Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Community participation is an essential component of sustainable planning and development (UN-HABITAT in Planning sustainable cities: UN-HABITAT practices and perspectives, 2010). But, the poor and marginalized present a unique challenge to planners. They are difficult to reach, yet their homes and livelihoods are often tied to places development projects target, making them an important population to include in sustainable planning practices (Kabeer et al. in World Development 40:2044–2062, 2012). Linking social network and spatial analysis can provide planners and policy makers a nuanced understanding of the relationship between social ties and beliefs/behaviors related to participation. It is a relationship not well understood (Beebeejaun and Vanderhoven in Planning Practice & Research 25:283–296, 2010; Brownill and Parker in Planning Practice & Research 25:275–282, 2010), but needed to inform community-based approaches. This research project was designed as a case study of urban farmers facing land development pressures in Delhi, India. The objective was to measure social and spatial aspects of household social networks and investigate if households with similar social networks also had similar land development beliefs and behaviors. Employing a mixed methods approach (GIS mapping, interviews, observations), we determined the social networks of 121 families and used hotspot analysis to examine the relationship between spatial and social dimensions of their lives. Analysis revealed that specific types of social ties can either facilitate or constrain household opportunities, behaviors, and even understanding of the situation. Linking spatial and social network approaches produces a more nuanced understanding of how social networks operate. We offer insight into how to approach hard to reach communities and engage them in planning and development activities that impact their livelihoods.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Ahmad, S., et al. (2013). Delhi revisited. Cities, 31, 641–653. CrossRef
Anselin, L., Sridharan, S., & Gholston, S. (2007). Using exploratory spatial data analysis to leverage social indicator databases: The discovery of interesting patterns. Social Indicators Research, 82(2), 287–309. CrossRef
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. CrossRef
Beebeejaun, Y., & Vanderhoven, D. (2010). Informalizing participation: Insights from Chicago and Johannesburg. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 283–296. CrossRef
Blaikie, P., et al. (1994). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York: Routledge.
Brownill, S., & Parker, G. (2010). Why bother with good works? The relevance of public participation(s) in planning in a post-collaborative era. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 275–282. CrossRef
Butts, C. T., et al. (2012). Geographic variability and network structure. Social Networks, 34, 82–100. CrossRef
Carrasco, J. A., et al. (2008). Collecting social network data to study social activity-travel behavior: an egocentric approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35, 961–980. CrossRef
Chainey, S., Tompson, L., & Uhlig, S. (2008). The utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial patterns of crime. Security Journal, 21(1–2), 4–28. CrossRef
Cook, J., et al. (2015). Re-conceptualizing urban agriculture: An exploration of farming along the banks of the Yamuna River in Delhi, India. Journal of Agriculture and Human Values.
Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. CrossRef
Daniere, A., Takahashi, L. M., & Narangong, A. (2002). Social capital, networks, and community environments in Bangkok, Thailand. Growth and Change, 33(4), 453–484. CrossRef
Daniere, A., et al. (2005). Social capital and urban environments in Southeast Asia: Lessons from settlements in Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City. International Development Planning Review, 27(1), 21–58. CrossRef
Datta, A., & Jha, G. (1983). Delhi: Two decades of plan implementation. Habitat International, 7(1/2), 37–45. CrossRef
Doreian, P., & Conti, N. (2012). Social context, spatial structure and social network structure. Social Networks, 34, 32–46. CrossRef
Edwards, G. (2010). Mixed-method approaches to social network analysis. Manchester, England: National Center for Research Methods.
Eyben, R., Kabeer, N., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Conceptualising empowerment and the implications for pro poor growth: A paper for the DAC poverty network. Institute of Development Studies.
Government of India. (2013). Press note on poverty estimates, 2011–12. Planning Commission: Government of India.
Hipp, J. R., Faris, R. W., & Boessen, A. (2012). Measuring ‘neighborhood’: Constructing network neighborhoods. Social Networks, 34, 128–140. CrossRef
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. CrossRef
Kabeer, N., Mahmud, S., & Isaza, J. G. (2012). Castro, NGOs and the political empowerment of poor people in rural Bangladesh: Cultivating the habits of democracy? World Development, 40(10), 2044–2062. CrossRef
Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. In Quantitative applications in the social sciences (2nd ed). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Ethnographer’s toolkit volume 1: Designing and conducting ethnographic research (Chapter 6, pp. 127–146; Chapter 4, pp. 82–95). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Maginn, P. J. (2007). Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, 7(1), 25–43. CrossRef
McAlister, R. (2010). Putting the ‘community’ into community planning: Assessing community inclusion in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 533–547. CrossRef
McKether, W. L. (2011). Increasing power in a black community: A networked approach. Transforming Anthropology, 19(1), 65–75. CrossRef
Norris, F. H., et al. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150. CrossRef
Nygren, A., & Myatt-Hirvonen, O. (2009). ‘Life here is just scraping by’: Livelihood strategies and social networks among peasant households in Honduras. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(4), 827–854. CrossRef
Parizeau, K. (2015). When assets are vulnerabilities: An assessment of informal recyclers’ livelihood strategies in Buenos aires. Argentina. World Development, 67, 161–173. CrossRef
Prashar, S., Shaw, R., & Takeuchi, Y. (2012). Assessing the resilience of Delhi to climate-related disasters: a comprehensive approach. Natural Hazards, 64(2), 1609–1624. CrossRef
Rao, U. (2010). Making the global city: Urban citizenship at the margins of Delhi. Ethos, 75(4), 402–424.
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171–196. CrossRef
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.
UN-HABITAT. (2010). Planning sustainable cities: UN-HABITAT practices and perspectives. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT).
Verdery, A. M., et al. (2012). Social and spatial networks: Kinship distance and dwelling unit proximity in rural Thailand. Social Networks, 34, 112–127. CrossRef
Wong, S. (2008). Building social capital in Hong Kong by institutionalising participation: Potential and limitations. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1413–1437. CrossRef
- A Social and Spatial Network Approach to Understanding Beliefs and Behaviors of Farmers Facing Land Development in Delhi, India
Jessica A. Diehl
Deborah S. Main
- Chapter 6