts to overcome the production of space as “reproduction of the social relations of production”.
1. For further reading on the subject, see among others: (Shatkin, 2007).
2. For further reading on the subject see: (Soja, 2010).
3. Economist Paul Collier delves into the underlying dynamics of uneven development in: (Collier, 2008). For a critical understanding also reference: (Harvey, 2006, p.119-148).
4. On the terming and role of ‘recognition’ see: (Appadurai, 2004).
5. See also: (Satterwaite, 2007) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=IuVTqlSelDI&feature=youtu. be (Accessed: 1 March 2021).
6. On the large-scale, territorial logics of informal urbanisation, see among others: (Dovey and Rahajo, 2010, p.80-81).
7. The process of re-considering informal housing strategies as a ‘positive force’ can be dated back to least to the 1960s.
8. For further reading on the subject, see among others: (Roy, 2005) and (Gilbert, 2007).
9. Synthetic accounts of such different interpretations can be found in: (d’Auria, Meulder and Shannon, 2010); (Fiori and Brandão, 2009) and (Hamdi, 2010).
Appadurai, A. (2004) ‘The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition’, in Rao, V. and Walton, M. (eds) Culture and Public Action. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, pp. 59–84. Available at: https://gsdrc. org/document-library/the-capacity-to-aspireculture-and-the-terms-of-recognition/
d’Auria, V., Meulder, B. and Shannon, K. (2010) ‘The Nebulous Notion of Human Settlements: Tools for Orientation’, in Human Settlements: Formulations and (re)Calibrations. SUN Academia, pp. 8–27.
Awan, N., Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2011) Spatial agency: other ways of doing architecture. Abingdon, Oxon [England]; New York, NY: Routledge.
Beall, J. (2002) ‘Globalization and social exclusion in cities: framing the debate with lessons from Africa and Asia’, Environment and Urbanization, 14(1), pp. 41–51. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/095624780201400104
Beard, V. A., Mahendra, A. and Westphal, M. I. (2016) ‘Towards a More Equal City: Framing the Challenges and Opportunities’, World Resources Report. Available at: https://www.wri.org/ wri-citiesforall/publication/towards-more-equalcity-framing-challenges-and-opportunities
Boano, C., Lamarca, M. G. and Hunter, W. (2011) ‘The Frontlines of Contested Urbanism Mega-projects and Mega-resistances in Dharavil’, Journal of Developing Societies, 27(3–4), pp. 295–326. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.1177/0169796X1102700404
Collier, P. (2008) The bottom billion: why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. 1. OUP paperback. Oxford: Univ. Press.
Davis, M. (2007) Planet of slums. Paperback ed. London; New York: Verso.
Dovey, K. and Rahajo, W. (2010) ‘Becoming Prosperous: Informal Urbanism in
Yogyakarta’, in Dovey, K. (ed.) Becoming places: urbanism/architecture/identity/ power. London; New York: Routledge.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010) The Just City. Ithaca London: Cornell University Press.
Fiori, J. and Brandão, Z. (2009) ‘Spatial strategies and Urban social policy: Urbanism and poverty reduction in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro’, Rethinking the Informal City: Critical Perspectives from Latin America, 11, pp. 181–205.
French, M. A., Frediani, A. A. and Ferrera, I. (eds) (2011) Change by design: building communities through participatory design. Napier, N.Z.: Urban Culture Press. Available at: https:// discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1348980/
Friedmann, J. (1992) Empowerment: the politics of alternative development. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Gilbert, A. (2007) ‘The Return of the Slum: Does Language Matter?’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4), pp. 697–713. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00754.x
Hamdi, N. (2010) ‘The Evolution of Development’, in The Placemakers’ Guide to Building Community. London; Washington, DC: Earthscan (Tools for community planning), pp. 1–17.
Hardoy, J. E. (1989) Squatter citizen: life in the urban Third World. London: Earthscan Publications.
Harvey, D. (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London; New York, NY: Verso Books.
Jenkins, P., Smith, H. and Wang, Y. P. (2007) Planning and housing in the rapidly urbanising world. New York: Routledge (Housing, planning, and design series).
Kapp, S., Baltazar, A. P. and Morado, D. (2010) ‘Architecture as Critical Exercise: Little Pointers
Towards Alternative Practices’, Field Journal, 2(1), pp. 7–30. Available at: http://www.field-journal. org/uploads/file/2008%20Volume%202%20/ Architecture%20as%20Critical%20Exercise_MOM.pdf
McFarlane, C. and Silver, J. (2017) ‘Navigating the city: dialectics of everyday urbanism’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42(3), pp. 458–471. Available at: https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tran.12175
McGranahan, G., Schensul, D. and Singh, G. (2016) ‘Inclusive urbanization: Can the 2030 Agenda be delivered without it?’, Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), pp. 13–34. Available at: https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956247815627522
McNeill, D. (2006) ‘Globalization and the ethics of architectural design’, City, 10, pp. 49–58.
Mehta, B. and Dastur, A. (2008) Approaches to Urban Slums: A Multimedia Sourcebook on Adaptive and Proactive Strategies. The World Bank. Available at: https://www.citiesalliance.org/ resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/ approaches-urban-slums-multimedia-sourcebook
Patel, S., Burra, S. and D’Cruz, C. (2001) ‘Slum/ Shack Dwellers International (SDI) – foundations to treetops’, Environment & Urbanization, 13(2), pp. 45–60. Available at: https://www. ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/21st_Century/ resources/papers/documents/patel.pdf
Ramirez, R. (2010) ‘Integrated informality in the Barrios of Havana’, in Hernández, F., Kellett, P., and Allen, L. K. (eds) Rethinking the informal city: critical perspectives from Latin America. New York: Berghahn Books (Remapping cultural history, v. 11), p. 138.
Roy, A. (2005) ‘Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning’, Journal of The American Planning Association - J AMER PLANN ASSN, 71, pp. 147–158.
Satterwaite, D. (2007) David Satterthwaite on the urban poor. Available at: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=IuVTqlSelDI&feature=youtu.be
Shatkin, G. (2007) ‘Global cities of the South: Emerging perspectives on growth and inequality’, Cities, 24(1), pp. 1–15.
Soja, E. W. (2010) ‘On the Production of Unjust Geographies’, in Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Globalization and community series), pp. 31–66. UN-Habitat (2016) The New Urban Agenda, Habitat III. Available at: https:// habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/
United Nations (1948) ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/ en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ United Nations (2021) Goal 11 | Make Cities and Human Settlements Inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (ed.) (2003) The challenge of slums: global report on human settlements, 2003. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications. Available at: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/ files/Challenge%20of%20Slums.pdf
Watson, V. (2009) ‘Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s Central Urban Issues’, Urban Studies, 46, pp. 2259–2275. Available at: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/248974362_ Seeing_from_the_South_Refocusing_Urban_ Planning_on_the_Globe’s_Central_Urban_Issues Watson, V. and Agbola, B. (2013) ‘Who will plan Africa’s cities? - Africa Research Institute’. Africa Research Institute. Available at: https:// www.africaresearchinstitute.org/newsite/ publications/who-will-plan-africas-cities/
1. To appreciate the relevance of theoretical frameworks as tools for reflecting on the practice of development.
2. To have a better understanding of the main conceptual frameworks and be able to differentiate between their different approaches with regards to working with the urban poor.
3. To be able to apply the various frameworks to different contexts, and therefore operate with a clearer understanding of the purpose of an intervention, its limitations and entry points.
Theoretical frameworks are no more than tools that are ‘useful to think with’. You might, therefore, find it helpful to ‘test’ them by trying to assess your own personal situation. The very fact that you are studying this programme suggests that you are more fortunate than most people in your country, or in the world as a whole; or at least that you are not poor. One framework might question what it is that you ‘have’ that has enabled you to get to your present status, and that will most likely enable you to progress further. By what measures do you assess progress? What shocks have you suffered along the way? Are there trends that you have benefited from? Are there structures and processes that have helped or hindered your progress so far?
Theoretical frameworks are perspectives and approaches for looking at reality and for articulating explicit entry points into “the messy complexity of particular contexts” (Clarke and Oswald, 2010, p.2). They allow organisations, professionals, and decision-makers to better understand poverty and vulnerability, as well as to define and evaluate tools for positive change in a continuous backand-forth method of action and reflection. Through the application of theoretical frameworks, development practitioners question the underlying values and purposes of interventions, and their limitations. The frameworks can be used in a variety of ways during the project development stage, to enable an organisation to take a philosophical standpoint, develop a focus area, or as part of project evaluation.1
Despite having different focusses, theoretical frameworks largely co-exist in complementary ways. They assert different narratives, questioning simplified linear progress paths of assessment. Each framework has its own precise focus and allows for capturing the complexities of poverty from a distinct point of view. In order to be effective, a framework needs to be rooted in the specific place of a proposed project, enabling a
situated assessment of possible programmes of intervention. Equipping built environment professionals with a clear understanding of each framework and its added value is essential for helping them to assess different contexts and to decide on the most appropriate or constructive way of approaching the task in hand.
There are a number of important theoretical frameworks that have been developed and used within the humanitarian and development sectors over the last few decades, including: the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF); the DFID Resilience Framework; the Rights-Based Approach (RBA); and the Capability Approach (CA).
The SLF, initially developed by DFID (UK Department For International Development, now Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)) tried to holistically conceptualise “our understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor” (DFID, 1999, p.1) and the constraints and opportunities that they are subjected to. The idea of assets is central to the sustainable livelihoods approach. Rather than understanding poverty as simply a lack of income, the sustainable livelihoods approach considers the assets that poor people need in order to sustain an adequate income to live. This framework applies the ‘Five Capitals’ as the key assets: Human; Social; Natural; Physical; and Financial, and shows how vulnerabilities and transforming structures link these assets to livelihood outcomes. The framework has been criticised for not capturing power dynamics (such as gender issues) and for not putting enough emphasis on wider contextual constraints. The approach attempts to summarise, in a single set of diagrams and connected terms, the extremely complex and diverse reasons for poverty and the possibilities for addressing it.
As this framework proved too complex to be useful, development practitioner David Sanderson developed a more accessible and useful version of the SLF. Sanderson’s SLF Model [Figure 2] is divided into: People; Basic Needs; Resources; Assets; Shocks and Stresses; Access; and Controls. People need to both survive from day to day, and to accumulate assets to build up resilience in order to withstand short term shocks and long term stresses. Access to resources for basic survival, and
the accumulation of such assets, can be denied through social exclusion or by policy and control mechanisms. [Link to module 3. Social Exclusion] In order to support these people, programmes can focus on building their capacity to influence access to resources, or on building the resilience of people through assisting them to accumulate essential assets [Link to module 5. Disasters and Climate Change].
Figure 1: DFID (1999, p.1)
Figure 2: Resilience and livelihoods model (ALNAP, 2009)
In 2011, DFID proposed a new model, the Resilience Framework, which builds on the original SLF as a result of the increasing number of people affected by natural disasters [Link to module 5. Disasters and Climate Change]. “Increasing efforts are being made in social protection, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation aiming to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable communities in developing countries” (DFID, 2011, p.5). The model is split into four categories, which derive from common definitions of resilience: Context; Disturbance; Capacity to deal with disturbance; and Reaction to disturbance. The model draws from the original DFID SLF and Sanderson’s version, with the purpose of assessing a programme’s ability to increase resilience. [Please see core reading 2 for more information on this framework.]
A rights-based approach to development has evolved to try to bridge a perceived gap between the focus on individual circumstances and capacity, towards integrating “the norms, principles, standards and goals of the international human rights system into the plans and processes of development” (Kirkemann Boesen and Martin, 2007, p.9).
“The overall responsibility for meeting human rights obligations rests with the state. This includes taking care of its most vulnerable citizens, including those not able to claim their rights for themselves. All the organs of the state such as parliaments, ministries, local authorities, judges and justice authorities, police, teachers or extension workers are legal duty-bearers.” (Kirkemann Boesen and Martin, 2007, p.11) The focus of RBA development programmes is more on capacity building for the
rights-holders to claim their rights, and the dutybearers to meet their obligations. A Statement of Common Understanding was drafted in 2003 encouraging all RBA programmes to be “guided by human rights standards and principles found in international rights law, and intentionally further international human rights”.
(UNAIDS Global Reference Group on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, 2004, p.1)
“RBA projects and activities undertaken by civil society organisations typically add dimensions to development within three main areas: Capacity building; Strengthening of governance structures, state and civil society dialogue and mechanisms for rights-holder and duty-bearer interaction; Advocacy and practical actions on violations”.
(Kirkemann Boesen and Martin, 2007, p.26) One approach to understanding the success of RBAbased programmes is to measure the impact on the most vulnerable people’s lives due to the
changes in policies and practice that the state or relevant duty-bearers have implemented.
The core focus of the Capability Approach, pioneered and developed by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, is on what people are able to do, or their ‘capabilities’. Instead of using assets as a measure of well-being, this approach focuses on the ability people have to achieve the things they value. This model explores whether an individual’s ability to translate assets into anything they choose, or into things they value, is a more useful way to uncover the developmental focus of a programme, or to evaluate its success. As such, the CA framework is primarily concerned with the distribution of opportunities and freedoms (rather than assets or rights) within society. (Sen, 1999)
There are two key words used within the CA framework: Capabilities and Functionings. Capabilities are the abilities people have to achieve the kinds of lives they have reason to value. Functionings are the states of being in those lives.
An additional term was introduced by Sen in his development of the CA framework: ‘Agency’. This indicates an individual’s freedom to choose and bring about the things that he/she values. (Frediani, 2010, p.176) “Seen in this light, poverty alleviation policies should be geared to expanding people’s opportunities to pursue goals they value. Income shortage, then, becomes just one dimension of poverty, and is neither the sole content nor the leading cause of it.” (Frediani, 2007, p.5)
In conclusion, the various frameworks are all being used within the development sector by different organisations for a multitude of programmes. Each model attempts to frame the underlying causes of poverty and the potential for interventions to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people. The SLF and Resilience Frameworks are often used to build up people’s assets to make them more resilient to shocks and stresses, through programmes that emphasise skills-training,
advocacy, access to resources, and economic policies to enable fair trade – thereby enabling people to find jobs more easily. The RBA focuses more on international Human Rights Law, and is implemented through advocacy programmes raising awareness about human rights violations and building rights-holders’ capacity to claim their rights, as well as duty-bearers’ capacity to meet those claims. The CA framework focuses on people’s choices, abilities, and opportunities to transform resources into the lives they want.
Sanderson, D. (2000) ‘Cities, disasters and livelihoods’, Environment & Urbanization, 12(2), pp. 93–102. Available at: https:// www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_ change/urb_environment/pdf_Planning/ IIED_Sanderson_disasters_livelihood.pdf
This paper gives a clear description of Sanderson’s livelihood model developed with international NGO CARE. The article focusses on disasters and the increasing impact they are having on people in cities. The paper makes it explicit that this approach requires both local and institutional level interventions to be successful.
DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience: a DFID approach paper. DFID. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/186874/definingdisaster-resilience-approach-paper.pdf
This paper discusses the new model developed by DFID with a specific focus on building resilience. It comprises a useful definition of resilience, a breakdown of each focus area within the model, and the asset pentagon. It also covers a few small case studies which help the reader to understand how the model can be used in practice. The last portion looks at ways that DFID hopes to take the resilience agenda forward.
Pettit, J. and Wheeler, J. (2005) ‘Developing Rights? Relating Discourse to Context and Practice’, IDS Bulletin, 36(1), pp. 1–8. Available at: http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Intro36.1.pdf
This article discusses rights-based discourse as an introduction to an IDS Bulletin titled ‘Developing Rights?’ There is concern that the rights agenda will be co-opted into a topdown, donor driven trend. However, it is noted that much of the current focus on the rights
agenda comes from grassroots struggles for rights, rooted historically and contextually in experiences of exclusion and marginalisation. Key lessons discussed include: struggles for rights coming out of important historical and geopolitical contexts; the process of making rights ‘real’ being a political task, rather than a technical or procedural one, which means that the structural inequalities that lead to the negation of rights must be challenged; the ability of the rights perspective, when rooted in its context, to shift power relations and also to challenge some of the more deeply rooted development practices which can often focus on a single solution.
Frediani, A. A. (2007) ‘Amartya Sen, the World Bank, and the Redress of Urban Poverty: A Brazilian Case Study’, Journal of Human Development, 8(1), pp. 133–152. Available at: http://www. rrojasdatabank.info/urban/alexurbpov.pdf
This paper is split into two distinct focus areas. The first section discusses the validity of the World Bank’s policy statements that claim they are moving towards Sen’s views on deprivation. The second examines a slum upgrading project developed by the World Bank, among others, in Salvador da Bahia. Frediani uses the Capability Approach to evaluate the impact of the project on the community’s freedoms, namely: to expand and individualise; to afford living costs; for a healthy environment; and to participate in and maintain social networks evolved through participatory engagement with community members in their new households.
