Search results

Urbanization is increasing the vulnerability in mega cities, where poor community often squat on low-lying areas, hilly areas, and hazards prone areas (IDNDR, 1999). The built infrastructures and systems are subjected to natural hazards: floods, earthquakes, landslides, cyclones etc. Thus, cities are vulnerable to disasters (IDNDR, 1999). Moreover, cities are also facing environmental risks due to increasing urbanization (Bhatt, Gupta, & Sharma, 1999). The vulnerability can be reduced by incorporating risk management into urban planning (Bhatt et al., 1999). The risk management includes risk analysis, prevention, and preparedness. Traditionally, risk management was seen as separate discipline to mainstream urban planning (Bhatt et al., 1999). The traditional urban planning is often good at making plans (city beautiful plans, land use plans, strategic plans, development plans) and regulatory controls (Hamdi & Goethert, 1997). However, they fail to deliver benefit at the ground. Only few benefits reach the poor, who are often considered as the most vulnerable in the cities. The urban planning can be improved with an alternative: action planning, which is “problem driven, community based, participatory, small in scale, fast, and incremental, with result that is tangible, immediate, and sustainable” (Hamdi & Goethert, 1997). The action planning is often considered relevant in scaling up its outcome from local level to sectoral and national level. This chapter focuses on linking action planning and community-based adaptation. The community can be defined as “a group of people that are directly linked to each other through a common identity, activity or interest” (Jones & Rehman, 2007). The adaptation here is used in context of climate change, which is already happening, and impacts are growing (IPCC, 2001). The community-based adaptation is process oriented and “based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, which should empower people to plan for and cope with the impact of climate change” (Reid et al., 2009). This chapter first briefly discusses the action planning process and its challenges. Further, the chapter discusses the action planning in detail. Later the chapter focuses on framework and tools for community-based adaptation. It also discusses few case studies and challenges and issues. Finally, the chapter tries to build a link between action planning and community-based adaptation.

Within a gated community, management of common property presents great challenges. Therefore, the diagnostic social ecological system (SES) framework proposed by Elinor Ostrom providing a holistic understanding of complex collective action problems in terms of management of commons is used to investigate key institutional-social-ecological factors influencing collective action in the context of gated communities.

In this paper, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to systematically screen and review the relevant literature from 2000 to 2022, where 28 papers were selected for further analysis.

The study systematically identifies and categorises a series of variables related to self-organizing management in the gated community, and consequently a SES-based gated community management framework is developed. Based on the conceptual framework, the paper discusses logical interrelationships of institutional-social-ecological factors and their impacts on collective action performance of gated communities.

Apart from requiring empirical validation, the conceptual SES-based gated community management framework is certainly subject to continuous improvement in terms of refinement and addition of other potential determinants of gated community collective action.

Not only the review paper provides updates on the latest gated-community collective action research, it also contributes theoretically by conceptualizing the SES framework and its institutional–social–ecological design principles in gated community management. Studying these factors should also be of practical significance because the findings ultimately offer policy insights and management strategies that help policy-makers, property developers and local communities to govern such neighbourhood common resources efficiently and sustainably.

Community perception of climate change is a factor in increasing local awareness of climate disaster risk. This encourages more disaster risk reduction actions by the communities themselves, and thus, provides a driver for sustainable community disaster risk management (DRM) initiatives. Using these hypotheses, this chapter assesses whether the communities’ climate change perceptions, awareness of climate hazardous risk, and subsequent actions on DRR enable local DRM capacity to reduce the increasing climate disaster risk. The study conducts household surveys with an original questionnaire in four communities in Cartago City, Costa Rica.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between social capital and collective action at the county level in the US while incorporating the moderating effects of community racial diversity and urbanity and to find the changing effects of social capital on philanthropic collective action for community education.

This paper employs a quantitative research design. The dependent variable measures philanthropic collective action for community education while the independent variable for social capital is measured as a community level index. Moderating variables include a community racial diversity index and urbanity. This analysis tests and interprets interaction effects using moderated multiple regression (MMR), with the baselines of MMR being grounded to multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Analyses are carried out in the context of the USA during 2006 and 2010, with US counties employed as the unit of analysis.

The effects of social capital on philanthropic contributions decline in counties with low- and mid-levels of racial diversity. On the contrary, the effects of social capital increase in highly racially diverse counties. The three-way interaction model result suggests that racial diversity positively moderates social capital on philanthropic collective action for community education where the effect of social capital is strong and positive in highly racially diverse urban communities.

