打印

作者

Jessica Ann Diehl;Jeremy Németh;Deborah S.K. Thomas;Mallika Bose

来源

HABITAT INTERNATIONAL,Vol.128,P.102626

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore;Urban and Regional Planning Department, University of Colorado Denver, CO, USA;Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA;College of Arts and Architecture, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA;Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, Singapore;Urban and Regional Planning Department, University of Colorado Denver, CO, USA;Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA;College of Arts and Architecture, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA;Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria;Department of Geoinformatics and Surveying, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria;Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Enugu, Nigeria;Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China;Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China;Economic School of Shandong Technology and Business University, Yantai, 264005, China;Urban Planning & Design Institute of Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518028, China;Institute of China Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia;School of the Built Environment, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1, Kampala, Uganda;Institute of Human Settlements Studies, Ardhi University, P. O. Box 35124, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania;Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China;School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, 310023, China;Department of Geography and Resource Management, and Institute of Space and Earth Information Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China;Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China;College of Applied Arts and Science, Beijing Union University, Beijing, 100191, China;Land and Urban-Rural Development Research Institute, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, 310018, China;School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China;Key Laboratory of Coastal Zone Exploitation and Protection, Ministry of Natural Resources, Nanjing, 210023, China;Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK;Institute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany;Jiangsu Land Development and Consolidation Technology Engineering Center, Nanjing, 210023, China

摘要

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) recognizes community participation as an essential component of sustainable planning and development, but there are many challenges to engaging communities, particularly ensuring that marginalized voices are represented. Social networks play an important role in connecting populations who feel they lack power and influence and therefore remain vulnerable, hidden, or dismissed by the powers that be. Yet the mechanisms of social networks are not well understood. This research investigated a group of marginalized farmers facing land development in Delhi, India to understand how social networks impacted their planning participation and livelihood strategies. Employing a mixed-methods approach including semi-structured interviews with 121 farming households, this paper describes how farmers exchanged knowledge and resources through social networks; beliefs and behaviours related to land use planning; and livelihood strategies in response to land development. Households with strong social networks were more likely to report detailed livelihood strategies and had three times the odds of believing they had an influence on land use planning and development compared to households with weaker social networks. Unsurprisingly, more households overall had what we define as “weak” social networks, believed they had no or minimal influence on land use planning and development, and gave vague livelihood strategies in case of development. This research uncovers ways that social networks can impact agency within a community and in the planner-public nexus.