1. For further reading on the reflexivity of development practitioners, see among others: (Turner, 1997).
Clarke, P. and Oswald, K. (2010) ‘Introduction: Why Reflect Collectively on Capacities for Change?’ Available at: https://opendocs.ids. ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/7832
Comim, F. (2001) ‘Operationalizing Sen’s Capability Approach’, Psychnology Journal.
Cornwall, A. and Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004) ‘Putting the “Rights-Based Approach” to Development into Perspective’, Third World Quarterly, 25(8), pp. 1415–1437. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993794.
DFID (1999) ‘DFID sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets’. Available at: www. ennonline.net/dfidsustainableliving
Dong, A. (2008) ‘The Policy of Design: A Capabilities Approach’, Design Issues, 24, pp. 76–87. doi: 10.1162/desi.2008.24.4.76.
Frediani, A. A. (2010) ‘Sen’s Capability Approach as a framework to the practice of development’, Development in Practice, 20, pp. 173–187.
Frediani, A. A. (2015) ‘Space and Capabilities: Approaching Informal Settlement Upgrading through a Capability Perspective’, in Lemanski, C. and Marx, C. (eds) The City in Urban Poverty. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK (EADI Global Development Series), pp. 64–84.
Frediani, A. A. and Walker, J. (2011) ‘Issue 53: How can local interventions respond to social complexity?’, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit Newsletter. Available at: https:// www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/development/ case-studies/2011/nov/issue-53-how-canlocal-interventions-respond-social-complexity
Kirkemann Boesen, J. and Martin, T. (2007) Applying a Rights-based Approach. THE DANISH INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. Available at: https://www.humanrights.dk/ publications/applying-rights-based-approach
Macarthy, J. M. et al. (2017) ‘Exploring the role of empowerment in urban humanitarian responses in Freetown’, IIED Working Paper, p. 56.
McFarlane, C. (2006) ‘Knowledge, learning and development : a post-rationalist approach.’, Progress in development studies., 6(4), pp. 287–305. Available at: https://dro.dur.ac.uk/1145/
Moser, C. and Norton, A. (2001) ‘To Claim Our Rights: Livelihood Security, Human Rights and Sustainable Development’.
Oosterlaken, I. (2009) ‘Design for Development: A Capability Approach’, Design Issues, 25(4), pp. 91–102. Available at: https://direct.mit. edu/desi/article/25/4/91-102/68978
Rakodi, C. and Lloyd-Jones, T. (eds) (2002) Urban livelihoods: a people-centred approach to reducing poverty. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Robeyns, I. (2005) ‘The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey’, Journal of Human Development, 6(1), pp. 93–117.
Sanderson, D. (2011) ‘Livelihood protection and support for disaster’, in, pp. 655–668.
Sen, A. (2005) ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’, Journal of Human Development, 6(2), pp. 151–166. Available at: http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649880500120491
Turner, J. (1997) ‘Learning in Time of Paradigm Change: the Role of the Professional’, in Burgess, R., Carmona, M., and Kolstee, T. (eds) The challenge of sustainable cities: neoliberalism and urban strategies in developing countries. London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Zed Books.
UNAIDS Global Reference Group on HIV/ AIDS and Human Rights (2004) ‘Issue Paper : what constitutes a rights-based approach? Definitions, methods, and practices’, in. Reference Group’s 4th Meeting, p. 5. Available at: https://data.unaids.org/topics/human-rights/ hrissuepaper_rbadefinitions_en.pdf
1. To understand what social exclusion means.
2. To be able to recognise different types and forms of discrimination.
3. To gain awareness of whether built environment interventions enable individuals and communities to overcome discriminatory practices and regulations.
CHALLENGING PRACTICE: MODULE HANDBOOK
Social exclusion can be understood as the “process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society within which they live” (Deakin et al., 1995, p.4). Social exclusion is linked to poverty, but has some conceptual differences from classic definitions of poverty. Firstly, poverty is often understood as a ‘characteristic of the poor’ (i.e. linked to their lack of assets or capacity to generate assets), while social exclusion describes the relationships and processes of discrimination between social groups, a ‘characteristic of society’. This involves the behaviours and attributes of both those who are excluded, and of those who are excluding them. Secondly, while the analysis of poverty traditionally focuses on lack of income, social exclusion is a multidimensional concept which “refers to exclusion (deprivation) in the economic, social and political sphere” (de Haan, 2000, p.26).
While processes of exclusion may be linked to groups facing similar life circumstances (such as the homeless), social exclusion often concerns the treatment of people with a shared social identity, for example race, religion, ability or sexuality, which is socially stigmatised and becomes a basis for discrimination. Social exclusion is therefore a key concern for those engaged with issues of social justice in relation to diversity and social identity.
Thinking about how discrimination based on identity operates, Iris Marion Young identified five facets of oppression: exploitation; marginalisation; powerlessness; cultural domination; and violence. (Young, 1990) While some of these clearly relate to processes of social exclusion (e.g. marginalisation), others (such as exploitation or cultural domination) are not about how subaltern groups are excluded from wider society, but rather about how they are included. Social exclusion, for example not being given access to key urban decision-making spaces like neighbourhood committees, is only one aspect of discrimination. [see module 10.
Ethics in Built Environment Practice] Other aspects, such as employment based on exploitative or devalued terms – the experience, for example, of waste pickers in many contexts – are not about exclusion so much as how such groups are included in structures like the labour market. In addition to looking at social exclusion, the analysis of discrimination and the relational nature of poverty has increasingly also explored processes of ‘adverse incorporation’ (Hickey and du Toit, 2013): the means by which disadvantaged groups are an integral part of society, but included only in subordinate, dependent, and/or exploitative terms.
Social exclusion can be related to cities on two broad scales. The first is the city scale. Regarding inequalities in the built environment, many cities in the Global South can be characterised by a division between formal and informal urban spaces; although, in practice, this distinction tends to be more of a continuum than a clear dichotomy.
Residents of informal settlements are subject to mechanisms which exclude them from the infrastructure, processes and opportunities of the wider city. For example, in social terms residents are often stigmatised by their association with the informal settlements in which they live, and thus lose access to public services and employment opportunities. In physical terms, the concept of ‘splintering urbanism’ (Graham and Marvin, 2001) has been used to explore the ways in which infrastructure development creates pockets of spatial exclusion from key urban services, such as water, sanitation, electricity and transport infrastructure. These can also be delivered in forms which create physical barriers that demarcate settlements of the poor, and render them physically inaccessible. On the other hand, where informal settlements are ‘upgraded’ and better integrated into the fabric and processes of the wider city, this frequently gives rise to gentrification. (Lees et al., 2016) Rising costs and other processes can then result in poor urban citizens being driven away from their homes, communities and livelihoods,
often to the urban peripheries [see module 7. Informal Settlements].
The second scale is of informal settlements. These are sites of social inequality that are often characterised by the exclusion of disadvantaged groups (often people with disabilities, and ethnic, sexual or occupational minorities) from economic and social opportunities, as well as from participation in decision-making about the development of the wider region. (Walker and Butcher, 2016).
Efforts to address social exclusion through spatial planning can take a number of forms. Planning processes can be used to promote spatial integration, and the provision of public resources
and goods that are widely relevant to different social groups. A classic example of such planning is based around the concept of ‘universal design’. This aims to ensure that infrastructure is designed in a way that meets everyone’s needs, including people with disabilities and older people. Planning approaches based on Lefebvre’s concept of the Right to the City (Harvey, 2008) also emphasize that for cities to be inclusive, they should be designed so they focus on their social, rather than investment, value. This helps avoid the processes of gentrification and displacement discussed previously.
The view that planning should be an explicitly normative exercise, which directly addresses issues of equity, democracy and diversity, (Fainstein, 2010) indicates that planning should create opportunities for social inclusion. Planning events should raise awareness of inequality and
critically explore social stigma. They can provide avenues to raise support for processes of inclusion and equality in the wider population. They can also promote awareness amongst socially excluded groups about their rights.
Finally, a key concern of spatial planning is that socially excluded groups should have a voice in planning processes. A range of approaches, including participatory urban budgeting, inclusive neighbourhood planning, and the ASF-UK Change By Design method, aim to ensure that groups of different backgrounds, genders and ages can participate in city planning and governance processes [see module 11. Participation]. However, this remains a complicated objective and needs to be approached critically to avoid inadvertently reinforcing processes of exclusion. For example, using quotas to ensure the inclusion of ‘vulnerable groups’ (women, renters, youths, people with disabilities) in neighbourhood planning can perversely result in processes of labelling (Moncrieffe and Eyben, 2013), which reinforce stigma without providing real avenues for the engagement of such groups.
Efforts to engage with diversity planning (Walker and Butcher, 2016) and to promote the inclusion of diverse and previously excluded social groups must therefore address a number of key issues: the integration of diverse voices in the decision-making process without falling into the trap of ‘labelling’; critically engaging with power relations that are ever-present in planning processes, perhaps even excluding certain voices (Cornwall, 2002); and recognising and making visible dissent that results from working with diverse groups, rather than pursuing a (usually false) consensus of the ideal planning outcome. Practical implications for planners could include: encouraging participants to engage with planning to represent aspects of their identities (e.g. age, gender, disability, race, sexuality) that they find important and relevant, rather than asking them to participate within predetermined categories (woman, or youth groups, for example); providing data and material
inputs that document patterns of identity-based inequality to foster critical engagement with patterns of exclusion; using planning tools and spaces that unsettle established hierarchies; and documenting minority voices and views that are not reflected in the final, agreed planning output [see module 15. Participatory Design Tools].
de Haan, A. (2000). Social Exclusion: Enriching the Understanding of Deprivation. Studies in Social and Political Thought. 2(2): 22–40.
This paper explores the origin of the term social exclusion, and the conceptual landscape from which it emerged, distinguishing more individualistic/liberal uses of the concepts from more collectivist notions centred on a wider social contract.
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/237389092_Social_Exclusion_Enriching_the_Understanding_of_Deprivation
Beall, J. (2002). Globalisation and Social Exclusion in Cities: Framing the Debate with Lessons from Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization. 14(1): 41–51.
This paper looks at how social exclusion is manifested in cities, and questions whether processes of globalisation exacerbate social exclusion, drawing on research from Faisalabad in Pakistan and Johannesburg in South Africa.
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/283726971_Globalisation_and_ Social_exclusion_in_cities_framing_the_ debate_with_lessons_from_Africa_and_Asia
Walker, J. and Butcher, S. (2016). Beyond one-dimensional representation: challenges for neighbourhood planning in socially diverse urban settlements in Kisumu, Kenya. International Development Planning Review. 38(3): 229–345.
This paper looks at the relationship between social identities (including gender, ethnicity and disability) and interrogates the role of strategies of representation in urban decision-making as a means of social inclusion, looking at the case of Neighbourhood Planning Associations in Kisumu, Kenya.
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/1470367/3/Walker_Beyond-one-dimensional-planning%20IDPR%20final%20 pub%20version%20with%20figures.pdf
Cornwall, A. (2002). Making Spaces, Changing Places: Situating Participation in Development (IDS Working Paper 170). Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
de Haan, A. (2000). Social Exclusion: Enriching the Understanding of Deprivation. Studies in Social and Political Thought. 2 (2): 22–40.
Fainstein, S. (2010) The Just City. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review. 53: 23–40.
Hickey, S. and du Toit, A. (2013). Adverse Incorporation, Social Exclusion, and Chronic Poverty. In: A. Shepherd and J. Brunt, eds. Chronic Poverty. Rethinking International Development Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lees, L., Shin, H.B. and Morales, E. (2016). Planetary Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displacement. London: Polity Press.
Moncrieffe, J. and Eyben, R., (2013) The Power of Labelling: How People are Categorized and Why it Matters. London: Earthscan.
Mosse, D. (2010). A Relational Approach to Durable Poverty, Inequality and Power. Journal of Development Studies. 46(7): 1156–1178.
Turok, I., Kearns, A., & Goodlad, R. (1999). Social exclusion: in what sense a planning problem?. Town Planning Review, 70(3), 363.
Walker, J. and Butcher, S. (2016). Beyond OneDimensional Representation: Challenges for Neighbourhood Planning in Socially Diverse Urban Settlements in Kisumu, Kenya. International Development Planning Review. 38(3).
Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
1. To understand the broad meaning of the term “conflict” in relation to urban processes.
2. To understand conflict as an intersectional political and spatial urban-global phenomenon.
3. To develop a critical approach to the role of planning in the case of urban conflicts.
“...[C]ities and spaces are unfinished products of historical debates and conflicts involving meaning, function and form.” (Castells, 1983, p.318)
One of the central issues explored over the last few decades in urban studies, politics and planning is that many cities have become multicultural spaces (Sandercock, 1998). However, while the liberal viewpoint considers the city to be an open and enabling space, holding many and equal opportunities for all residents regardless of religion, gender or ethnic affiliation (Katznelson, 1995); the critical body of knowledge highlights the way in which the city, while apparently released from the shackles of nation- and state-building projects, continues to reproduce existing power structures and is a stratifying place, maintaining patterns of discrimination, exclusion and segregation (Marcuse and Kempen, 2000). [link to module 3. Social Exclusion]
For centuries cities have been divided along lines of ethnicity, class and race. In recent decades, urban processes of ethnic and racial segregation and socio-spatial division reflect a wider phenomenon taking place throughout cities of the Global North and Global South. Urban conflicts scholarship explores the “divided” or “contested” city with two approaches that are often considered contradictory. The first is the ethno-national or racial contested/ divided city (such as Johannesburg and Jerusalem) purported to manifest extreme, ethnonational/ racial divisions emanating from active conflicts over the legitimacy of the state itself. The second is the neoliberal city, where the built environment is formed by deregulating economic transactions, extending competition, downsizing the state, and increasing the commodification of everyday life (Peck et al., 2009).
Urban conflicts should be examined within both the discussion on urban planning and the evolving field of urban geopolitics. It is important to note that the critical discussion of geopolitics and
conflicts tends to focus on states’ borders and national territory, while ignoring the relevance of such analyses to the urban realm. In this context, this module proposes that the impact of borders and territoriality is not diminishing in our globalising world. Rather, new scales of territorial affiliations and borders are now recognisable that may be flexible, but are still selective on different geographical scales. Indeed, urban conflicts are not merely examples of international relations, or of military acts and wars, in producing space (Yacobi, 2009). Studying conflicts through urban geopolitics refers to the emergence of discourses and forces connected with the technologies of control, patterns of internal migrations by individuals and communities [link to module 6. Migration], and the flow of cultures and capital (Yacobi, 2009).
Following the above line of argument, this chapter argues that cities are inherently sites of conflict over resources, identity, power and domination; and the question that we need to focus on is how and why agonism - namely the ability of urban systems to articulate and include diversity – is transformed into antagonism, violence and exclusion. Wendy Pullan investigates the role of agonism in shaping urban life while discussing urban conflicts in highly-contested cities such as Beirut, Jerusalem, Nicosia, Belfast and Sarajevo. However, she further (provocatively) suggests that conflicts and contestations should be understood as urban phenomenon (“agonistic practices”), accentuating their constructive aspects in everyday life (Pullan, 2015). Indeed, one could read urban and planning history as an attempt to mediate between different groups, as a practice aiming at balancing conflictual interests (such as capitalist competition or ethnonational domination), as well as a mechanism of
reproducing power relations, violence and control.
“[T]he built environment, the material, physical and spatial forms of the city, is itself a representation of specific ideologies, of social, political, economic, and cultural relations and practices, of hierarchies and structures, which not only represent but also, inherently constitute the same relations and structures”. (King, 1996, p.4)
While acknowledging the inherent agonistic tension in cities (between diversity and control, “urban order” and violence, or between private capital and the common), let us outline some working definitions. Conflict in urban settings often encompasses intersecting conflicts (such as class, gender, race, ethnicity) and different forms of violence (such as state violence in the form
of displacement, specific groups’ acts of terror around political and territorial demands, or riots over housing rights, land allocation, migration etc).
While analysing conflicts in urban settings, there is a necessity to look at the urban form and infrastructure which constitute the features of cities, connectivity and the everyday uses of urban space. Urban form (such as in the case of housing or open spaces) and infrastructure (water, sanitation or transportation) interact with the socio-economic organisation of cities and affects vulnerability and the resilience of individuals and communities [link to module 12. Community Resilience]. Here we could refer to a variety of spatial characteristics including the scale and shape of a given city or neighbourhood, and analyse the different levels of accessibility to urban services; the existing dwelling patterns including formal \ informal divisions; the patterns and effects of segregation \ integration; or how enclaves and privatised spaces are developed, instead of being open spaces for public use. Importantly we should also understand the role of both physical and symbolic divisions of space since, as rightly suggested by Diane Davis, when urban conflicts were studied “it is almost always with the presupposition that identity conflicts are fuelled by, and most evident in, physical separation - that it is in the form of divided cities” (Davis, 2011, p.228).
