Table 4.
The key barriers and challenges to community entry and engagement in risk-sensitive urban planning and development.
| Area | Theme | Barrier/Challenge/Issue | Sources | Number of citations |
Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity | % | |||||
| Context | Community capacity | 1. Lack of communities' knowledge and awareness of urban development plans, formal development procedures, and benefits of community participation | [5,[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]] | 13 | 26% | 1 |
| 2. Consultation fatigue due to lack of communities' interest in engagement | [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]] | 7 | 14% | 6 | ||
| 3. Lack of capacity (individuals' lack of interpersonal skills and/or self-confidence) within community organisations | [23,33,34,42,43] | 5 | 10% | 8 | ||
| 4. High levels of poverty that exist within most community members inspire them not to attend in engagement activities | [41,[44], [45], [46], [47], [48]] | 5 | 10% | 8 | ||
| 5. Low levels of literacy and numeracy and the dominance of oral culture among communities | [24,26,27,29,47] | 5 | 10% | 8 | ||
| 6. Cultural norms and life circumstances (inconsistency with community traditions) | [6,27,29,42] | 4 | 8% | 9 | ||
| 7. Negative community perceptions of participation in the planning system | [24,28,43] | 3 | 6% | 10 | ||
| 8. People reluctant to engage due to inability to attend meetings/training caused by physical impairment, and lack of consciousness caused by mental impairment | [42] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| Quality of existing relationships: inter-communities and between communities and policymakers | 1. Absence or lack of meaningful engagement with community | [23,[33], [34], [35],[38], [39], [40],44,46,47,49,50] | 12 | 24% | 2 | |
| 2. History of poor relations of communities with decision-makers and urban planners | [23,33,34,40,46,47] | 6 | 12% | 7 | ||
| 3. Community engagement is considered as a threat by communities due to discrimination, fear of exposure to authorities (over drug use, immigration status, or stigmatising illness), and engagement is seen as diverting existing funding into other initiatives | [33,34,41,51] | 4 | 8% | 9 | ||
| 4. Communities' lack of trust, respect, and confidence in the planning system | [29,31,37] | 3 | 6% | 10 | ||
| 5. Poor community headship that does not give feedback to community members | [52,53] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 6. No fair representation from communities | [35,54] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 7. Competing agendas across stakeholders within partnerships | [33,37] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 8. Limited understanding of the roles and responsibilities of participants | [37] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| 9. No recognition of community rights and responsibilities by decision-makers | [37] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| 10. Some community members (political followers) involved in informal political networks to gain own personal benefits rather than having a collective and long-term approach for urban development | [32] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| Organisational culture, attitudes, and knowledge | 1. Continuous top-down and centralised management of government authorities | [6,25,33,41,[54], [55], [56], [57], [58]] | 9 | 18% | 4 | |
| 2. Lack of organisational commitment for engaging communities | [[26], [27], [28], [29],33,36,37,59,60] | 9 | 18% | 4 | ||
| 3. Absence of accountability: although governments have an obligation to inform participants how they use inputs received through engagement, this is not fulfilled | [37,52,61] | 3 | 6% | 10 | ||
| 4. Lack of understanding of community engagement tools and techniques for specific circumstances | [40,45,50] | 3 | 6% | 10 | ||
| 5. Professionals' lack of knowledge and skills in participation techniques and participation competences | [40,62] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 6. Official attitudes towards seldom-heard people | [42] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| 7. Professionals' inflexibility in terms of finding a common agenda with the community | [36] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| Infrastructure | Investment in infrastructure and planning to support community engagement | 1. Lack of appropriate training for professionals to conduct community engagement and development programmes | [24,26,28,29,31,33,37,60,63] | 9 | 18% | 4 |
| 2. The information gap between citizens and the government: citizens' lack awareness of government meetings, familiarity with government officials, or knowledge about government affairs | [24,[26], [27], [28],30,45,52,64] | 8 | 16% | 5 | ||
| 3. Limited financial resources for supporting community participation | [6,[26], [27], [28],31,40,62] | 7 | 14% | 6 | ||
| 4. Limited resources for participation: lack of knowledgeable and experienced professionals, venues, and material for workshops | [[26], [27], [28], [29],36,54] | 6 | 12% | 7 | ||
| 5. Lack of communication channels between decision-makers and community | [6,[26], [27], [28],31,64] | 6 | 12% | 7 | ||
| 6. Rural isolation due to weak community infrastructure: poor roads and transportation | [6,38,45,52,65] | 5 | 10% | 8 | ||
| 7. Lack of participation mechanisms to achieve consensus in an efficient manner | [26,28,66] | 3 | 6% | 10 | ||
| 8. Lack of dedicated staff to engage with communities | [33,34,67] | 3 | 6% | 10 | ||
| 9. Lack of technology for supporting effective community participation | [43] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| 10. Lack of appropriate training for communities for engaging with decision-makers in the urban development processes | [33] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| Process | Stakeholder engagement process | 1. The aim and purpose of engagement are ill-defined, with a lack of clarity (mixed messages), a lack of transparency and confused expectations | [2,25,28,29,33,36,37,52,56,68] | 10 | 20% | 3 |
| 2. Limited time is given for building trust, establishing participatory suggestions, and achieving results | [[25], [26], [27], [28],33,37,60,68] | 8 | 16% | 5 | ||
| 3. Complexity of current decision-making process due to inevitable tensions between stakeholders | [24,26,28,29,31,37,63] | 7 | 14% | 6 | ||
| 4. Weak administrative structure in local government to support community participation | [24,[26], [27], [28],40] | 5 | 10% | 8 | ||
| 5. Uncoordinated national development policies | [58,69] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 6. No meaningful evaluation of community transformation and project success | [43,53] | 2 | 2% | 11 | ||
| 7. Conflicts between objectives set by governments and the needs of local communities | [37] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||
| Inclusive and accessible practice | 1. Some communities are excluded due to improper event logistics | [26,28,29,33,36,43,68] | 7 | 14% | 6 | |
| 2. The information provided cannot be clearly understood by the general public: use of scientific language and inconsistent use of terminology | [24,26,29,31,36,37] | 6 | 12% | 7 | ||
| 3. Unequal community representation due to the existence of partisanship between government and community representatives | [33,34,37,40,43,45] | 6 | 12% | 7 | ||
| 4. Some communities are excluded due to cultural and language issues | [33,34] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 5. Excluding seldom-heard people and not encouraging apathetic majority for engagement | [33,60] | 2 | 4% | 11 | ||
| 6. Exclusion of community champions or leaders due to administrative delays | [33] | 1 | 2% | 12 | ||