Methods for Inclusive Cities: Key Stakeholder Engagement Tools

By Antje Lang
October 2020

Cities face a myriad of wicked challenges. Climate change adds another challenge to addressing inequality in cities. Presently, 70% of cities are dealing with the effects of climate change, and over 90% of cities are coastal and thus at risk of flooding from sea level rise and storm surges (C40 Cities, 2012). Moreover, four in ten of those most vulnerable to climate change impacts are already facing socioeconomic challenges (CAFOD, 2014). Additionally, estimates indicate that about 75% of the infrastructure that will be required by 2050 is not yet in place (Dasgupta, 2018).   

Therein lies significant opportunity to integrate resilient structures and systems into cities now in order to plan for and mitigate present and future impacts of climate change, while simultaneously enhancing the well-being of urban residents (see the Triple Dividend of Resilience). The design, planning, and implementation of these structures and systems requires inclusive and participatory processes to ensure the integration of needs and perspectives of all residents, but especially those most vulnerable.  

For practitioners working at the intersection of urban planning and climate change, there are a host of participatory approaches that can be taken towards this end. From a strategic planning perspective, the first step is typically to develop a stakeholder engagement plan. One common approach for developing a stakeholder and/or public engagement plan and database is through the IAP2 spectrum of public participation.

Typically, stakeholders are engaged through a series of workshops or focus groups to gather their insight and assess key challenges. While there are a variety of tools that can be used to gain insight from stakeholders as part of these workshops, some key examples include:

• Problem tree analysis – this technique maps out the anatomy of a cause and effect around a particular challenge or issue, thereby supporting practitioners to set out clear goals to address these challenges. Inverting the problem tree into objectives then sets out how practitioners can achieve solutions. Example: funding has become available to integrate a new sustainable transport option in a city. A problem tree can be used to identify the key challenges in transport in the city’s context (e.g. congestion, lack of accessibility or connectivity, perceptions around public transportation, safety, etc.) to identify which area of transport should be prioritised (e.g. bus networks, pedestrian areas) and how best to tailor it to the local context (e.g. are behaviour change campaigns needed, etc.) 
  

• Horizon-scanning: This technique looks at a range of possible futures and has been defined as ‘the systematic examination of potential threats, opportunities and likely developments including but not restricted to those at the margins of current thinking and planning. Horizon scanning may explore novel and unexpected issues as well as persistent problems or trends.’’ Example: In order to allocate its funding to priority projects, Glasgow needs to identify potential scenarios that it might face by the year 2070. Will its population remain steady or fluctuate? What could be driving this? Are there new market opportunities that it could capitalize on? How might working conditions change its transport patterns?
  

• Back-casting: With this technique, participants are asked to define a desirable future and then work backwards to identify the policies and programmes that will be required to achieve that future based on the present context. Example: Imagine that Amman wanted to become the cycling capital of the Middle East by 2050. This technique would help the city to identify the gaps between the current realty and the future vision, and to develop and implement the necessary policies and infrastructure to achieve that vision.  
  

• SWOT analysis – this tool identifies a system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, which can provide a clear roadmap for how an urban strategy can be built to leverage strengths and opportunities while addressing weaknesses and mitigating threats. Example: Dar es Salaam is a rapidly growing city in Tanzania. It is looking to revamp its urban waste management protocol to better integrate the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ waste hierarchy. Stakeholders in the sector can use a SWOT analysis to assess the current challenges and opportunities facing waste in the region and how it can amend its strategy to leverage these opportunities.

  Ultimately, urban planning strategies are only as good as the knowledge underpinning them. Absent proper stakeholder engagement and participatory approaches, these strategies will fall far short of adequately addressing climate impacts in ways that decrease urban inequities.
  

Return to Inclusive Cities.

References:
Burdett, R. 2016. Inequality and urban growth. OECD. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-urban-growth.htm [Accessed 12 September 2020].
CAFOD, 2014. Climate change and vulnerability: pushing people over the edge.
Dasgupta, A. 2018. IPCC 1.5° Report: We Need to Build and Live Differently in Cities. World Resources Institiute. Available from: https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/ipcc-15-report-we-need-build-and-live-differently-cities [Accessed 15 September 2020].
C40 Cities. 2012. #YCities. Available from: https://www.c40.org/ending-climate-change-begins-in-the-city [Accessed 20 September 2020].
Ritchie, H. and Roser, M. 2018. Urbanization. Our World In Data. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization [Accessed 18 September 2020].
Nijman, J., & Wei, Y. D. (2020). Urban inequalities in the 21st century economy. Applied geography (Sevenoaks, England), 117, 102188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102188

© 2020 Climate Just Collective