Finally, the spatial reading of conflicts in cities necessitates our political view of urban conflicts. A telling example is the concept of urbicide, namely the killing of cities. As elaborated by Sara Fregonese (2019), urbicide is partly related to demonisation of place and linked to the new wars discourse. This term was originally used to describe urban restructuring policies in 1960s United States, which were based on a modernist, hyper-capitalist development agenda. It was then used to indicate the destruction of cities during the Balkan conflicts and, later, in other cases of urban warfare. While urbicide might describe an extreme conflict, we are aware that conflict can operate through the “invisible” hand of the market. Most actions that solidify the processes of division,
including those based on violence, are performed by forces that banalise the application of violence. As planners, can we think politically about how tourism development, housing or land use have become elements through which conflict and control are consolidated?
However, far-reaching spatial control is limited in what in can accomplish in urban settings for many reasons, including the scale, density and the emancipatory nature of cities. The “Arab Spring” events show that there is a significant urban dimension to the uprisings that have occurred since 2010 in Middle Eastern cities. The city was not solely the main scene of the protests (in the squares and streets), but also at the very core of the events that led to the uprising. These events include forced displacement, hyper-segregation and the extensive privatisation of urban space in the name of neoliberal policies (Sharp and Panetta, 2016).
Bhavnani, R. and Reul, M. (2019) ‘The Morphology of Urban Conflict’, Global Challenges: New Grammars of War: Conflict and Violence in the 21st Century, 5 (April).
https://globalchallenges.ch/issue/5/ the-morphology-of-urban-conflict/
Yacobi, H. (2016) ‘From ‘Ethnocracity’ to urban apartheid: the changing urban geopolitics of Jerusalem\al-Quds’, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 8(3) pp.100-114.
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. php/mcs/article/view/5107/5720
Cockayne, J., Bosetti, L. and Hussain, N. (2017) ‘Preventing violent urban conflict: a thematic paper for the United Nations-World Bank study on conflict prevention’, United Nations University Centre for Policy Research Conflict Prevention Series, 2 (August).
https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6432/ PreventingViolentUrbanConflict-Aug-2017.pdf
Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. London: Eduard Arnold.
Davis, D.E. (2011) `Conclusion: Theoretical and empirical reflections on cities, sovereignty, identity and conflict`, in Davis, D.E. and de Duren, N.L. (eds.) Cities and Sovereignty: Identity politics in urban spaces. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fregonese, S. (2019) `A demarcation in the hearts: everyday urban frontiers in Beirut´, in Yacobi, H. and Nasasra M., (eds.) Routledge Handbook on Middle East Cities. London: Routledge.
Katznelson, I. (1995) `Social Justice, Liberalism and the City´, in Morrifield, A. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds.) The Urbanization of Injustice. London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 45-64.
King, D.A. (1996) `Introduction: Cities, texts and paradigms´, in King, D.A., Re-Presenting the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture in the 21th century Metropolis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, London: MacMillan Press.
Marcuse, P. and Van Kempen, M. (eds.) (2000) Globalising Cities: A New Spatial Order? London: Blackwell.
Peck, J., Theodore, N., Brenner, N. (2009) `Neoliberal urbanism: models, moments, mutations´, SAIS Review, 29(1), pp. 49–66.
Pullan, W. (2015) ‘Agon in urban conflict: some possibilities’, in H. Steiner and M. Sternberg (eds.), Phenomenologies of the City: Studies in the history and philosophy of architecture. Farnham, England: Ashgate, pp. 213-224.
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis. Chichester: Wiley.
Sharp, D. and Panetta, C. (eds.) (2016) Beyond the Square: Urbanism and the Arab uprisings. New York: Terreform/Urban Research.
Yacobi, H. (2009) `Towards urban geopolitics´, Geopolitics, 14, pp. 576–581.
1. To gain a more complex understanding of disasters.
2. To understand the correlation between disasters and climate change.
3. To understand the concept of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and the role of built environment professionals.
CHALLENGING PRACTICE: MODULE HANDBOOK
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR], defines disaster as, “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope with using its own resources” (2021). Disasters may emerge at the scale of local communities or at national, international, and global scales. Disasters may develop gradually over time, as is the case for disasters based on slow-onset events such as drought and rising sea levels; they may also emerge suddenly through rapid-onset events like earthquakes and typhoons (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 2018). Both the UNDRR (2021) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [IFRC] (2021) emphasise that disasters are products of vulnerabilities and inabilities which prevent a society from withstanding the disruptive effects of hazards.
The term “natural disaster” is questioned by those who recognise that disasters are products of deepseated social inequalities related to race, class, gender, religion and other power imbalances (e.g. Squires and Hartman, 2007; Islam and Winkel, 2017). Naturally occurring hazards become disasters when societies develop, build, and construct in ways that are blind to ecological as well as social risks (Squires and Hartman, 2007). Mami Mizutori (the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction) asserted that “there is no such thing as a natural disaster” given that human activities driven by misguided notions of progress — including dependence on fossil fuels, unplanned urbanisation, and environmental destruction — are the main contributors to the increasing intensity and scale of disasters in lowand middle-income countries (McClean, 2021).
Mizutori’s verdict marked the sixth anniversary of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
(2015-2030). This is the global agreement among UN Member States to substantially reduce disaster risk and losses through, among other key priorities, “building back better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (UNDRR, 2020-2021).
The attribution of disasters to human activities is by no means a denial of natural processes; indeed, typhoons, droughts and blizzards are natural events and need to be understood through such disciplines as climatology and physical geography (Smith, 2006). However, the emergence of a disaster does not ultimately depend on the location of a natural event. To illustrate this point, Smith offers the example of Hurricane Ivan in the Caribbean in September 2004. Ivan caused the deaths of 27 people in Florida, nearly 100 in Granada, but none in Cuba, which was directly in the hurricane’s path. The UN and Oxfam credited the comparatively limited impact of the hurricane in
Cuba to several factors, including: early education about the importance of disaster preparedness; government provision of ample food supplies and medical services; the establishment of a worldclass meteorological institute; and the involvement of local communities across the various stages of disaster management, from preparedness and response to recovery and reconstruction (also see Los Angeles Times, 2005; IFRC, 2021). Smith (2006) thus reiterates that disasters are only secondarily technical and are primarily political.
The proportion of all disasters that can be traced to climate change and extreme weather events has increased substantially, from 76% in the 2000s to 83% in the 2010s (IFRC World Disasters Report, 2020). The last decade saw the impact of climateand weather-related disasters on 1.7 billion people
across the globe; with heatwaves and storms accounting for the greatest number of deaths (IFRC World Disasters Report, 2020). Increasing temperature extremes and global warming trends are projected to continue to affect water availability, food production, the growth and distribution of plant species, and rising sea levels leading to coastal erosion. Climate change is also projected to increasingly exacerbate the challenges of urban development and industrialisation, including challenges related to human health, livelihoods, security, and natural resource management (Auffhammer, 2019).
Climate change is particularly significant at present because it is extremely likely to be caused by human activity associated with industrialisation and urbanisation since the mid-twentieth century, which has developed at an unprecedented rate over the course of decades to millennia
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2018). Buildings account for 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions through their construction and maintenance. As such, shifts to more sustainable built environment practices are key to arresting climate change and its effects (Fitz and Kransy, 2019; Xuereb, 2020). Indeed, climate change is the “fundamental design problem of our time” (Cramer, 2020), and architecture and urbanism serve as fertile ground for embracing alternative ways of life that attend to the values and voices of those most affected by climate change and disaster (Escobar, 2018; Fitz and Kransy, 2019; Xuereb, 2021).
In 2015, representatives of 196 countries met in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]. The outcome was an international and legally binding treaty, the Paris Agreement, that encapsulates the ambitious and multi-sectoral aim to limit global warming to below two degrees. There are also efforts to reduce vulnerability and strengthen resilience on a global scale through exploring possibilities for aligning the climate change adaptation goals stated in the Paris Agreement with two other international policy frameworks: The Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, 2017).
To effectively reduce the risk of disasters, one should start by understanding their causes. Analysing vulnerabilities and communities’ capacity to cope, through assessments and evaluations, activates the development of successful Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies. Ideally, these should, in the urban context, strengthen building structures and public infrastructures through urban planning and geotechnical surveys to become resilient to potential hazards. They should also strengthen communities and enhance their capacity to cope in
the event of a hazard to eventually create “resilient communities”.
Various cities such as Tokyo in Japan or La Havana in Cuba have proven the benefits of building stronger communities by prioritising DRR approaches. They have understood how their societies function, and in their own ways have adapted to their needs by developing strategies which increase communities’ capacity to cope, and reduce the risks of facing disasters. They have adopted methods such as building hurricane proof shelters, schools and public buildings; they have trained entire populations in schools and office buildings to create a culture of safety; they have worked with grassroots organisations, while also implementing appropriate policies at national and regional levels.
Built environment professionals have an important role in DRR. Their impact on cities and on the fabric of buildings can result in reducing vulnerabilities and strengthening cities’ coping mechanisms for facing disasters. To reduce risks to hazards, all developmental projects should identify potential risks, vulnerabilities, human capacity and local resources that help to make communities resilient (link: Community Resilience) before designing a DRR framework, pre- or post-disaster plan and mitigation. Professor Ian Davis, expert in Shelter, Reconstruction and Disaster Risk Reduction (1978), emphasises the fact that local communities, their capacities and resources are frequently undervalued and they must be acknowledged before designing any successful disaster response. Built environment professionals need to be aware of the challenges of reconstruction liability, land tenure issues, and the psycho-social effect of their interventions (limiting the victimisation of populations, enabling local livelihoods, self-help initiatives and innovative thinking). Therefore, from day one of their involvement in a disaster response or a DRR project, professionals need to be aware of the immediate and long-term impacts of their interventions on the lives of affected populations.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2020) IFRC World Disasters Report 2020. Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/ world-disaster-report-2020/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) ‘Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 oC’, in Global Warming of 1.5°C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
Smith, N. (2006) ‘There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster’, Social Science Research Council, 11 June.
https://items.ssrc.org/understanding-katrina/ theres-no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster/
Xuereb, M. (2020) How Architecture Can Fight Climate Change. (TEDxToronto).
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=tHMLhm3hc5c&t=183s
Auffhammer, M. (2019) The (economic) Impacts of Climate Change: Some Implications for Asian Economies. Asian Development Bank Institute, p. 31. Available at: https://www.adb. org/publications/economic-impacts-climatechange-implications-asian-economies
Cramer, N. (2017) The Climate Is Changing. so Must Architecture., Architect. Available at: https:// www.architectmagazine.com/design/editorial/ the-climate-is-changing-so-must-architecture_o
Earth Science Communications Team - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, H. (2021) Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know? NASA. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Escobar, A. (2018) Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press (New ecologies for the twenty-first century).
Fitz, A. and Kransy, E. (eds) (2019) Critical Care: Architecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
Davis, I. (1978) Shelter After Disaster. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press.
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2018)
‘Synthesizing the State of Knowledge to Better Understand Displacement Related to Slow Onset Events’. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/ files/resource/WIM%20TFD%20I.2%20Output.pdf
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2021) What Is a Disaster? - Ifrc, IFRC. Available at: https://www.ifrc.org/ en/what-we-do/disaster-management/ about-disasters/what-is-a-disaster/
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2021) WDR 2005Chapter 2: Run, Tell Your Neighbour! Hurricane Warning in the Caribbean - Ifrc. IFRC. Available at: https://www.ifrc.org/en/publications-andreports/world-disasters-report/wdr2005/ wdr-2005---chapter-2-run-tell-your-neighbour-
hurricane-warning-in-the-caribbean/ Islam, S.N. and Winkel, J. (2017) ‘Climate Change and Social Inequality: Desa Working Paper No. 152’. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: https://www. un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) ‘Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 oC’, in Global Warming of 1.5°C. Available at: https:// www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
Los Angeles Times (2005) Cuban Hurricane Preparation Offers Lessons in Organization, Los Angeles Times. Available at: https:// www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm2005-sep-10-na-cuba10-story.html
McClean, D. (2021) Sendai Framework 6th Anniversary: Time to Recognize There Is No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster - We’re Doing It to Ourselves. ReliefWeb. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/ sendai-framework-6th-anniversary-timerecognize-there-no-such-thing-natural-disaster Smith, N. (2006) There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster. Social Science Research Council, 11 June. Available at: https:// items.ssrc.org/understanding-katrina/ theres-no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster/ Squires, G.D. and Hartman, C.W. (2007) There Is No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster: Race, Class, and Hurricane Katrina. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Available at: https://www. routledge.com/There-is-No-Such-Thing-as-aNatural-Disaster-Race-Class-and-Hurricane/ Squires-Hartman/p/book/9780415954877
United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (2017) Opportunities and Options for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. United Nations Climate Change Secretariat. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/ files/resource/techpaper_adaptation.pdf
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2021) What Is the Paris Agreement?, The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/ the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2021) Disaster, UNDRR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2020) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. UNDRR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendaiframework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
Xuereb, M. (2020) How Architecture Can Fight Climate Change. (TEDxToronto). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=tHMLhm3hc5c&t=183s
1. To become familiar with the main terminology used when referring to displaced people and the key concepts around them, such as international human rights and national obligations. To challenge concepts like home, nation, integration and citizenship.
2. To gain an understanding of what it is like to be transitory through the journeys of different displaced people, and how this affects their habitational needs.
3. To understand the relationship between place and displacement, and the different contexts that refugees and migrants find themselves in, such as refugee camps and urban areas.
The 21st Century has been termed the ‘century of the migrant’ due to both the extent of movement and the related debates such movement has triggered, making the migrant a central political figure. (Nail, 2015) Migration, however, is a controversial phenomenon. There are many different ways to interpret the term ‘migrant’, but no definition of ‘migrant’ actually exists in law. While some international organisations relate migration strictly to individuals’ quests to improve their existence, (UNHCR, 2016 cited in Karakoulaki, Southgate et al., 2018) others define it as movement within or across borders, notwithstanding its reasons, legal status or the duration of stay. (IOM, n.d. cited in Karakoulaki et al., 2018) One of the key difficulties around migration, therefore, is that of terminology, since many terms are used interchangeably. Moreover, recently the number of classifications of people ‘on the move’ has multiplied, further complicating the issue. (Crawley and Skleparis, 2017)
While there has never been a time when people have not moved across bounded spaces, (Isayev, 2018) the way in which such movement has been perceived, quantified and compounded is very much dependent on geopolitical conjunctures. A second challenge when dealing with migration comes in understanding who is being counted as a migrant. This entirely depends on the categories used to analyse migration, and is very much connected to a problem inherent in the depiction of migration. Migration is commonly thought of in terms of ‘flows’, represented on maps as arrows with widths proportional to the numbers of people moving. (Migreurop, 2012)
Whether occurring within national borders or across them, migration is mostly oriented to cities. Urban space is the primary terrain upon which migrationrelated phenomena unfold. (Hatziprokopiou et al., 2016, p.53) As such, migration is inherently linked with the notion of diversity and how this
impacts urban areas. Diversity has become a major characteristic of many cities across the globe, and in itself has been the subject of further qualification, from super-diversity to hyper-diversity. (Vertovec, 2007) These concepts have been conceived as ways of considering diversity beyond ethnically driven biases. They have emerged out of the intention to recognise multidimensional shifts in migration patterns, whereas other factors such as age and economic characteristics complexify often reductive and homogenising views on who migrates and why. (Vertovec, 2007; Meissner and Vertovec, 2015)
Diversity, in its various meanings, has also challenged the ways in which migrants have settled in cities. For several decades the standard migrant spaces in cities were thought to be ethnic enclaves (ethnically homogeneous congregations) and ghettos (forced spatial segregation). (Peach, 2005) These are both examples of spatial patterns of ethnic residential segregation. They have sparked heated debate over whether the clustering of same-origin migrants is (or not) a productive step in terms of their ‘assimilation’ or ‘integration’ into new urban areas. Clearly, this interrogation is rooted in a perspective that imagines that migrants have to fundamentally modify their behaviour to conform with the ‘host’, who already has strongly shared cultural norms and values [See module 3. Social Exclusion].
In the case of the ethnic enclave, its association with ethnic entrepreneurship and economies has led to questions on whether, and in what ways, concentrations of people with a shared geographic origin is beneficial in terms of livelihood formation and consolidation. Ethnic streets and economic enclaves represent a clear illustration of how particular groups coalesce. However, these have also become sites of discussion around diversity, since they are spaces where everyday encounters between diverse groups take place. They exemplify how diversity is experienced and lived daily. (Amin, 2002)
Recently, in contrast with the negative connotations that have characterised ghettos and ethnic enclaves, more composite concepts of ‘arrival infrastructure’, ‘arrival neighbourhood’ and ‘arrival cities’ have been advanced (Meeus, Arnaut and van Heur, 2018; Saunders, 2011). This has led to a focus on those parts of the urban fabric “within which newcomers become entangled on arrival,
and where their future local or translocal social mobilities are produced as much as negotiated” (Meeus, Arnaut and van Heur, 2008, p.1). Placing emphasis on arrival has transcended the focus on the rights of migrants to actually arrive and stay. It has also extended the number of groups who may be interested in such arrival infrastructure, to include other transient and temporary persons who do not have migrant backgrounds.