This research complicates the notion that social capital and racial diversity are negatively associated when exploring collective action and community education, and suggests effects of social capital varies with moderating effects on philanthropic collective action for community education.

This paper aims to explore how the implementation of community-driven approaches to improve the living conditions of the urban poor can also have positive co-benefits for resilience to climate change, by addressing the underlying drivers of physical, social and economic vulnerability.

The paper applies a case study approach, drawing from the documented experiences of organised urban poor groups in Asian countries already actively participating in collective settlement upgrading, building networks and financial resources for further action.

The findings show that while certain actions might not be taken with climate change adaptation specifically in mind, these development activities also contribute to broader resilience to climate change, by reducing exposure to risk and addressing other drivers of vulnerability. The findings also show that partnerships between low income communities and other urban stakeholders, including local government, and innovative financial mechanisms managed by communities, can lead to scaled-up action to address development and adaptation deficits. This can lead the way for transformation in socio-political systems.

The approaches applied by organised urban poor groups in Asia show that community-level actions can make a positive contribution to building their resilience to climate change, and with local government support and partnership, it could lead to scaled-up actions, through a bottom-up approach to multi-level governance.

This paper considers how community-driven actions can build resilience to climate change, and it argues that adaptation and development should be considered together.

The cardinal point to note here is that the development (and unfortunately the likely potential) of area policy is intimately related to the actual character of British social policy. Whilst area policy has been strongly influenced by Pigou's welfare economics, by the rise of scientific management in the delivery of social services (cf Jaques 1976; Whittington and Bellamy 1979), by the accompanying development of operational analyses and by the creation of social economics (see Pigou 1938; Sandford 1977), social policy continues to be enmeshed with the flavours of Benthamite utilitatianism and Social Darwinism (see, above all, the Beveridge Report 1942; Booth 1889; Rowntree 1922, 1946; Webb 1926). Consequently, for their entire history area policies have been coloured by the principles of a national minimum for the many and giving poorer areas a hand up, rather than a hand out. The preceived need to save money (C.S.E. State Apparatus and Expenditure Group 1979; Klein 1974) and the (supposed) ennobling effects of self help have been the twin marching orders for area policy for decades. Private industry is inadvertently called upon to plug the resulting gaps in public provision. The conjunction of a reluctant state and a meandering private sector has fashioned the decaying urban areas of today. Whilst a large degree of party politics and commitment has characterised the general debate over the removal of poverty (Holman 1973; MacGregor 1981), this has for the most part bypassed the ‘marginal’ poorer areas (cf Green forthcoming). Their inhabitants are not usually numerically significant enough to sway general, party policies (cf Boulding 1967) and the problems of most notably the inner cities has been underplayed.

This paper aims to introduce the concept of Entrepreneurial Collective Intelligence (ECI) as a means of understanding how communities of entrepreneurial actors learn to act both collectively and knowingly. It explores how connections between processes of CI, agency and action can explain and enable the development entrepreneurial community organisations.

There is a selective literature review of prior works on the related fields of community and collective entrepreneurship; collectives and intelligence; agency and action. The review is used to propose a framework of collective entrepreneurial intelligence, agency and action. An interpretive approach is used to research four case studies of community organisations which use CI to generate entrepreneurial outcomes.

The cases are compared with themes from prior literature to develop a conceptual model of four ECI processes which enable intelligence, agency and action: collaborative processes; distributed working; intelligence representations and organisation of infrastructures. These are theorised to discuss ideas, challenges, methods and questions to enhance entrepreneurial actions, based on sharing knowledge and learning, in the context of collective agency, action and intelligence.

The four processes, both together and separately, represent a coherent framework useful for further studies on the role of collectives in enterprising communities.

The four processes each represent a central area of attention, not only for development, learning, decision-making and leadership within enterprising communities but also for entrepreneurship education in terms of alternative didactics, pedagogies and learning forms.

The improved knowledge on the role of collective agency and CI within entrepreneurial processes is useful for strengthening civil activism and other fruitful forms of entrepreneurial collective processes. This may help solve complicated societal problems where traditional conceptions of entrepreneurship fail.

The conceptual contribution is to explain the dynamic relationships between ECI and action, mediated by collective agency. The role of CI in informing entrepreneurial communities is explored and four enabling processes are proposed. This coherent framework is useful for further studies on the role of collectives in enterprising communities, whilst informing their learning, decision-making and leadership.

This article is a marginally shortened version of Supplement No. 15 to Women in Europe. The European Community answers a series of 50 questions relating to women and employment.