IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jchals/v15y2024i4p44-d1520558.html

RETRACTED: The Value of Community Capitals in Sustainable Urban Development: A Qualitative Exploration of Urban Informal Workers

Author

Listed:
  • Ivy Chumo

    (African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC), Nairobi P.O. Box 10787-00100, Kenya)

  • Blessing Mberu

    (African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC), Nairobi P.O. Box 10787-00100, Kenya)

  • Caroline Kabaria

    (African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC), Nairobi P.O. Box 10787-00100, Kenya)

Abstract

Urban informality, often viewed negatively, is not solely the product of the urban poor but also reflects the failure of formal systems to adapt. Informal workers, who make up about 61% of the global workforce, operate outside formal labor laws and significantly contribute to urban development. Understanding and harnessing community capitals are vital for sustainable urban development. This qualitative study explored the community capitals framework (CCF) in an urban context, addressing the limitations of quantitative data on CCF, which often overlooks critical social factors. This study team conducted in-depth interviews with 36 informal service providers from the education, healthcare, water, sanitation, and solid waste management sectors. Additionally, four local leaders from two urban informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, were interviewed. The data from the transcripts were analyzed using thematic framework analysis, guided by the community capitals framework. We identified seven forms of community capital that benefit informal workers: natural, cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built. Human capital, which focuses on skills and qualities, was the most frequently utilized, followed by social capital, which centers on connections and relationships. Next in importance were financial and political capital. Although cultural capital was the least implemented, it was described as important for reflecting community knowledge and traditions. Examples of these capitals in action included solid waste workers, manual pit emptiers, education providers, health workers, and water service providers, who all contributed to urban development and well-being through waste management, sanitation, education, healthcare, and access to clean water. In conclusion, service providers use community capitals as a planning tool to understand dynamics, refine strategies, and build trust for urban development. Each capital functions like a community bank account, containing strengths and opportunities. Although cultural capital was ranked last, it warrants further research to explore its drivers. Additional research is needed to fully grasp the relationships among the various capitals and their impact on service delivery.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivy Chumo & Blessing Mberu & Caroline Kabaria, 2024. "RETRACTED: The Value of Community Capitals in Sustainable Urban Development: A Qualitative Exploration of Urban Informal Workers," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:15:y:2024:i:4:p:44-:d:1520558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/15/4/44/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/15/4/44/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruggeri, Joe, 2009. "Government investment in natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1723-1739, April.
    2. Kenneth Pigg & Stephen P. Gasteyer & Kenneth E. Martin & Kari Keating & Godwin P. Apaliyah, 2013. "The Community Capitals Framework: an empirical examination of internal relationships," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(4), pages 492-502, October.
    3. James Murunga & Moses Kinyanjui Muriithi & Nelson Were Wawire & Christian Nsiah, 2021. "Estimating the size of the informal sector in Kenya," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 2003000-200, January.
    4. Shaikh Mohammad Kais & Md Saidul Islam, 2016. "Community Capitals as Community Resilience to Climate Change: Conceptual Connections," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Daniel Mueller & Season Hoard & Kelli Roemer & Christina Sanders & Sanne A. M. Rijkhoff, 2020. "Quantifying the community capitals framework: Strategic application of the community assets and attributes model," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 535-555, October.
    6. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    2. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    5. William Viera-Arroyo & Liliane Binego & Francis Ryans & Duther López & Martín Moya & Lya Vera & Carlos Caicedo, 2025. "Systematic Review of Integrating Technology for Sustainable Agricultural Transitions: Ecuador, a Country with Agroecological Potential," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-25, July.
    6. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    7. Oluwafemi Michael Odunsi & Peter Olabiyi Olawuni & Oluwole Philip Daramola & Omotayo Ben Olugbamila & Bashir Olufemi Odufuwa & Margaret Yejide Onanuga & Umar Obafemi Salisu & Simeon Oluwagbenga Fasina, 2024. "Households’ resilience to flood disaster in Lagos State, Nigeria: developing a conceptual framework unifying disaster resilience components and dimensions," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 69-86, March.
    8. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Willis, Cheryl & Winter, Michael & Tratalos, Jamie A. & Haines-Young, Roy & Potschin, Marion, 2016. "Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 329-343.
    9. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    10. Siyou Wang & Shaotao Chen & Wei Gao, 2022. "Information Services as a Method to Evaluate the Sustainability of Intangible Dimensions of a Historic Urban Landscape: A Case Study in Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Rodríguez-Piñeros, Sandra & Martínez-Cortés, Oscar & Villarraga-Flórez, Liz & Ruíz-Díaz, Alejandra, 2018. "Timber market actors' values on forest legislation: A case study from Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    12. Edwards, David M. & Collins, Timothy M. & Goto, Reiko, 2016. "An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 319-328.
    13. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    14. Ke Cui & Ziqiang Han & Dongming Wang, 2018. "Resilience of an Earthquake-Stricken Rural Community in Southwest China: Correlation with Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Weixuan Wei & Yiqi Wang & Qi Yan & Guanpeng Liu & Nannan Dong, 2024. "Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-33, November.
    16. Toone, Trevyn A., 2024. "Animal-named businesses are low-cost, accessible indicators of wildlife socio-cultural value," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    17. Schmit, Todd M. & Jablonski, Becca B.R. & Bonanno, Alessandro & Johnson, Thomas G., 2021. "Measuring stocks of community wealth and their association with food systems efforts in rural and urban places," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. de Pater, Catharina & Verschuuren, Bas & Elands, Birgit & van Hal, Iris & Turnhout, Esther, 2023. "Spiritual values in forest management plans in British Columbia and the Netherlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    20. Venter, Zander S. & Barton, David N. & Martinez-Izquierdo, Laura & Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & McPhearson, Timon, 2021. "Interactive spatial planning of urban green infrastructure – Retrofitting green roofs where ecosystem services are most needed in Oslo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:15:y:2024:i:4:p:44-:d:1520558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.