Other spatial configurations associated with migration, that share a more ambiguous relationship with the urban context, are planned camps and spontaneous encampments (Agier, 2018). Both are associated with ‘temporary status’ and are viewed as being other than the city. Although some camps have, with time, become very urban in their morphological and socio-economic configurations, they are still exceptional due to the suspended rights of their inhabitants, who may experience a condition of ‘permanent temporariness’. Camps are planned settlements that provide basic needs
and protection to those displaced (usually) by conflict or natural hazard. Whereas encampments are spontaneous occupations that occur when a people’s movement is hindered or suspended, thus making such occurrences particularly visible.
Conceptual and practical questions have arisen about how to cater for the growing diversity of urban users and manage their dynamic coexistence in shared environments [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice]. Moving away from the assimilationist model of ‘integration’, the notions of ‘cosmopolis’ and the ‘intercultural city’ have been advanced. (Landry and Wood, 2007; Sandercock, 1998; 2003) These highlight the stimulating exchanges that derive from encounters between highly diverse profiles. It is when dealing with the interrelationship between diversity and place that urban design and planning policies come to the fore. Planning must manage existing superdiverse conditions, and also achieve diversity where it may not currently be present. Social mix policies have been implemented, with rather mixed results, in the attempt to avoid socio-spatial segregation and, less straightforwardly, the clustering of sameorigin migrants.
However, urban design and planning has expressed further preoccupations. It extends its scope of action beyond promoting social diversity, and considers functional or land-use diversity to be equally important. In such contexts, one of the underlying questions concerns the role that physical design can play in enabling diversity: “the appropriate question for planners is not whether the built environment creates diversity, but whether diversity thrives better, or can be sustained longer, under certain physical conditions that planners may have some control over”. (Talen, 2006, p.242) The reinforcement of the public realm, and its nonresidential uses, has been viewed as a key provision for promoting diversity while avoiding conflict. While social infrastructure and public amenities
as ‘micro-publics’ for multi-directional encounters are important, designing spaces to enable encounters in a superdiverse context is a different challenge. This raises questions over which spatial characteristics diverse sites of encounter should include in order to fully host diversity.
Environments that have been viewed as effective in accommodating diversity are those that foster social interaction while simultaneously creating distinct domains where different preferences can be expressed and individual cultures can be emphasized and celebrated. (Knapp, 2009) A relevant example is the Superkilen park in Copenhagen, Denmark, conceived in the broader context of a regeneration project in the district of Nørrebro. To celebrate diversity, the designers asked residents representing more than 60 nationalities to suggest objects from around the globe, several of which found their way into the park’s final design. The park epitomises the vision of a cosmopolitan city. This vision is embraced by several urban areas that are profiled to be multicultural centres where diversity is an asset.
Hatziprokopiou, Y., Frangopoulos, Y. and Montagna, N. (2016) ‘Migration and the city: diversity, migrant economies and urban space’, City, 20 (1), pp. 52-60.
This introduction to a special issue on diversity, migrant economies and urban space scrutinises the main narratives around the multicultural city: successful cosmopolitanism contrasted with ethno-cultural differences that lead to neighbourhood decay. The authors show how diversity increasingly inhabits ordinary spaces.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full /10.1080/13604813.2015.1096054
Darling, J. (2016) ‘Forced migration and the city: irregularity, informality, and the politics of presence’, Progress in Human Geography, 41 (2), pp.178-198.
This paper centres on the relationship between the city and forced migration. It considers this with regard to informality and the presence of unrecognised groups in the urban environment. Both are seen as ways to examine cities as sites of politicisation and critique of state practices.
https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/0309132516629004?__cf_chl_f_
tk=lEEv7nnVtadLhOtFmFycdrExwiDGog1HbBM9nM0QgVk-1645627698-0-gaNycGzNB5E
Agier, M. (2019) ‘Camps, encampments, and occupations: from the heterotopia to the urban subject’, Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 84 (1), pp. 14-26.
Tackles how global inequality is made visible through the formation of precarious spaces. For Agier, worldwide inegalitarianism has engendered various processes of urban formation that include camps, informal encampments and occupations amongst others. These all function first and foremost as places of refuge, at least at their inception.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/00141844.2018.1549578?journalCode=retn20
Agier, M. (2016) Borderlands: Towards an Anthropology of the Cosmopolitan Condition. Cambridge: Polity.
Amin, A. (2002) ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 34 (6), pp. 959-980.
Crawley, H. and Skleparis, D. (2017) ‘Refugees, migrants, neither, both: categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44 (1), pp. 48-64.
Hatziprokopiou, Y., Frangopoulos, Y. and Montagna, N. (2016) ‘Migration and the city: diversity, migrant economies and urban space’, City, 20 (1), pp. 52-60.
International Organisation of Migration, n.d., Who is a Migrant? Available at: https:// www.iom.int/who-is-a-migrant
Isayev, E. (2018) ‘Journeys between city and camp’, Keynote lecture, Theory Forum Journeys/ Arrivals, Sheffield School of Architecture, delivered 21 November 2018.
Karakoulaki, M., Southgate, L. and Steiner, J., (2018) Critical Perspectives on Migration in the TwentyFirst Century. Bristol: E-International Relations.
Knapp, C. (2009) ‘Making multicultural places’, Project for Public Spaces. Available at: https:// www.pps.org/article/multicultural-places
Landry, C. and Wood, P. (2007) The Intercultural City: Planning for diversity advantage. London: Earthscan.
Meeus, B., Arnaut, K. and van Heur, B. (eds.) (2018) Arrival Infrastructures: Migration and urban social mobilities. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meissner, F. and Vertovec, S. (2015) ‘Comparing super-diversity’, Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (4), pp. 541-555.
Migreurop (2017) Atlas des Migrants en Europe: Approches critiques des politiques migratoires. 3rd edn. Paris: Armand Colin.
Nail, T. (2015) The Figure of the Migrant. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Peach, C. (2005) ‘The Ghetto and the ethnic enclave’, in Varady, D.P. (ed.) Desegregating the City: Ghettos, enclaves and inequalities. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 31-48.
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. London: John Wiley.
Sandercock, L. (2003) Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities in the 21st century. London: Continuum.
Saunders, D. (2011) Arrival City: How the largest migration in history is reshaping our world. New York: Knopf Doubleday.
Talen, E. (2006) ‘Design that enables diversity: the complications of a planning ideal’, Journal of Planning Literature, 20 (3), pp. 233-249.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2016) ‘UNCHR viewpoint: ‘Refugee’ or ‘Migrant’ – Which is right?’, Available at: http://www. unchr.org/news/latest/2016/7/55df0e556/ unchr-viewpoint-refugee-migrant-right.html.
Vertovec, S. (2007) ‘Super-diversity and its implications’, Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), pp. 1024-1054.
1. To understand the concept of urban informality and its spatial manifestations, and the key debates surrounding informal settlements.
2. To understand the challenges faced by communities living in informal settlements.
3. To understand the different approaches to community-led upgrading of informal settlements.
4. To understand the relevance of land policies, their impact upon the lives of low-income urban dwellers, and the tools that can be used to address land issues in the context of community-led urban upgrading.
The dominant shelter approach undertaken by the urban poor in the developing world is selfbuilt housing located in informal settlements. These are also referred to as slums, spontaneous settlements, and squatter settlements; as well as a multitude of locally specific names such as Favelas in Brazil and Kampung in Indonesia. They are predominantly residential environments that are typically developed outside official planning and building regulation processes. Where conditions allow, over many decades initial precarious “shacks” are consolidated into durable, permanent houses (Figure 1). Such consolidation is motivated by occupants’ needs and wants and permitted (or not) by the degree of security of land tenure, political stability and the occupants’ economic capabilities.
characteristics: access to improved water; access to improved sanitation; sufficient living area; durability of housing; and security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003). To complement these five characteristics, “occupation and construction frequently take place simultaneously; and... such places are usually in a process of dynamic change and demonstrate considerable ingenuity and creativity within limited resource constraints” (Kellett, 2005).
Estimates indicate that nearly one billion people currently live in informal settlements (Un-Habitat, 2003). While the percentage of the population living in informal settlements in developing countries has decreased over the past two decades, the absolute number of informal settlement dwellers has increased due to continued urbanisation
Informal settlements are far from homogenous (Environment and Urbanization, 1989). They vary in many ways including in: urban location and physical characteristics (Davis, 2006); outlook for the future and capacity for social mobility (Stokes, 1962); past origins and future orientation (Portes, 1971); and their structure and land tenure arrangements (Ward, 1976).
Although a “dangerous” word according to Gilbert (2007), UN-Habitat (2016) uses the term “slum” when referring to informal settlements. A slum is defined as lacking one or more of the following five
and population growth. Projections indicate that informal settlements will become home to more than two billion people by 2050.
Common to all informal settlements is insufficient or non-existent infrastructure, services, and sanitation, especially during their formative years. Formal municipal services such as potable water, electricity, sewage and solid waste collection are limited, irregular or non-existent. Residents cope by “tapping” electricity; sourcing potable
Figure 1: Schematic sketch of the morphological incremental growth of self-built environments in informal settlements over several decades.water by tanker truck delivery, wells or communal standpipes; and disposing of human waste using “flying toilets”, or self-built septic tanks and long-drops.
Land tenure insecurity is a key issue that has multiple effects on the daily lives of residents. It results in a constant threat of eviction. This means that residents are reluctant to invest in housing improvements. It makes them vulnerable to slum landlordism and exploitation by land-owners, and by those in political office. Not having an official address or given physical location can constrain access to other services, such as education and healthcare. These effects further exacerbate the precarious living conditions and reinforce residents’ socio-economic exclusion [link to module 3. Social Exclusion).
Informal settlements are often located on hazardous, marginal land such as steep hillsides, river deltas, flood plains, and toxic and unhygienic sites. Such localities are vulnerable to landslides, flooding, industrial health hazards, and natural hazards; including the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels. Crime, violence and high levels of formal unemployment lead to further stigmatisation of these areas and their residents. The built environment of informal settlements is often very dense and can lack open / public space for recreation and amenity.
The cumulative result of these conditions is severe challenges for residents in terms of their health and wellbeing, socio-economic exclusion, and vulnerability. Informal settlements are a clear violation of the right to adequate housing [link to module 2. Theoretical Frameworks]. However, although one must be careful not to romanticise what are very challenging conditions, there are also aspects that can be considered positive. Residents may take great pride in their self-built environments and do not always see or value the “problems” in the same way outsiders do. They are often active agents in shaping their environments even in the face of severe constraints. Many
informal settlement residents often have strong kinship and community organisation structures that guide settlement management and development, including for example community-led savings groups, management and operation of community resources and services.
The policy and practice approaches to dealing with informal settlements have changed significantly over time. The historical trajectory of approaches to informal settlements can be broadly divided into four overall phases: Eradication, Replacement, Facilitation, and Upgrading1
Eradication: The rapid urbanisation in developing countries from the 1940s onwards brought about a vast expansion of urban informal settlements. Self-built slums were viewed as social pathologies and a physical manifestation of the failure of governments to provide for their citizens (Chambers, 2005). The response was to eradicate the unsightly slums and stem the flow of a “suffering mass of humanity displaced from the rural areas to the filthy peripheries of the great cities” (Lerner, 1967, p.33).
Replacement: With continued urbanisation, the focus changed to replacing slums with “appropriate”, formal housing. This took the form of large-scale, multi-storied, government-led housing developments. With the exception of Singapore and Hong Kong, such housing was unsuccessful for many social and economic reasons. The housing was costly to construct and maintain; supply could not keep up with demand; designs did not respond to occupants’ dwelling needs and values; and they were too expensive to secure and maintain for the urban poor (Gilbert and Gugler, 1992). Therefore, informal settlements continued to expand even under repression by authorities.
Facilitation: A major paradigm shift occurred in the late 1960s. Self-built housing was increasingly
championed as the solution rather than the problem. According to John Turner, housing was to be viewed as a verb (what housing does) rather than a noun (the product) (Turner, 1976). It was argued that collective social organisations and self-builders produced superior housing than heavy, bureaucratic governments because selfbuilt housing matched the occupants’ needs and capabilities. Despite criticism of the approach2, the self-help paradigm greatly informed housing policy and practice. Government responses switched from large-scale housing projects to “supporting the poor to help themselves”, manifested in “sites and services” schemes where a plot of land and a basic serviced sanitation core were provided and the occupants were to, over time, build their houses. However, uptake for “site and service” schemes was low due to high maintenance and service costs, and informal settlement dwellers preferring central, informal locations to peripheral sites.
Upgrading: The focus from the mid-1980s shifted to improving informal settlements through in-situ upgrading. Rather than focusing on housing, the urban physical conditions of informal settlements were upgraded through the provision of paved roads, drainage and basic urban services. In-situ upgrading reflects a movement during the 1980s and 1990s towards neo-liberal orthodoxies, most clearly manifested in “enablement strategies”. The role of governments as direct housing providers was further reduced. Upgrading has been criticised on grounds that it is overly expensive due to sitespecific implementation; is often piecemeal and does not address the city as a whole; can result in gentrification, pushing the really poor outwards; and does not address the root causes of urban poverty and socio-economic exclusion.
The past decade has seen a new paradigm emerge which posits the need for a citywide hybrid approach that incorporates three elements (United Nations, 2017). First, it promotes a citywide approach to upgrading informal settlements, viewing the city as an ecosystem whereby all informal settlements should be recognised, documented and incorporated into an overall citywide strategy and plan for upgrading. Second, it promotes a multiyear, programmatic approach to upgrading, aiming for structural change and to avoid the limitations of piecemeal, ad-hoc upgrading projects. Third, it adopts a “twin-track approach” whereby new affordable land and housing supply is promoted to stem the growth of existing informal settlements and stop new informal settlements emerging.
As part of this overall approach, there is broad consensus that informal settlement upgrading must be undertaken in a participatory manner [link to module 11. Participation]. The residents of target settlements should be involved as meaningful partners in the full project cycle, including from the early stages of mapping and problem identification, to action planning as well as implementation [link to module 14. Project Cycle and module 2. Theoretical Frameworks]. A participatory approach, however, is not only a “grassroots” approach; it also requires the involvement of a wide array of stakeholders at central and local government levels, including utility providers, city planning offices, and social service providers.
Davis, M. (2006) Planet of Slums. USA: Verso. Saunders, D. (2011) Arrival City: How the largest migration in history is reshaping our world. New York: Pantheon Books.
It is good to read these two popular books together. They are both easy to read and have received significant attention. They tell very different stories of informal settlement processes in the developing world. Planet of Slums is a doomsday critique of prevailing urbanisation and economic processes that result in the alarming and unchecked expansion of informal settlements, which are portrayed in a wholly negative light. In contrast, Arrival City paints a picture of human ingenuity and persistence in the face of adversity. Informal settlement residents seek a foothold in the city and make the best of their situation in the hope of a better future.
Boonyabancha, S. and Mitlin, D. (2012) ‘Urban poverty reduction: learning by doing in Asia’, Environment and Urbanization, 24 (2), pp.403-421.
http://eau.sagepub.com/content/24/2/403
This paper provides a grassroots view of informal settlement upgrading in Asia through community action. It reflects on the Asian Coalition for Community Action (ACCA) programme that was initiated by the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) in 2009. ACCA seeks to catalyse and support community initiatives, citywide upgrading and partnerships between community organisations and local governments. It explores two underlying dimensions of the experience: first, the creation of institutions based on relations of reciprocity; and second, the strengthening of relations between lowincome community organisations such that they can create a synergy with government actors.
Gouverneur, D. (2014) Planning and Design for Future Informal Settlements: Shaping the Self-Constructed City. London and New York: Routledge.
This book explores informal settlements at a global scale. It places informal settlements within their broader urban context and argues for the need to address a range of urban planning and governance issues, including land use, energy efficiency, water management, and community participation. The case studies show how these approaches play out across various contexts. It shows the opportunities to harness the energy of the informal sector to address many complex challenges while also reasserting that built environment professionals have a role to play in improving liveability and wellbeing in urban informal settlements.
Suggested open-source core readings:
UN-Habitat (2015) A Practical Guide to Designing, Planning, and Executing Citywide Slum Upgrading Programmes. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
https://unhabitat.org/books/a-practicalguide-to-designing-planning-and-executingcitywide-slum-upgrading-programmes/
This Guide advocates for a citywide approach to slum upgrading which represents a fundamental shift from piecemeal project interventions to a citywide programme approach. The Guide provides an overview of slum growth in different regions of the world and explains actions and steps to design and implement a citywide, participatory upgrading program.
Environment and Urbanization (1989) ‘Beyond the stereotype of ‘slums’’, Environment and Urbanization, 1(2), pp. 2-5. Doi: 10.1177/095624788900100201
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ pdf/10.1177/095624788900100201
1. For a more comprehensive overview see: Pugh, C. (2001) ‘The theory and practice of housing sector development for developing countries, 1950-99’, Housing Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 399-423.
