IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i20p14662-d1256446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling Interrelationships of the Factors Impeding Community Engagement in Risk-Sensitive Urban Planning: Evidence from Sri Lanka

Author

Listed:
  • Devindi Geekiyanage

    (School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Maxwell Building, 43 Crescent, Salford M5 4WT, UK)

  • Terrence Fernando

    (School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Maxwell Building, 43 Crescent, Salford M5 4WT, UK)

  • Kaushal Keraminiyage

    (School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Maxwell Building, 43 Crescent, Salford M5 4WT, UK)

Abstract

During the last two decades, global disasters have impacted over 5.2 billion people, with economic losses exceeding USD 2.97 trillion. This underscores the critical need for inclusive risk-sensitive urban planning (RSUP) that integrates community insights. Community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) has demonstrated a potential reduction of up to 40% in mortality rates during disasters and cost savings in disaster response and recovery. However, research has shown that only 20% felt they are involved in decisions related to neighborhood planning, despite communities’ lived experience in surviving local hazards. This highlights a gap where practitioners dominate the development of mitigation and development plans, sidelining local perspectives. Using Sri Lanka as a case study, this study investigated the barriers to effective community participation in the decision-making of RSUP and thereby developed an interpretive logic model to establish an understanding of why they occur and how each barrier is interlinked. The data gathered from a sample of 44 experts and community representatives revealed 19 factors that impede community inclusion in the decision-making of RSUP in Sri Lanka. The Total Interpretive Structural Modelling (TISM) analysis adopted identified that the absence of legal provisions for inclusive development, political dynamics, and corruption are the most significant barriers. The Matrix Impact of Cross Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC) further revealed that fewer financial provisions and the absence of an institutional framework for community engagement are the linking barriers to the other 17 barriers. This study not only extends the theoretical debate on barriers to community engagement for risk-responsive and equitable development but also helps urban planners, disaster management practitioners, and strategy policymakers focus on critical areas that need major reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Devindi Geekiyanage & Terrence Fernando & Kaushal Keraminiyage, 2023. "Modelling Interrelationships of the Factors Impeding Community Engagement in Risk-Sensitive Urban Planning: Evidence from Sri Lanka," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-22, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:20:p:14662-:d:1256446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/14662/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/20/14662/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Protik, Ali E. & Nichols-Barrer, Ira & Berman, Jacqueline & Sloan, Matt, 2018. "Bridging the information gap between citizens and local governments: Evidence from a civic participation strengthening program in Rwanda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 145-156.
    2. Tantoh, Henry Bikwibili & Simatele, Danny, 2018. "Complexity and uncertainty in water resource governance in Northwest Cameroon: Reconnoitring the challenges and potential of community-based water resource management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 237-251.
    3. Florence Jaumotte & Nigel Pain, 2005. "From Ideas to Development: The Determinants of R&D and Patenting," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 457, OECD Publishing.
    4. Kumar, Harish & Singh, Manoj Kumar & Gupta, M.P., 2019. "A policy framework for city eligibility analysis: TISM and fuzzy MICMAC-weighted approach to select a city for smart city transformation in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 375-390.
    5. Christopher A. Wheeler, 2016. "Barriers to community development in distressed cities: A case study of Camden, New Jersey," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 496-513, July.
    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. Veronika Frigyesi & Patrice Laget & Mark Boden, 2019. "Exploitation of patent information in R&D output analysis for policymaking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1717-1736, December.
    2. Morag Goodwin, 2022. "Evaluating the Success of Decentralisation in Facilitating the Inclusion of Rwanda’s Marginalised," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(5), pages 2251-2271, October.
    3. Jürgen Janger & Andreas Reinstaller, 2009. "Innovation: Anreize, Inputfaktoren und Output im Spiegel der österreichischen Wirtschaftsstruktur," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 82(8), pages 603-617, August.
    4. Abhishek Kumbhat & Sushil, 2022. "Interactive Effect of Success Factors for High-Tech Startups: Value Propositions, Target Market and Operational Excellence," International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 73-88, June.
    5. Degner, Harald, 2010. "Windows of technological opportunity: do technological booms influence the relationship between firm size and innovativeness?," FZID Discussion Papers 15-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    6. Donadelli, Michael & Grüning, Patrick, 2021. "Innovation dynamics and fiscal policy: Implications for growth, asset prices, and welfare," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    7. Michel Dumont, 2015. "Working Paper 05-15 - Evaluation of federal tax incentives for private R&D in Belgium: An update," Working Papers 1505, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    8. Kristoffer Palage & Robert Lundmark & Patrik Söderholm, 2019. "The innovation effects of renewable energy policies and their interaction: the case of solar photovoltaics," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(2), pages 217-254, April.
    9. Ljungwall, Christer & Tingvall, Patrik Gustavsson, 2015. "Is China different? A meta-analysis of the growth-enhancing effect from R&D spending in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 272-278.
    10. Kruse, Juergen & Wetzel, Heike, 2016. "Innovation in Clean Coal Technologies: Empirical Evidence from Firm-Level Patent Data," EWI Working Papers 2016-1, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    11. Stefan Ederer & Jürgen Janger & Serguei Kaniovski & Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig & Johannes Berger & Ines Fortin & Helmut Hofer & Iain Paterson & Edith Skriner & Karin Schönpflug & Ulrich Schuh & Wolfgang, 2011. "Assessing the Lisbon Strategy 2005-2010 and Estimating Expected Effects from Reaching the EU 2020 Goals," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 41747, February.
    12. Sebastian Barnes & Romain Bouis & Philippe Briard & Sean Dougherty & Mehmet Eris, 2013. "The GDP Impact of Reform: A Simple Simulation Framework," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 834, OECD Publishing.
    13. Lokshin, Boris & Mohnen, Pierre, 2007. "Measuring the Effectiveness of R&D Tax Credits in the Netherlands," MERIT Working Papers 2007-025, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Kathrin Hranyai & Jürgen Janger & Anna Strauss, 2013. "Forschungsquotenziele 2020," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46996, February.
    15. Ljungwall, Christer & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik, 2014. "No. 233 Is China Different? A Meta-Analysis of the Growth-enhancing Effect from R&D Spending in China," Ratio Working Papers 233, The Ratio Institute.
    16. Chengming Li & Han Shi & Liangen Zeng & Xiaomeng Dong, 2022. "How Strategic Interaction of Innovation Policies between China’s Regional Governments Affects Wind Energy Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Michel Dumont & André Spithoven & Peter Teirlinck, 2016. "Public Support for R&D and the Educational Mix of R&D Employees," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 62(3), pages 426-452.
    18. Nick Johnstone & Ivan Haščič & Julie Poirier & Marion Hemar & Christian Michel, 2012. "Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from survey data and patent counts," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(17), pages 2157-2170, June.
    19. İnan, Canan Emek & Albulut, Koray, 2022. "Linking actors and scales by green grabbing in Bozbük and Kazıklı," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    20. Manzoor Ahmad & Jianghuai Zheng, 2023. "The Cyclical and Nonlinear Impact of R&D and Innovation Activities on Economic Growth in OECD Economies: a New Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(1), pages 544-593, March.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:20:p:14662-:d:1256446. 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 (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.