2. See for example: Burgess, R. (1982) Selfhelp housing advocacy: a curious form of radicalism. A critique of the work of John F. C. Turner. In, Ward, P. Self-help housing: a critique. London: Mansell. Burgess contended that not only can the housing crisis not be solved under a capitalist system, but that selfbuilt housing is in-fact an integral structural condition of the exploitative capitalist system.
Burgess, R. (1982) ‘Self-help housing advocacy: a curious form of radicalism’, in Ward, P. M. (ed.) Self-help housing: a critique. London: Mansell.
Chambers, B. (2005) ‘The Barriadas of Lima: slums of hope or despair? Problems or solutions?’, Geography, 90(3), pp. 200-224. Doi: 10.1080/00167487.2005.12094134
Davis, M. (2006) Planet of slums. USA: Verso. Environment and Urbanization (1989) ‘Beyond the stereotype of ‘slums’’, Environment and Urbanization, 1(2), pp. 2-5. Doi: 10.1177/095624788900100201
Gilbert, A. (2007) ‘The return of the slum: does language matter?’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4), pp. 697-713.
Gilbert, A. and Gugler, J. (eds.) (1992) Cities, Poverty and Development: Urbanisation in the Third World. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kellett, Peter. (2005) ‘The construction of home in the informal city’, Critical Studies, 2, pp. 22-42. Doi: 10.3167/147335302782484720
Lerner, D. (1967) ‘Comparative analysis of the process of human migration’, in Miner, H. (ed.) The City in Modern Africa. New York: Praeger, pp. 33.
Portes, A. (1971) ‘The urban slum in Chile: types and correlates’, Land Economics. 47 (3), pp. 235-248.
Pugh, C. (2001) ‘The theory and practice of housing sector development for developing countries, 1950-99’, Housing Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 399-423.
Stokes, C. (1962) ‘A theory of slums’, Land Economics. 38 (3), pp.187-197.
Turner, J. (1976) Housing by People: Towards autonomy in building environments. London: Marion Boyars.
UN-Habitat (2003) The Challenge of Slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. London: Earthscan.
UN-Habitat (2016) Urbanization and Development: Emerging futures. World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
United Nations (2017) New Urban Agenda. Quito: Habitat III Secretariat.
Ward, P. (1976) ‘The squatter settlement as slum or housing solution: evidence from Mexico City’, Land Economics, 52 (3), pp. 330-346.
1. To understand the broad meaning of the term ‘heritage’ and the differentiation between tangible and intangible heritage.
2. To understand heritage in the context of development, and the opportunities that it offers in connection with territory, resources and knowledge transfer.
3. To recognise the cultural and symbolic importance of cultural heritage, and understand how this is threatened in conflict and disaster scenarios.
Heritage as a concept has developed significantly over the last century. It is understood as a wide idea that relates to those human and natural realities that connect our past to our future, including the meanings and uses we extract from them. Those realities can be tangible or intangible, that is, they can be part of our natural and man-made physical inheritance; or part of our habits, ideas, beliefs or traditions. They have been passed on to us and are integral elements of our culture and environment that hold value and significance for communities at local, regional or global levels. Therefore we intend to safeguard them for future generations.
In the 19th century, owing to the acceleration of industrial and political development, various categories of cultural and natural heritage were created. Initially reserved for emblematic objects, buildings and other artifacts; the meaning of ‘heritage’ was highly symbolic for national identity. The identification and care of classified objects was the subject of national movements starting in a few European countries. The emergence of the idea of heritage is now directly associated with conservation, as well as with protection and respect during conflicts and disasters. Heritage has more recently been categorised as both tangible and intangible. (UNESCO, 1972)
The links between the built environment and heritage are strong. Beyond contexts marked by heritage buildings and landscapes, there are multiple forms of intangible heritage and cultural manifestations that can strongly influence the environment.
As built environment practitioners, it is worth recognising the role that heritage can play for local communities. It is strongly linked to the sense of identify of a place, but the relevance is much wider. The broad framing of heritage, firmly linked to culture, is manifested for example in cultural expressions that take place and are rooted in public and open spaces; in the local
understanding and management of the natural environment; or in construction tradition and use of available resources. Increasingly, we are interested in understanding these knowledge and practices as they not only embody significance and value for people and can foster bond and strengthen communities, but they offer insight and inspiration for a more sustainable built environment. Heritage can be seen not only as something to respect and preserve, but as a valuable resource that has an active part in the future of communities.
International charters, declarations and conventions have provided principles for the protection of heritage since the mid-twentieth century, including in the event of armed conflict. The 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which enjoys the largest international support, fosters the protection of natural and cultural heritage and emphasises the interconnection between them. (UNESCO, 1972) The definition of cultural heritage in this convention concerns only tangible heritage, focusing on monuments, groups of buildings, or sites with outstanding universal value of a historic, artistic, scientific, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological nature.
This definition of heritage was reliant on top-down value recognition and left out many forms of cultural
manifestation. The UNESCO 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention indicated a major shift in the recognition of heritage, defining ‘intangible heritage’ as “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith-that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage”. (UNESCO, 2003) Besides broadening the scope of heritage protection, this convention introduces another important element: the role of communities and groups in recognising their own heritage.
The UNESCO 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions signifies the latest major recognition by the international community of the universal value of culture.
Notwithstanding these international agreements, there are countries where heritage policy and governance is limited. In these contexts, heritage awareness becomes crucial to ensuring that it is
considered fairly.
The recognition of the role of communities in defining the value and significance of their own heritage means that heritage is no longer subject to static or objective evaluations, commonly provided by experts. It has become a dynamic process closely linked to people’s engagement and appreciation. This means that top-down approaches (experts’ opinions) must be combined with bottom-up approaches (community participation in valuation processes), which in practice is still a challenge. Advocacy remains essential for raising awareness of the value of heritage. [See module 11. Participation]
Heritage has not played a significant role in international development in the past. International development agendas have prioritised physiological needs and safety, leaving out references to safeguarding heritage e.g. Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000). Viewed via a hierarchical system of needs, heritage can easily be seen as a luxury. This approach risks not recognising the cultural subjectivities of aid receivers. (Basu and Modest, 2015) Furthermore, by excluding heritage from international development efforts, it can become a luxury only accessible to wealthier countries.
Engagement with heritage in development contexts has been further contested by some who consider it elitist or divisive. The shift from top-down to bottom-up recognition of heritage, promoted by UNESCO’s most recent declarations, promotes the democratisation of heritage, which is no longer exclusively for the educated or wealthy. Nonetheless, education and awareness remain essential for preventing manipulative uses of heritage to differentiate and exclude.
With global development incessantly pursuing economic growth, culture becomes increasingly relevant as a response to globalisation. Arguments to recognise culture as a fourth pillar of sustainable development have grown since the start of the 21st century, resulting in culture gaining weight as an agent of change. (Wiktor-Mach, 2019)
The UN 2013 Resolution on Culture and Sustainable Development “Recognizes the role of culture as an enabler of sustainable development that provides peoples and communities with a strong sense of identity and social cohesion and contributes to more effective and sustainable development policies and measures at all levels, and stresses in this regard that policies responsive to cultural contexts can yield better, sustainable, inclusive and equitable development outcomes”. (UN General Assembly, 2014)
UNESCO’s approach to heritage is articulated in The Power of Culture for Development which responds to the MDGs by identifying culture as a vehicle for economic development, social cohesion and stability, environmental sustainability, and community resilience. (UNESCO, 2010)
The most significant progress in integrating heritage in processes of development has been achieved with relation to urban contexts. The Sustainable Development Goals, for the first time, make direct reference to the safeguarding of heritage under SDG 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities. Stating that to make human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable it is necessary to “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”. (UN General Assembly, 2015)
This followed the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape that sees heritage as a social, cultural and economic asset and advocates for an integration of heritage policies into wider development goals for culturallysensitive urban development. (UNESCO, 2019)
The need to safeguard heritage is also acknowledged in the New Urban Agenda, emphasising the role heritage plays in “rehabilitating and revitalising urban areas and in strengthening social participation and the exercise of citizenship”. (UN-Habitat, 2016)
The discourse linking heritage and development continues to evolve, with recent efforts focusing on the place of heritage in meeting the SDGs. (see for example: UNESCO, 2018).
UNESCO (2003) Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris.
This significant text defines what intangible cultural heritage is and how it should be safeguarded.
https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention
Barillet, C. et al. (2006) Cultural heritage and local development: a guide for African local governments. Place of publication not identified: CRATerre-ENSAG/Convention France-UNESCO.
This text explores heritage through examples. It was designed as a tool for decision making, but also for sensitising elected local representatives to the challenges of the protection and valorisation of their heritage. It aims to create a new dynamic and focus on the specificity of the culture and heritage of local African communities as levers for territorial development.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/25/
Brooks, G. (2001) ‘Heritage as a Driver for Development’, ICOMOS Paris, 3(1), pp. 496–505.
As one of the world’s most powerful economic and social forces, well managed tourism can and does give heritage (tangible and intangible) a major role in contemporary society, reinforcing cultural identities and diversity as key reference points for development. The tourism sector is well aware of the issues surrounding heritage conservation and its role in contemporary development. This paper summarises the development of well managed tourism as a major contemporary force for heritage conservation and human development.
http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/ eprint/1207/1/III-1-Article1_Brooks.pdf
Barillet, C. et al. (2006) Cultural heritage and local development: a guide for African local governments. Place of publication not identified: CRATerre-ENSAG/Convention France-UNESCO. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/ activities/25/ (Accessed: 23 February 2022).
Basu, P. and Modest, W. (eds) (2015) Museums, heritage and international development. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group (Routledge studies in culture and development, 1).
Bevan, R. (2016) The destruction of memory: architecture at war. Available at: http://site.ebrary. com/id/11240774 (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
Brooks, G. (2001) ‘Heritage as a Driver for Development’, ICOMOS Paris, 3(1), pp. 496–505.
Frey, P. (2010) Learning from vernacular: towards a new vernacular architecture. Arles: Actes Sud.
Frowe, H. and Matravers, D. (2019) ‘Conflict and Cultural Heritage: A Moral Analysis of the Challenges of Heritage Protection’, J. Paul Getty Trust Occasional Papers, 3.
Luck, E. C. (2018) ‘Cultural Genocide and the Protection of Cultural Heritage’, J. Paul Getty Trust Occasional Papers in Cultural Heritage Policy, 2
Piquard, B. and Swenarton, M. (2011) ‘Learning from architecture and conflict’, The Journal of Architecture, 16(1), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1080/13602365.2011.557897.
UN (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. Available at: https://www.ohchr. org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Millennium. aspx (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UN General Assembly (2014) Culture and sustainable development (A/Res/68/223). UN,. Available at: http://digitallibrary.un.org/ record/765783 (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UN General Assembly (2015) ‘Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. Available at: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/21252030%20Agenda%20 for%20Sustainable%20Development%20 web.pdf (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (1954) 1954 Hague Convention. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ culture/themes/armed-conflict-and-heritage/ convention-and-protocols/1954-hagueconvention/ (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris. Available at: https:// www.refworld.org/docid/4042287a4 html (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (2003) Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/ convention (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (2010a) Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage. Available at: https:// whc.unesco.org/en/managing-disasterrisks/ (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (2010b) The Power of culture for development. Available at: https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000189382 (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (2013) ‘Introducing Cultural Heritage into the Sustainable Development Agenda’. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/ fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/ HeritageENG.pdf (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (2018) Culture for the 2030 Agenda. Available at: https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000264687 (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (2019) Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. Available at: https://whc. unesco.org/en/hul/ (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UNESCO (no date) What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? Available at: https://ich.unesco. org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003 (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
UN-Habitat (2016) The New Urban Agenda, Habitat III. Available at: https://habitat3.org/thenew-urban-agenda/ (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
Weiss, T. G. and Connelly, N. (2017) ‘Cultural Cleansing and Mass Atrocities’, J. Paul Getty Trust Occasional Papers in Cultural Heritage Policy, 1, p. 50.
Wiktor-Mach, D. (2019) ‘Cultural heritage and development: UNESCO’s new paradigm in a changing geopolitical context’, Third World Quarterly, 40(9), pp. 1593–1612. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2019.1604131.
1. To reflect on the ethical responsibility of built environment professionals in working with groups and individuals who may be in vulnerable situations.
2. To consider the notion of sustainable development and what this means in light of the nexus between ecological, economic, and social sustainability.
3. To understand the role of built environment professionals as enablers of processes, rather than providers of solutions.
CHALLENGING PRACTICE: MODULE HANDBOOK
Ethics are a set of principles that govern behaviour or how an activity is conducted. In his recent review of the ethical codes of architecture, ‘Reflect Critically, Act Fearlessly’, David Roberts argues that “perhaps more than other professions the process of conceiving, making, using and transforming the built environment is aligned to ecological, social and material conditions” (Roberts, 2019). In architecture and the built environment professions, there are basic duties and principles that are often associated with professional practice. These include being honest and acting with integrity; avoiding conflicts of interest; promoting your services honestly; and being competent in the work you carry out (ARB, 1997). Within such codes, each participant is required to act according to universally applied standards. Whilst such principles can be understood as a baseline for professional conduct, it is important to note that this is a mode that often privileges the client (as commissioner). It also can present decision-making as judging between competing rights where one becomes the ‘winner’; and limit to an ‘advisory role’ wider societal and ecological concerns.
To engage in inclusive or sustainable urban development is often to work with communities who are in precarious or vulnerable situations, and to struggle to alleviate inequality and environmental degradation. You will need to consider, with others, where the effective points of intervention may be: at what scales and in what ways you can act to create positive change. This may require challenging the limits and sites for action beyond those you would usually engage with, to include economics, organisation, and politics. To seek such transformative change requires questioning and acting against dominant ideologies and systems. It requires advocating for and working with those who are not currently in positions of power, or who may be subject to exclusions. The personal and professional responsibilities in this context, in terms of considering who and what matters in any given situation, are therefore much wider and more complex, as your role might be.
Feminist scholar Carol Gilligan developed an ethic of care that invites a more responsive and active approach, both in terms of positioning and practices (Gilligan, 1982). Critical of abstract and predetermined rules, she suggests that ethics should be developed with reference to a particular context and set of relations that support their positive continuation. What is ‘right’ in a particular situation is to take into account the impact that a course of action will have upon those with whom you are working and the wider communities. It also requires an acknowledgement of the need for self-care; to avoid self-exploitation or disregard for those beyond your immediate associations. This demands honesty with yourself and those with whom you work about your capacities, skills, motivation, emotional responses and commitment to a context. Donna Haraway speaks of cultivating ‘respons-ability’, as a sensitivity to the experiences of others, through doing things together. (Haraway, 2016)
Power imbalances will exist within groups and communities, and whilst they cannot be eradicated, they should be understood as shaping relations and agencies. Strategies should be developed to take these into account. For example, the risks, labours and impact of a project will not bear evenly upon all participants; therefore questions of what is at stake, and what is gained by each participant should be openly discussed. It may be politically
and/or socially risky for some to visibly take a particular position or carry out certain work.
Working with an international organisation confers privileges and status in terms of access to meetings, resources, information, and support. This may not necessarily be afforded to those who have been working on the ground for years, or those affected by the proposals. When joining a particular context, it is important to understand that often people will have worked to develop the possibility for action and the capacities of local people to join in. Whilst the work you do can be visible, celebrated, and have an important impact, it may only have been possible because of the hidden or invisible labours of others. The organisation and management of collaborative and co-designed work is crucial, and it is good to establish protocols and modes of decision making early to ensure everyone is aware of how things will happen.
It is important to recognise structural discrimination across race, class, physical or mental ability, and gender. Identities are usually socially constituted, multiple and often unchosen. Identity categories intersect to create overlapping and interdependent oppressions, relating to the institutions and structures that hold them in place. (Crenshaw, 1998) [See module 3. Social Exclusion] As a built environment professional seeking to support democratic processes, opening up, listening to and amplifying voices can be crucial ethical practices. Although familiar, even ‘everyday’ notions, proficiency in these skills should not be assumed, and often takes time to refine, particularly in relation to unfamiliar social or cultural situations. Those who ‘shout the loudest’ in a context may not be representative of those they claim to speak for. They may simply be more used to speaking and being heard. Often community representatives are cultivated by those in power to simplify contexts and issues, or to suppress certain voices or concerns.
It is important to recognise the heterogeneity of groups, and not to assume community agreement as this can lead to domination or the erasure of experiences and perspectives. It is useful to consider who may be absent from the table, who has advocates, and also the relevance of ecological systems, or non-human species, that may not ‘speak’ in the same terms, or fit within certain dominant narratives. To pay attention to the experiences and knowledge of others does not imply that all opinions are necessarily equally valid within a particular context, or disallow that some may have a better viewpoint than others. Nor does it deny the value of particular skills and understandings that you or others may have developed in professional contexts. Rather, it foregrounds the ethical responsibility of being aware of the limitations and partiality of your knowledge and experiences, and to work in a situated way (Haraway, 2003) [See module 11. Participation].
You may be asked or need to engage in ethical decisions in cultural, religious and political contexts very different from those with which you are familiar. How do you avoid making decisions based on the value judgements, histories and experiences of a dominant single group (such as the Global North) whilst being able to challenge the systemic injustices and oppression you encounter? Uma Narayan argues that we are replicating colonial traditions if we portray some cultures and traditions as natural and unchanging, and groups and communities as homogenous and bounded. (Narayan, 1998) She offers instead an anti-essentialist position which proposes the need to build ethical practice together, in order to understand the complexities and histories that matter in a context or to engage in a concern
Lindemann, H. (2019) An invitation to Feminist Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This book gives a useful overview of how feminist ethics address power, as well as introducing key ethical theories such as social contract theory, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics. It explores key approaches to feminist ethics, such as care and intersectionality.
https://library.memoryoftheworld.org/
Hooks, B. (2000) Where We Stand: Class matters. Routledge: New York and London.
Hooks explores the intersections of race, class and gender through personal experience, her political activism and social and cultural theory. She explores how everyday interactions reproduce these distinctions, whilst simultaneously denying them.
https://library.memoryoftheworld.org/
Practicing Ethics (2020)
https://www.practisingethics.org/
Hickel, J. (2017) A brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. Little Atoms.
Hickel explores fairness in relation to economics, aid, colonialism and the narratives that dominate how we understand the Global North and South. He also engages critically with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In doing so he draws on his recent book: The Divide.
http://littleatoms.com/podcast-society/ little-atoms-podcast-478-jason-hickels-divide
Tronto, J. (2014) An Ethics of Care.
Joan Tronto explains the key ideas and motivations behind the notion of ethics of care.
https://youtu.be/VAbJ4aVpbEg
Architects Registration Board (1997) The Architects Code: Standards of professional conduct and practice. ARB. Available at: https:// arb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ V5-January-2019-unofficial.pdf
Crenshaw, K. (1998) `Playing race cards: Constructing a proactive defense of affirmative action´, Nat’l Black LJ, 16, p. 196.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In A Different Voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press. Available at: https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/275714106_ In_A_Different_Voice_Psychological_ Theory_and_Women’s_Development.
Haraway, D. J. (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, D. J. (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Narayan, U. (1998) `Essence of Culture and a Sense of History: A Feminist Critique of Cultural Essentialism`, Special Issue: Border Crossings: Multiculturalism and Postcolonial Challenges, Part 1, Hypatia, 13 (2) pp. 86-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01227.x.
Roberts, D. (2019) ‘Reflect Critically and Act Fearlessly: A Survey of Ethical Codes, Guidance and Access in Built Environment Practice’, Bartlett Ethics Commission.
1. To understand the social and historical context of participation and its key tensions and complexities.
2. To understand how participatory practices can empower communities to direct their own development.
3. To explore the limitations of a purely community-level approach, including participatory approaches that attempt to bridge multiple levels and spatial scales to critically engage with power dynamics that produce and reproduce urban poverty and vulnerability.
While the dictionary definition of participation refers to ‘engagement’, the nature of this engagement can vary enormously. Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of participation, which starts with ‘manipulation’ and ends with ‘citizen control’ (Arnstein, 1969) was an attempt to be provocative about the extent of citizen participation within three federal social programmes in 1970s America: urban renewal, antipoverty, and model cities. She claimed that while “participation of the governed in their government is, in theory, the cornerstone of democracy” (Arnstein, 1969) the reality is very different when advocated by marginal groups in society. When the ‘have-not’ communities in America at that time (Black, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Indians, Eskimos and Whites) defined participation as the ‘redistribution of power’, they came up against “racial, ethnic, ideological and political opposition”. (Arnstein, 1969) [See module 3. Social Exclusion]
Participation is about both power and rights. At its most ambitious, participation aims at a ‘redistribution of power’ that enables marginalised communities to join in political and economic processes, and to be included in how information is shared and policies and goals are set. Participation is linked to citizenship, and thus “recasts participation as a right, not simply an invitation offered to the beneficiaries of development”. (Gaventa, 2007) The role of participation in partnerships and governance is critical.
Today almost one billion people, one sixth of the world’s total population, live in informal settlements in developing countries. [See module 7. Informal Settlements] There have also been shifts in how housing policies for low-income people are approached, and in the roles of built environment professionals. ‘Providing for’ such populations has changed to ‘supporting’ them. (Tovivich, 2008)
Since the 1970s, the limitations of the topdown, technocratic, modernist approach to city planning and housing development have become increasingly apparent. Non-government organizations (NGOs), the private sector and citizens increasingly pushed for a greater role in shaping urban development and housing policies and practices. Informal settlement communities demonstrated that they could improve their living conditions quicker, more cost effectively, in a manner that was better suited to their needs and values, and with greater chances of long-term sustainability than top-down government-led interventions. [See module 7. Informal Settlements] For many stakeholders, therefore, participation became an expedient way to achieve change on a larger scale than was previously possible. While for others, it was part of a broader agenda for advancing socio-political transformation through protecting, respecting and realizing fundamental human rights. [See module 2. Theoretical Frameworks]
In practice, participation is far from straightforward and key tensions need to be considered when developing and implementing participatory approaches. In urban contexts, the challenges of defining ‘community’, understanding scale, and tackling institutional complexity are more
significant than in rural areas. (Cage and Okello, 2020). The label ‘community’ is commonly used to refer to informal settlement neighbourhoods and their residents. However, these neighbourhoods are often highly diverse, and are seldom socially homogeneous, or free from conflict and socioeconomic discord. Therefore, how participatory processes account for social diversity, power asymmetries and avoid homogenizing participants’ capabilities, needs and priorities is a key challenge. (Apsan Frediani, 2016) Likewise, working in cities requires the participation of a broad range of stakeholders, including municipal authorities, utility providers, landowners or custodians, the private sector, central government departments, and others. [See module 13. Partnerships] Participation, therefore, becomes much more than communitylevel action. These tensions are too often underestimated by practitioners, and frequently compounded by short timelines and a drive for project-based outputs. (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
Tovivich describes three potential roles for built environment professionals who are working ‘for’ and ‘with’ urban poor communities. These are: provider, supporter and catalyst, where a “provider designs basic structure; a supporter enables spontaneous emergence; and a catalyst encourages small changes which can be scaled up”. (Tovivich, 2009) Alongside rethinking their own role as a built environment professional, Hamdi suggests that a shift in thinking from working with the ‘community’ to engaging ‘stakeholders’ is key. (Hamdi, 2009) [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice]
A key message of Arnstein and others is that meaningful participation involves a significant step further than consultation and requires transparency and a willingness to engage. In the
case of a built environment professional, he/she does not need to abandon the skills they have, but must consider how to use them as a servant or interpreter. This can transform the expertise of built environment disciplines from a private skill into “a social resource”, opening up the rights of people “to make high demands of it”. (Oliver, 2005) The role of the built-environment professional must shift from that of a provider to a supporter or catalyst, in order to facilitate inclusive building processes in places of rapid change and scarce resources.
Nearly 50 years after it was published, Arnstein’s ladder remains useful for critiquing the underlying motives and ambitions of participatory processes. Project-based, community-level participation alone is still not enough to achieve structural change in the lives of the urban poor and marginalized in developing countries. Experience has shown the need for participation at multiple levels and spatial scales, in an integrated manner, aligned with reformed institutional systems, and which challenges the status quo of power dynamics shaping cities. Parnell and Pieterse argue that “a universal rights agenda can and should be fulfilled as an alternative to neoliberal aspirations, and that to achieve this development action will be needed on a series of different scales … individual, household, neighbourhood and more macroenvironmental scale”. (Parnell and Pieterse, 2010)
ASF-UK’s Change by Design programme has explored these issues in practice in a variety of contexts over the past decade. The programme is premised on the belief that if participatory processes are to bring about meaningful change, practitioners should not only focus on mechanisms of community-level decision making; they should also expand communities’ presence in spaces of negotiation, and their capabilities to claim their rights and to contribute to urban development processes as legitimate partners. Participatory processes should not only be concerned with tools and methods of providing localised technical fixes
to the symptoms of urban poverty and exclusion, but rather reveal and tackle processes related to unequal power dynamics, multiple identities, and the reformation of institutions that can facilitate democratic processes and the advancement of just cities. (Frediani, 2016) [See module 15. Participatory Design Tools].
Tovivich, S. (2009) ‘Learning from Informal Settlements: the New “Professionalism” for Architectural Practice’, CEBE Transactions, 6, pp. 62–85..
This paper addresses the role of the architect when working with informal communities and the urban poor. It suggests that this role has changed from ‘to provide for’ into ‘to support’ and that a new professionalism is required to meet the challenges posed by informal settlements. Tovivich suggests that knowledge and skills around participatory design and its challenges should be integrated into architectural education to better prepare architects for working with poor urban communities.
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/275380735_Learning_from_Informal_Settlements_the_New_’Professionalism’_for_Architectural_Practice
Chambers, R. (1992) Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (Discussion paper / Institute of Development Studies, 311).
This study provides a thorough background to Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). It explores a range of approaches for facilitating local people to share, improve and analyse their lives and conditions, in order to direct their own development. Chambers identifies the behaviour of the facilitator as key to the success of a participatory approach. He describes how ‘handing over the stick’ ensures that information is shared rather than extracted from participants.
https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Dp311.pdf
IIED, PLAN and IDS (2010) Core reading is pages 27-51
This is a good example of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools facilitating Community Action Planning. It uses PRA tools to help communities recognise the health problems associated with defecating in the open, rather than in latrines, and to mobilise them to take collective action to stop open defecation. It presents ‘triggering’ as a way to engage communities with sanitation issues, and opportunities for communities to consider other collective action. It also explores avenues for scaling up Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) across communities and regions.
http://pubs.iied.org/14579IIED.html
RSA (2010) Nabeel Hamdi - The Placemaker’s Guide to Building Community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjrIVjSK6oA
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation - Sherry R Arnstein. Available at: https://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherryarnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation. html (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
ASF UK (2016) Change by design building communities through participatory design. Architecture Sans Frontieres UK. Available at: https://issuu.com/asf-uk/docs/75033019-changeby-design-building- (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
Blundell-Jones, P. (ed.) (2009) Architecture and participation. Digit. print. London: Taylor & Francis.
Burkey, S. (1993) People first: a guide to self-reliant participatory rural development. London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Zed Books.
Cage, C. and Okello, M. (2012) Urban Participatory Planning. Practical Action. Available at: http://answers.practicalaction. org/our-resources/item/urban-participatoryplanning (Accessed: 19 January 2021).
Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2000) ‘Public involvement and planning: looking beyond the one to the many’, International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 321–344.
Catley, A et al. (2008) Participatory Impact Assessment: A Guide for Practitioners. ALNAP. Available at: https://www.alnap.org/help-library/ participatory-impact-assessment-a-guide-forpractitioners (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
Chambers, R. (2002) Participatory workshops: a sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Chambers, R. (2008) ‘Who Counts? The Quiet Revolution of Participation and Numbers’, IDS Working Paper, 296. Available at: https://opendocs. ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/398
(Accessed: 22 February 2021).
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: the new tyranny? London; New York: Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. (ed.) (2011) The participation reader. London; New York: Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. and Scoones, I. (eds) (2011) Revolutionizing development: reflections on the work of Robert Chambers. London: Earthscan.
Frediani, A. A. (2016) ‘Re-imagining Participatory Design: Reflecting on the ASF-UK Change by Design Methodology’, Design Issues, 32(3), pp. 98–111. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00403.
Gaventa, J. (2007) ‘Towards Participatory Governance: assessing the transformative possibilities’, in Hamdi, N., The placemakers’ guide to building community. London; Washington, DC: Earthscan (Tools for Community Planning), p. 89.
Groupe URD (2009) Participation Handbook for humanitarian field workers. Available at: https://www.urd.org/en/publication/ participation-handbook-for-humanitarianfield-workers/ (Accessed: 1 February 2021).
Hamdi, N. (1995) Housing without houses: participation, flexibility, enablement. 1. paperback ed. London: Intermediate Technology Publ.
Hamdi, N. (2004) Small change: about the art of practice and the limits of planning in cities. London; Sterling, Va: Earthscan.
Hamdi, N. (2010) The placemakers’ guide to building community. London; Washington, DC: Earthscan (Tools for Community Planning).
Hamdi, N. and Goethert, R. (1997) Action planning for cities: a guide to community practice. Chichester; New York: John Wiley.
Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. (2005)
‘Relocating participation within a radical politics of development’, Development and Change, 36(2), pp. 237–262.
Lunch, N. and Lunch, C. (2006) Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field, InsightShare. Available at: https:// insightshare.org/resources/insights-intoparticipatory-video-a-handbook-for-the-field/ (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
Mitlin, D. and Thompson, J. (1995) ‘Participatory Approaches in Urban Areas’, Environment and Urbanisation, 7(1), pp. 231–250.
Oliver, G. (2005) ‘Responsive Practice’, in Ray, N. (ed.) Architecture and its ethical dilemmas. London; New York: Taylor & Francis, p. 66.
Parnell, S. and Pieterse, E. (2010) ‘The “Right to the City”: Institutional Imperatives of a Developmental State’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34, pp. 146–162.
Sims, N. H. (2006) How to run a great workshop: the complete guide to designing and running brilliant workshops and meetings. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson Prentice Hall/Business.
Tovivich, S. (2009) ‘Learning from Informal Settlements: the New “Professionalism” for Architectural Practice’, CEBE Transactions, 6, pp. 62–85.
Tovivich, S. (2010) Architecture for the urban poor, the ‘new professionalism’ of ‘community architects’ and the implications for architectural education: reflections on practice from Thailand. PhD Thesis. UCL. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/1306880/ (Accessed: 22 February 2021).
1. To gain a preliminary understanding of the concept of resilience and community resilience.
2. To understand resilience related to communities’ agency of empowerment.
3. To introduce a number of principles and tools for resilience that can be considered by communities.
CHALLENGING PRACTICE: MODULE HANDBOOK
The term resilience comes from the Latin resilire, meaning ‘to rebound or recoil’ and was used initially in physics and material sciences to describe the ability of material properties to withstand large forces and shocks.
Work on resilience was further popularised in academia in the 1960s-70s by Crawford Holling (1973) who introduced the concept to an ecology audience. It was then further developed across disciplines, and subsequently entered the mainstream academic discourse via ‘social-ecological resilience’ with a focus on ‘socioecological systems’ (Folke, 2006). In the last few decades, definitions of resilience have proliferated in many different fields – ie physics, ecology, business studies, psychology, geography, social science, urban and regional planning (see eg. Shaikh and Kauppi 2010; Holling 1973, Werner 1995; Godschlak 2003, Timmerman 1981). This has led to a deeper understanding of the conditions required by complex socio-ecological systems to thrive with uncertainty and unpredictable change.
Currently, due to increased global challenges (Climate Change, social and economic inequality, food security, natural preservation, resources depletion, recession etc.), the ‘resilience imperative’ (Lewis and Conaty, 2012) has been fully recognised by international policy, as evidenced in recent frameworks (eg. Habitat III, COP21, World Urban Forum) becoming almost “a pervasive idiom of global governance” (Walker and Cooper, 2011, pp.144).
The discourse on resilience as adopted by policy is currently dominated by technological and environmental perspectives (ie. CIIP, EPHA), with little emphasis on social, cultural and political dimensions (Hornborg, 2009) or the ‘bottom-up’ practical perspective (Vale, 2014). This discourse is used to maintain a simplified rhetoric of ‘sustainability’ and to support technocratic and adaptive management fixing. Although resilience
is put forward as a politically neutral term, this position is arguably framed within pervasive capitalist logic and vocabulary (Welsh, 2014).
Communities are major players in addressing global challenges in their local contexts. They need to thrive in long-term changing circumstances and adversity and to take meaningful, deliberate, collective action to remedy the impact of a problem while promoting social and ecological evolution.
Governments have started to recognise the essential role of community empowerment in resilience and to promote supporting policies, such as those advanced under the Big Society flagship program of the UK government. ‘Community resilience’ in these policies focuses however on community self-reliance and empowerment, by reducing the state contribution and encouraging volunteering and community activity (e.g. the Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience 2011). This type of ‘empowerment’ has been criticised for exhausting communities’
resources without offering economic and political support for long-term action (Welsh, 2014).
However resilience can also strengthen local communities and promote anticapitalist activist projects rather than maintaining dominant economic and political systems (Cretney & Bond, 2014; Hopkins, 2011; Goldstein, 2012). Examples of such projects can be found both in the Global North and South: R-Urban, Transition Towns, Incredible Edible, Stad in de Maak, Rotterdam in the Global North; Catalytic Communities (CatCom) and the favela Community Land Trust in Rio de Janeiro, the 100 Classrooms for refugee Children in Za’atari Vlllage in the Global South.
Communities are the key actors within the current shift in resilience approaches which,
rather than mitigation, focus on adaptive capacity and potential for collective learning and acting together (DeVerteuil and Golubchikov, 2016) [link to module 11. Participation]. Nevertheless, community initiatives are often limited in scope and means, and cannot solve interrelated issues which need a more strategic approach. There is a need for integrating top-down and bottom-up policies and complementing strategically public and civic initiatives, particularly in relation to resilience governance (The Young Foundation, 2012).
Resourcefulness is a relatively new concept that addresses the necessity to identify, make available and redistribute resources of space, knowledge and power across local actors and communities to improve resilience. The notion of resourcefulness situates resilience in a more positive light,
relating it to the agency of empowerment of the community (MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013). Such approaches to resilience, concerned with communal management of land and resources as a form of resistance to privatisation and globalisation, is often integrated within broader social movements fighting against social injustice and inequitable urban environments (Brown et al., 2012).
Resilience requires multi-agency working (Trogal and Petrescu, 2016) and ways of enhancing the ‘capability to act’ (Sen, 2009) of as many as possible. The R-Urban project is a concrete example in Europe of how this ‘capability to act’ towards resilience can be supported through networks of community hubs (Petrescu D, and Petcou C., 2015). An example from the Global South is the Kibera Public Space Project in Nairobi, Kenya. [link to module 10. Ethics in built environment practice].
Community resilience processes usually take place at local scales: neighbourhood, city (Stevenson and Petrescu, 2016), involving mainly the most active community members and assuming that localising decision-making implies bringing about more socially just and ecologically sustainable outcomes. However, these processes need to overcome the ‘local trap’ (Purcell, 2006) in which many grassroots resilience initiatives tend to fall, due precisely to their vulnerability to scarce resources. Resilience is a global problem that needs to be approached both locally and translocally, considering the specificity, capability and collective knowledge of each locale and fostering global links between stakeholders and community groups (MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013). Shared methods, tools and cross-institutional structures are needed for expanding community resilience across scales and cultures in order to form trans-local alliances, networks and collaborative platforms (Baibarac and Petrescu, 2017).
Communities can enhance their own capabilities and transformative agency by participating in the co-creation of tools and methods for building community resilience. Co-production can create new situations in which citizens, local authorities and other resilience agents (practitioners, NGOs, researchers) support each other and learn from each other in relational ways. Co-production can generate empowerment, innovation, collaboration, capacity building, and relational thinking (Wolfram and Frantzeskaki, 2016) and can support more open and deliberative processes (Pohl et al., 2010). [link to module 2. Theoretical Frameworks, module 11. Participation, module 13. Partnerships and module 15. Participatory design tools]
Involving communities in co-producing resilience together with local governments across the globe, can contribute to developing a new governance of urban production processes that are more socially and environmentally just, which can potentially contain the global warming within a range of 1.5–2.08C in order to prevent irreversible and truly catastrophic changes (Petrescu and Petcou, 2020).
The Young Foundation (2012) Adapting to Change: The role of community resilience. London: The Young Foundation.
https://youngfoundation.org/publications/adapting-to-change-the-role-of-community-resilience/
This report states that community resilience is built primarily through relationships, not just between members of the community but also between organisations, specifically between the voluntary sector, the local economy and the public sector. The report emphasises the role of local institutions in ensuring necessary resources and influencing the ability of communities to be resilient. Also, in times of austerity and recession, it questions the role of voluntary sector organisations in building resilience in communities.
Hopkins, R. (2010) ‘What can communities do?’, in Heinberg, R. and Lerch, D. (eds.)
The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century’s Sustainability Crises. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media.
https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/ Transition_Relocalisation_Resilience/ PCReader-Hopkins-Communities.pdf
This text looks at resilience in relation with the transition movement. Resilience is understood not only as an outer process, but also as an inner one, a process of becoming more flexible, robust and skilled, which should take place with every member of a community. It states the need for radical community transformation in order to fulfill the process of transition to a resilient society.
Maguire, B., and Cartwright, S. (2008) Assessing a community’s capacity to manage change: A resilience approach to social assessment. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/ dewha_resilience_sa_report_final_4.pdf
Resilience can be achieved through co-production, opening up possibilities for learning and cross-institutional collaboration between academia, policy making and the civic sector, challenging power structures. This article shows how the multi-stakeholder engagement in co-producing resilience has to be rooted in a political ecology standpoint, and requires ideas, tools, space, time and agency if it is to succeed.
Atelier d’Architecture Autogérée (2018) R-Urban - Ecological Transition Movement involving citizen in Civic Resilience Networks.
https://vimeo.com/230609400
Baibarac, C. and Petrescu, D. (2017) ‘Opensource resilience: a connected commons-based proposition for urban transformation’, Procedia Engineering, 198, pp. 227-239.
Brown, G., Kraftl, P., and Pickerill, J. (2012) ‘Holding the future together: Towards a theorisation of the spaces and times of transition’, Environment and Planning A, 44(7), pp. 1607–1623.
Cretney, R. and Bond, S. (2014) ‘‘Bouncing back’ to capitalism? Grass-roots autonomous activism in shaping discourses of resilience and transformation following disaster’ Resilience, 2(1), pp. 18–31.
DeVerteuil, G. and Golubchikov, O. (2016) ‘Can resilience be redeemed?’, City, 20(1), pp.143-151.
Folke, C. (2006) ‘Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses’, Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp. 253–267.
Godschalk, D. (2003) ‘Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities’, Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), pp. 136–143.
Goldstein, B. E. (Ed.) (2012) Collaborative Resilience: Moving through crisis to opportunity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holling, C. S. (1973). ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), pp.1–23.
Hornborg, A. (2009) ‘Zero-Sum world: Challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50(3–4), pp. 237–262.
Hopkins, R. (2011). The Transition Companion: Making Your Community More Resilient in Uncertain Times Totnes: Green Books.
Lewis, M. and Conaty, P. (2012) The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative transitions to a steady-‐state economy. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
MacKinnon, D. and Derickson, K.D. (2013) ‘From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of resilience policy and activism’, Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), pp. 253-270.
Petrescu D, and Petcou C. (2015) ‘R-URBAN or how to co-produce a resilient city’, Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(1), pp. 249-262.
Petrescu, D. and Petcou, C.(2020) ‘Resilience value in the face of Climate Change’, Architectural Design, 90 (4), pp. 30-37.
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., . . . Wiesmann, U. (2010). ‘Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal’, Science and Public Policy,, 37(4), 267–281.
Purcell, M. (2006) ‘Urban democracy and the local trap’, Urban Studies, 43(11), pp. 1921–1941.
Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shaikh, A., and Kauppi, C. (2010) ´Deconstructing resilience: Myriad conceptualizations and interpretations’, International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(15), pp.155–76.
Stevenson, F. and Petrescu, D. (2016) ‘Co-producing neighbourhood resilience’, Building Research and Information, 44(7), pp.695–702.
The Young Foundation (2012) Adapting to Change: The role of community resilience.
London: The Young Foundation.
Timmerman, P. (1981) ‘Vulnerability. Resilience and the collapse of society: a review of models and possible climatic applications’, University of Toronto Institute for Environmental Studies, Environmental Monograph No. 1.
Trogal, K. and Petrescu, D. (2015) ‘Architecture and resilience: Strategies to deal with global change at a human scale’, Architecture and Resilience at a Human Scale, Introduction to conference proceedings, 10–12 September, Sheffield.
Vale, L. J. (2014) ‘The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city?’, Building Research & Information, 42(2), pp. 191–201.
Walker, J., and Cooper, M. (2011) Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42(2), pp. 143-160.
Welsh, M. (2014)Resilience and responsibility: Governing uncertainty in a complex world. The Geographical Journal,180(1), pp. 15–26.
Werner, E. (1995) ‘Resilience in development’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(3), pp. 81–85.
Wolfram, M. and Frantzeskaki, N. (2016) ‘Cities and systemic change for sustainability: prevailing epistemologies and an emerging research agenda’, Sustainability, 8(2), p.114.
1. To understand what a partnership is and who the key players are.
2. To be aware of partnerships in the context of international development and urban poverty.
3. To recognise the potential, limitations and challenges of partnerships.
4. To gain an understanding of the key skills needed for working in partnership.
CHALLENGING PRACTICE: MODULE HANDBOOK
The notion of partnerships is indispensable for understanding the ways in which cities are shaped. A partnership is, above all, a relationship: an association between multiple actors that supposes a shared effort to negotiate and coordinate their differing actions, omissions, investments, norms, needs, interests and aspirations. Cities are shaped by processes that are always multiple, and therefore partnerships can be seen as vehicles to direct that multiplicity towards common goals. However, owing to the diverse interests behind them, partnerships are not free from contestation and complexity. This brief module examines some of that complexity and provides insights into how partnerships have been mobilised to advance agendas of social justice and inclusion in urban contexts.
For at least the last three decades, the notion of partnerships has been closely linked to debates around urban governance, particularly through public-private partnerships (PPPs). (Stoker, 1998) During the 1990s, PPPs were promoted as an ‘efficient’ delivery mechanism, and as instruments to advance neoliberal reforms such as the withdrawal of the state from the active provision of services. PPPs became a crucial tool in the local implementation of Structural Adjustment Programmes, usually as part of the IMF and World Bank requirements after the 1982 debt crisis. This included the opening of national economies to international financial markets, the privatisation of welfare services, the decrease of state’s attributions, and deregulation. (Mohan, 1996) Likewise, PPPs were encouraged by international agencies as part of a wider focus on urban management, promoted by declarations such as the Habitat Agenda of the United Nations in 1996 (United Nations, 1996).
In this context, ‘partnerships’ became increasingly associated with managerial notions of urban governance, with a strong focus on financial partnerships leading to the privatisation of service
delivery. Partnerships have, however, been seen by many as detrimental to the interests of more disadvantaged groups, increasing collusion between public and private actors and leading to the production of more exclusionary cities. These concerns have been shared by advocates for agendas such as the right to the city (Mayer, 2009) and the social production of space. (Habitat International Coalition, 2016) [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice].
Over time, partnerships have taken shape beyond PPPs, making associations of different natures and among other kinds of actors. For example, still within what can be considered ‘financial partnerships’, the notion of the ‘co-production’ of services has been widely used to refer to partnerships that include inputs from citizens and civil society organisations. (Ostrom, 1996) Likewise, there are a range of experiences that draw on ‘participatory budgeting’ mechanisms, in which citizens have opportunities to decide how part of a public budget is spent. (Cabannes, 2004) Beyond financial decision making, partnerships and co-production has been extended to knowledge sharing, mapping, resource management and more. (Palmer and Walasek, 2016) Partnerships can also be seen as associations between actors in decision making processes of city-making, within what is labelled ‘collaborative planning’. (Healey, 2006) [See module 11. Participation].
In summary, ‘partnerships’ by themselves don’t necessarily promote a particular kind of value-based outcome. Even if PPPs and urban management approaches have been put under scrutiny, the importance of partnerships as vehicles for ‘working together’ is still central for international development agencies such as DFID; and understanding their value, limitations and opportunities remains crucial. (Reid and Rein, 2008) We now will discuss examples of how partnerships have become tools for tackling crucial urban challenges, and their potential to advance inclusive city agendas, particularly through the involvement of grassroots and civil society organisations. [See module 3. Social Exclusion, 4. Conflicts, 5. Disasters and Climate Change and 6. Migration].
There are at least three strategic approaches to partnerships that enable them to become vehicles for furthering marginalised groups’ claims. The first approach is to understand partnerships as a strategy for dealing with structural constraints. In response to the privatisation of service provision, and as a way to navigate market pressures, some initiatives have established what has been called ‘pro-poor private–public partnerships’, leading to models for the participatory governance of urban services. (Frediani and Cociña, 2019) An emblematic example is the work of the NGO Orangi Pilot Project-Research and Training Institute in Pakistan, which developed a low-cost sanitation programme based on a partnership whereby sewerage systems inside houses and neighbourhoods are developed by communities themselves, while connecting these to the external sewer system is
handled by local government. (Hasan, 2006) This project has informed many other experiences, such as the delivery of water through a ‘delegation management model’ in informal settlements in Kisumu, Kenya (Frediani and Monson, 2016).
Partnerships to deal with structural constraints also occur outside the state and private sectors. This is the case with initiatives such as the CommunityLed Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF) in Mumbai, India, which was made possible through a partnership (“The Alliance’’) between the NGO SPARC and two Community Based Organisations, Mahila Milan and the National Slum Dwellers Federation. This community-led finance model worked with the urban poor at scale, providing access to commercial and public sector finance, and strategically dealing with powerful forces in the city. (Levy, 2015) The CLIFF example brings to the forefront a second strategic approach: partnerships as strategies to reach wider scales. Trans-local, civil-society and grassroots networks such as Habitat International Coalition (HIC), the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR), and Slum/ Shack Dwellers International (SDI) have relied on multiple partnerships to increase their impact and advance their strategic goals. A good example is the association between SDI and Cities Alliance in the context of the ‘Know Your City’ campaign, which has created a repository of community-collected data about informal settlements across the world.
A third approach involves understanding partnerships as a strategy for diversify voices on key urban challenges. Diversifying the nature of actors is crucial for dealing with complex agendas. Tackling issues such as climate change and displacement requires spaces in which multiple interests are negotiated. (Crisp, Morris and Refstie, 2012) Partnerships can increase accountability, and advance the recognition of otherwise misrecognised claims. This is key for one of the most urgent challenges in cities globally: the upgrading of informal settlements. (Cirolia et al., 2015) [See module 7. Informal Settlements] An example of partnerships around this issue is the collaboration in Freetown between the Sierra Leone Urban
Research Centre (SLURC), the Federation of Urban and Rural Poor (FEDURP), and a series of local and international NGOs. Together with local and national authorities, they have coordinated a City Learning Platform (CiLP) at which they meet regularly, which includes representatives of informal settlements of the city. The CiLP “is a space for learning and sharing, in which different actors can gather to discuss experiences, current urban issues and identify solutions, coordinate, and develop proposals for the upgrading of informal settlements in the city of Freetown”. (City Learning Platform, 2019)
If we want to take partnerships seriously, it is important not to romanticise their nature. The examples provided so far do not escape the underlying power asymmetries that govern most urban processes. The construction of, and the negotiations and relationships within and between partnerships are moulded by unequal access to resources, assets, knowledge, political influence and media support. This is well articulated by the Indian activists Sheela Patel and Jockin Arputham, who commented on the negotiation for the development of Dharavi, Mumbai, questioning whether it was “an offer of partnership or a promise of conflict”. (Patel, d’Cruz and Burra, 2002) Navigating and challenging these power dynamics is a crucial challenge for practitioners that seek to work through partnerships to advance social justice goals in the city. In this regard, the urban development planner Caren Levy has proposed working towards ‘partnerships with equivalence’, “which recognise the diverse skills, knowledge and values brought by different urban actors, and which are formed with mutual respect, transparency and accountability, and a commitment to learn together”. (Levy, 2019) Practitioners working in such contexts will need to equip themselves with skills that go beyond the technical expertise of urban planning and design, and be able to engage with the politics of mutual respect and care.
Hasan, A. (2006) ‘OPP: The Expansion of Work beyond Orangi and the Mapping of Informal Settlements and Infrastructure’, Environment and Urbanisation, 18(2), pp. 451–480.
This article explores one of the most emblematic cases ofa meaningfulpartnership. It has incorporated the urban poor as key actors in the production of urban services, with wider consequences in terms of tenure security and empowerment.
http://arifhasan.org/opp-urc/opp-the-expansion-of-work-beyond-orangi-and-the-mapping-of-informal-settlements-and-infrastructure
City Learning Platform (2019) Practitioner
Brief #1: Principles of Engagement for the City Learning Platform. Free Town, Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre (SLURC).
This ‘practitioner brief’ presents an example of current partnerships around the issues of informal settlement upgrading. It is a non-academic paper that records the principles agreed by diverse actors to work together for a common agenda.
https://www.urban-know.com/practitioner-brief-1
Patel, S., d’Cruz, C. and Burra, S. (2007) ‘An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict in Dharavi, Mumbai?’, Environment & Urbanization, 19(2), pp. 501–508
This is a more critical discussion of how partnerships can generate problematic relationships given asymmetries of power between actors. Through open letters across stakeholders and the exposure of a grounded case, this reading opens up important questions about partnerships.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/0956247807082832
Cabannes, Y. (2004) ‘Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy’, Environment & Urbanization, 16(1), pp. 27–46. Available at: https://pubs. iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/ G00471.pdf? (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Cirolia, L. R. et al. (eds) (2015) Upgrading informal settlements in South Africa: a partnershipbased approach. EDS Publications.
City Learning Platform (2019) Practitioner
Brief #1: Principles of Engagement for the City Learning Platform. Free Town, Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre (SLURC). Available at: https://www.urban-know.com/ practitioner-brief-1 (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Crisp, J., Morris, T. and Refstie, H. (2012)
‘Displacement in urban areas: new challenges, new partnerships’, Disasters, 36 Suppl 1, pp. 23–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01284.x.
Frediani, E. A. A. and Cociña, C. (2019) ‘“Participation as planning”: Strategies from the south to challenge the limits of planning’, Built Environment, 45(2), pp. 143–161. Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/10074644/ (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Frediani, E. A. A. and Monson, T. (2016) Advocating for People- Centred Development in Kisumu, Kenya. MSc Social Development Practice Student Report. The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, University College London. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/ development/sites/bartlett/files/sdp_field_ report_2015.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Habitat International Coalition (2016) Habitat International Coalition and the Habitat Conferences 1976-2016. Available at: https:// www.hic-net.org/habitat-international-coalitionand-the-habitat-conferences-1976-2016/ (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Hasan, A. (2006) ‘OPP: The Expansion of Work beyond Orangi and the Mapping of Informal Settlements and Infrastructure’, Environment and Urbanisation, 18(2), pp. 451–480. Available at: http://arifhasan.org/opp-urc/ opp-the-expansion-of-work-beyond-orangiand-the-mapping-of-informal-settlements-andinfrastructure (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Healey, P. (2006) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. 2nd ed. Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan (Planning, environment, cities).
Levy, C. (2015) ‘Expanding the “Room for Manoeuvre”: Community-Led Finance in Mumbai, India.’, in Lemanski, C. and Marx, C. (eds) The City in Urban Poverty. EADI Global Development Series, pp. 158–182.
Levy, C. (2019) ‘A response to rising inequalities: Knowledge in Action for Urban Equally’, In the KNOW #1. Edited by KNOW Knowledge in Action of Urban Equity, 1, pp. 4–9. Available at: https://www.urban-know.com/ resources (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Mayer, M. (2009) ‘The “Right to the City” in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements’, City, 13(2–3), pp. 362–374. doi: 10.1080/13604810902982755.
Mohan, G. (1996) ‘SAPs and development in West Africa’, Geography, 81(4), pp. 364–368.
Ostrom, E. (1996) ‘Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development’, World Development, 24(6), pp. 1073–1087. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
Palmer, H. and Walasek, H. (2016) Co-production in action: towards realising just cities. Gothenburg, Sweden: Mistra Urban Futures. Available at: https://www.mistraurbanfutures.org/en/ publication/co-production-action-towardsrealising-just-cities (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Patel, S., d’Cruz, C. and Burra, S. (2007) ‘An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict in Dharavi, Mumbai?’, Environment & Urbanization, 19(2), pp. 501–508. Available at: https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956247807082832
(Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Reid, S. and Rein, M. (2008) ‘Working Together: A critical analysis of cross sector partnerships in Southern Africa’, in Hout, W. (ed.) EU Development Policy and Poverty Reduction. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Available at: https://thepartneringinitiative.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/11/Reid-S-and-Rein-M.-2008Southern-Africa....pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2021).
Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance’, in Pierre, J. (ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 34–51.
United Nations (1996) The Habitat Agenda Goals and Principles, Commitments and the Global Plan of Action.
1. To understand the ways of using design tools to engage with marginalised communities in urban development processes.
2. To understand the complexities and challenges of applying a participatory approach in design processes.
3. To be introduced to some different types of tools and how these can be adapted for different contexts/purposes.
Please read ‘module 11. Participation’ before completing this module.
A discussion about participatory tools and methods assumes that the foundations for a meaningful participatory process have already been established with all stakeholders, including those affected by the process of urban change. [See module 11. Participation] Even when there is a will to involve people in urban development processes, the ways in which they are able to get involved will have a significant impact on their ability to affect change. As a result, the value of participatory design does not solely focus on the end result, but instead lies within the process.
When communities are given the means to diagnose existing conditions and map potential alternatives, underrepresented communities can challenge existing understandings of places that are often imposed from ‘above’. Knowledge about places that may otherwise remain invisible can be unearthed, for example by including a range of different perspectives that are usually not heard, or by exposing tacit knowledge.
Participatory tools can give actions greater impact, triggering a higher dissemination rate and increased transformative potential. At the same time, they can facilitate the participants’ ownership of outcomes, and enable changes from within, rather than them being imposed from the outside.
As a result, participatory tools can create opportunities for marginalised communities or groups to jump to broader scales of inclusion; to challenge existing power structures and relations; and to reimagine alternative futures.
Designing is a process of discovery. To design in an inclusive way means creating outcomes that are the product of multiple perspectives coming together, and which bridge the gap between the designer/creator and the user. Participatory
design can often be a source of conflict because it provides opportunities for those who are not usually given a voice to express themselves and to challenge those who have greatest influence. The external agents or dominant local groups that typically run a design process are often reluctant to ‘let go’ and to redistribute power, as this puts the outcome beyond their control. [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice] For many authorities, therefore, opening up the process in this way is seen as a real risk. Rather than running the risk of going through a process that can create unintended results, local involvement is often used as a way of legitimising existing proposals. For this reason, it is important that there are a clear set of parameters and opportunities, so the risk of unrealistic outcomes can be mitigated. However, too much constraint upon the scale and scope of change can make the process tokenistic.
It is sometimes argued 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 neo-liberal agenda in order to maintain rather than challenge the status quo and current inequities’’. (Caroline Cage and Mathew Okello, 2012) In practice, this means that sometimes tools overcomplicate or distract from challenges that would be more effectively addressed through a simple conversation.
Often, urban practitioners take on the role of an intermediary. This can mean that dialogue is mediated by someone from outside, without a vested interest, who can ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and meaningful, and that the scope is not too limited. On the other hand, this can result in less continuity as the mediator may not be around to ensure the outcomes are respected; or, if they are contracted by an authority, this can jeopardise the mediator’s ability to remain independent. It is therefore important to avoid “vampire projects” (Root, 2011) where the expert extracts knowledge from the community and uses it for individual advances, or for resourcing topdown policy delivery.
Facilitators should also be aware of the power they have in this position. [See module 10. Ethics in Built
Environment Practice] How they frame the design process will have a direct impact on the outcomes. Therefore, determining which tools and methods are to be used should also be decided collectively.
It is important that participatory tools and activities are carefully matched to the context to ensure that different actors, who may normally be excluded from design processes, are actively engaged. Participants must be well equipped to use the selected tools otherwise they can become a constraint, excluding some from the conversation and perpetuating existing power dynamics. Common examples of this are complicated digital engagement and ‘game’ style engagement techniques. These can prove difficult for facilitators to explain and for people to use, however, done in the right context in the right way, they have
proved very successful. Explaining a workshop or participatory task well is essential, otherwise dialogue can be restrained. Trained facilitators are key.
Involving people with different perspectives and backgrounds can result in the process becoming much longer and complex than necessary. As a result, it can be difficult to maintain momentum and to ensure that people stay engaged in the long term. A common mistake is to prematurely interpret this challenging process as a failure. Experienced facilitators learn to guide participants to gather and record diverse opinions in different ways. They also design a process that keeps key people engaged throughout, while allowing others to contribute when and how they are able. The aim is to avoid ‘extracting information’ which may not fully represent the real picture or people’s true views. [See module 10. Ethics in Built Environment Practice]
Tools should not be rigid. Instead, they should provide room for unexpected answers or findings, thereby allowing for greater discovery and discussion. There can be danger when transferring a model into another context, as one tool designed for a specific context may not be appropriate for another. “Tools are the means with which to achieve ends. All will have limitations and most time, in the swamp of practice, one finds one has to adapt or invent tools as one proceeds.” (Hamdi 2010)
Creativity and graphic output are also important. The tools used must be visually captivating. They should enable participants to take part into a meaningful and stimulating conversation. Through using visual tools (such as mapping and diagrams) people can point, discuss, manipulate and alter the information, ensuring that triangulation will take place as others cross check and correct data. (Chambers, 1992) However, “Diagrammatic abstraction can be easily misunderstood”: using
a problem tree diagram might not be appropriate for a community with few trees; whereas abstract block models may not clearly represent the same ideas to all participants. (Hamdi, 2010) Clarity on who the target population is will influence how participatory tools can be used to share knowledge graphically so that it can be understood.
Participants also need to see the results of their contributions in order to build trust with the process.
There is often a desire to obtain data that proves that a study has been done and presents concrete, qualitative data to authorities. One reason participatory techniques have been developed is to find a quicker, more cost-effective way of understanding a place and implementing a project. “Questionnaire surveys tended to be long drawnout, tedious, a headache to administer, a nightmare to process and write up, inaccurate and unreliable in data obtained, leading to reports, if any, which were long, boring, misleading, difficult to use, any anyway ignored.” (Chambers, 1992)
Information can be collected in a short time through participatory assessment methods that often provide more detailed, context-specific information than surveys can. The quality of the information gathered through participatory methods helps to design more context-specific projects, and avoid solutions that may later prove irrelevant or impossible to implement. The active inclusion of local stakeholders reduces project and maintenance costs, increases coverage, and improves time-effectiveness.
Poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups should be seen as partners and active agents of change in the design and development activities. In this way, participation may allow for the longer-term, more meaningful involvement of marginalised members of that society. [See module 11. Participation) It has also been proven that, in many cases, longer and
more sustained development projects have been community organised. [See module 7. Informal Settlements] The table below explains the types of participation and the tools associated with them:
Passive participation
The affected population is informed of what is going to happen or what has occurred. While this is a fundamental right of the people concerned, it is not one that is always respected.
Public Meetings
Posters
Websites
Notice Boards
Media – Radio, Newspapers, TV
Participation through the supply of information
The affected population provides information in response to questions, but it has no influence over the process, since survey results are not shared and their accuracy is not verified.
Surveys
Participation by consultation
The affected population is asked for its perspectives on a given subject, but it has no decision-making powers, and no guarantee that its views will be taken into consideration.
Interviews
Focus Groups
Public Workshops
Online
Questionnaires
Participation through material incentives
The affected population supplies some of the materials and/or labour needed to conduct an operation, in exchange for payment in cash or in kind from the aid organisation.
Paid Participation
Participation through the supply of materials, cash or labour
Interactive participation
The affected population supplies some of the materials, cash and/or labour needed for an intervention. This includes cost recovery mechanisms.
The affected population participates in the analysis of needs and in programme conception, and has decision-making powers.
User / Crowd Funding
Resource Mapping
Problem Tree Task
Appreciative Inquiry Processes
World Cafes
Digital Democratic Voting
Local initiatives
The affected population takes the initiative, acting independently of external organisations or institutions. Although it may call on external bodies to support its initiatives, the project is conceived and run by the community; it is the aid organisation that participates in the people’s projects.
A typology of participation (Adapted from Pretty, 1994)
Capacity Building Workshops
Several approaches have been developed in an attempt to standardize participation in development practice. The approaches combine some of the above tools and either present a stepby-step targeted participatory plan, or simply a general attitude to participatory activities for easy replication and scaling. These include, among others: Participatory Urban Appraisal (PUA); Participatory Learning Methods (PALM); Planning for Real; Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA); Community Action Planning (CAP); and Strategic Action Planning (SAP). PRA, CAP and SAP are described in more detail below.
Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) is a methodology used for working in a community. Surveys are abandoned in favour of collaborative discussions and the mapping of ideas. Introduced in the 1980s, it gained widespread popularity in the 90s and has set the foundation for other methods, such as Community Action Planning.
PRA focuses on gathering information and making decisions in a manner where the outsider is the only facilitator. It encourages discussion to gather “local physical, technical and social knowledge”. (Chambers, 1992) The process, described by Chambers as ‘handing over the stick’, is the first step in building trust and rapport when working in the community. In doing so, the information that is generated is shared, and not extracted, and you may find answers to questions that you would have never thought to ask. (Chambers, 1992)
This approach is about spending time: being relaxed and not rushing, listening not lecturing, and seeking to triangulate and verify information through communal discussion.
Key tools: communal diagramming, communal mapping, transect walks, seasonal calendars, social mapping, participatory resource mapping, semi-structured interviews.
In contrast to PRA, CAP focuses on enabling communities to identify shared problems and to organise and act to make immediate improvements. Community Action Planning can manifest as an active and intense communitybased workshop which empowers communities to direct their own development. It can be a short and intensive process over a period of two-five days. It enables groups to design, implement and manage their own settlement plans. It is grounded in a participatory methodology and moves towards a development plan which identifies problems and considers potential strategies and programmes for action.
Hamdi identifies four sets of action vital to good development practice, and that are therefore essential to both CAP and SAP. These are: Providing, Enabling, the capacity to be Adaptive, and the capacity to Sustain (PEAS). (Hamdi, 2010) He discusses both CAP and SAP as approaches that “give purpose to practice beyond just practical work, a commitment to structural and not just remedial change, in the interests of lasting development”. (Hamdi, 2010)
Key tools: community mapping, problem tree, prioritisation workshop.
In reaction to the catalytic changes that CAP enables, SAP is a methodology that tries to preempt the strategic value of small interventions, “rather than left somewhat to chance, while not ignoring that chance has a big role to play in planning ahead.” (Hamdi, 2010) SAP deals with less immediate actions and addresses access to resources, rights and power. It does this while reducing constraints, discrimination and any lack of legislative support. While CAP is small scale and community based, SAP addresses a larger scale with more organisational impacts.
Key tools: resource mapping, asset mapping, talent surveys, social maps, role play.
Cage, C. and Okello, M. (2012) Urban Participatory Planning. Practical Action.
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.
http://answers.practicalaction.org/our-resources/ item/urban-participatory-planning
Groupe URD (2009) Participation Handbook for humanitarian field workers.
Contains detailed, practical advice for enabling the participation of affected people in humanitarian action. It has three sections: Developing a participatory approach; Implementing your participatory approach at every stage of the project cycle; A list of tools and additional resources.
https://www.urd.org/en/publication/participation-handbook-for-humanitarian-field-workers/
Shay, A., Haggerty, M. and Kennedy, S. (2013) Firm Foundation: Social Design Field Guide
A handbook derived from experiences of participatory design in Indonesia. It shows how some of the tools described here have been implemented to influence the design of community improvements.
https://issuu.com/stephenjameskennedy/ docs/2013_08_02_social_design_field_guid
UN-Habitat Worldwide (2014) Nabeel HamdiParticipation in Practice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r9IYl4CtKI
Burkey, S. (1993) People first: a guide to self-reliant participatory rural development. London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Zed Books.
Chambers, R. (1992) Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (Discussion paper / Institute of Development Studies, 311).
Chambers, R. (2002) Participatory workshops: a sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Cornwall, A. (ed.) (2011) The participation reader. London; New York: Zed Books.
Frediani, A. A. (2016) ‘Re-imagining Participatory Design: Reflecting on the ASF-UK Change by Design Methodology’, Design Issues, 32(3), pp. 98–111. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00403.
Gray, D., Brown, S. and Macanufo, J. (2010) Gamestorming: a playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. First edition. Beijing Cambridge Farnham Köln Sebastopol Tokyo: O’Reilly.
Hamdi, N. (2004) Small change: about the art of practice and the limits of planning in cities. London; Sterling, Va: Earthscan.
Hamdi, N. (2010) The placemakers’ guide to building community. London; Washington, DC: Earthscan (Tools for Community Planning).
de Negri, B. et al. (no date) Empowering Communities: Participatory Techniques for Community-Based Programme Development. Volume 1(2): Trainer’s Manual (Participants Handbook). Centre for African Family Studies (CAFS).
Palmer, C. and Kinnear, M. (2014) ASF Participate. ASF Participate. Available at: http://www. asfparticipate.org/ (Accessed: 19 January 2021).
Pretty, J. N. (1994) ‘Alternative Systems of Inquiry for a Sustainable Agriculture’, IDS Bulletin, 25(2), pp. 37–49. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1994.mp25002004.x.
Upgrading Urban Communities (2001). Available at: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/ (Accessed: 1 February 2021).
Wates, N. (2016) Community Planning. Available at: http://www.communityplanning. net/index.php (Accessed: 1 February 2021).
Wilcox, D. (no date) Partnerships Online. Partnerships Online. Available at: http:// www.partnerships.org.uk/index.htm (Accessed: 19 January 2021).
Contributors:
Urban Context:
Beatrice De Carli and Rubbina Karruna
Theoretical Frameworks:
Alexandre Apsan Frediani and Melissa Kinnear
Social Exclusion:
Julian Walker
Conflicts:
Haim Yacobi
Disasters and Climate Change:
Pamela Cajilig with Supriya Akerkar and Caroline Dewast
Migration:
Viviana d’Auria with Nishat Awan
Informal Settlements:
Matthew French
Heritage:
Alejandra Albuerne and Niclas Dünnebacke
Ethics in Built Environment Practice:
Julia Udall
Participation:
Sarah Ernst and Matthew French
Community Resilience:
Doina Petrescu
Partnerships:
Camila Cociña
Participatory Design Tools:
Alex Axinte, Lucia Caistor-Arendar, Charles Palmer and Goran Vodicka
This handbook was produced by Architecture Sans Frontières UK on behalf of Architecture Sans Frontières International.
Editors: Lucia Caistor-Arendar, Beatrice De Carli, Charles Palmer, Niki Sole, Goran Vodicka and Emily Wright
Image Research: Niki Sole
Layout: Silvia Álvarez with Lucia CaistorArendar, Charles Palmer and Niki Sole
Publisher: Architecture Sans Frontières UK (2022)
Suggested citation: ASF-International, Challenging Practice: Essentials for the Social Production of Habitat – Second Edition (London: ASF-UK, 2022)
For more information visit: www.challengingpractice.org
