418

ASOCSA2011-69

Community participation for housing

development
Aigbavboa CO1, Thwala WD2
1
PhD Candidate, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
2
Professor, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
[email protected], Tel No. +27 -11- 5596398

ABSTRACT
Purpose: The aim of this research is to explore the roles of community
participation in the development of housing, as the concept is known to be
important over the world. The paper also looks at the barriers to community
participation in housing development as well as the role of community
participation in housing development.
Methodology/approach: The study is conducted with reference to existing
theoretical literature, published and unpublished research. The study is
mainly a literature review focused on the concept of community
participation in housing development.

Findings: One of the primary findings of this study is that citizens need to
build capacity and resources in order to achieve community participation in
planning and project development. Also, the study shows that citizen's
participation in community development projects does not usually occur by
chance, but because certain principles are observed at an acceptable level
to the participants and to other stakeholders. Other finding include that
Citizens will voluntarily participate in a community activity if they could
derive benefit to themselves and the entire community.

Originality: The study explores the concept of community participation, as

it is seen as a way for locals to influence development by contributing to
project design, influencing public policies and choices, and holding public
institutions accountable for the goods and services they provide. The study
presents a robust background to the concept of 'community' and
'participation', and on the roles of community participation to development
project scheduled to change the lives of the citizens. The paper contributes
to this body of knowledge.

Keywords: Community, participation, development, Housing

1. INTRODUCTION

Active community participation is a key to building an empowered

community. However, Fleming (2010) alludes that participation does not
always lead to empowerment, but it will take a supportive environment in
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 419

which to nurture peopleʼs aspirations and skills for empowerment to

ultimately occur. Community participation is one of the key ingredients of an
empowered community. According to Norman (2000), participation is seen
as the heart that pumps the communityʼs life blood- its citizens- into the
business affairs. It is a principle so important that many countries has made
active citizen involvement in all aspects of strategic plan development and
implementation a condition for continued participation in it empowerment
programs. Community participation is critical to community success and
sustainability (Norman, 2000). Community participation is seen by some as
a way for stakeholders to influence development by contributing to project
design, influencing public policies and choices, and holding public
institutions accountable for the goods and services they provide (World
Bank, 1996). Still others view community participation as the direct
engagement of affected populations in the project cycle, assessment,
design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in a variety of forms. It is
also referred to it as an operating philosophy that puts affected populations
at the heart of humanitarian and development activities as social actors
with insights, competencies, energy and ideas of their own (ALNAP, 2003).
Community can play a variety of roles in the provision and
management of housing planning and development. Community
participation is a concept that attempts to bring different stakeholders
together for problem solving and decision making (Talbot & Verrinder,
2005). It is considered necessary to get community support for housing
planning and development (Aref, 2010). It plays an essential role in
promoting quality of life according to Putman (2000). Community
participation in housing processes can support and uphold local culture,
tradition, knowledge and skill, and create pride in community heritage (Lacy
et al., 2002). It is one of the processes to empower people to take part in
housing development. It is a key concept of development in the 21st
century development and projects. Increased participation is a means to
achieve development in order to resolve the housing problem that is a
major challenge to the majority of the world and most especially to the
developing nations. The paper starts out by looking at the meaning of
community participation; secondly the meaning of ʻcommunityʼ and
ʻparticipationʼ is decoded to understand the meaning of the concept
ʻcommunity participationʼ, followed by the barriers to community
participation in housing development as well as the role of community
participation in housing planning before conclusion is drawn.

2. Community participation

Theories of citizenʼs participation have received substantial academic

attention particularly since the early 1900ʼs, but have been a source of
discussion since the 1960s (Justin, 2009). However, the influential
theoretical work on the subject of community participation was by Arnstein
(1969). The precise importance of Arnsteinʼs work comes from the obvious
recognition that there are different levels of participation, from manipulation
or therapy of citizens; through to consultation, and to what we might now
view as genuine participation, that is the levels of partnership and citizen
control. The fundamental theoretical concept in Arnsteinʼs model [is] that
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 420

“participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating

process for the powerless. It allows the power holders to claim that all sides
were considered, but makes it possible for only some of those sides to
benefit and to maintain the status quo." Nevertheless, it is vital to
understand the meaning of community participation as it has been misused
and abused in many projects claiming to have community participation as a
project development component. Furthermore, an understanding of the
word ʻcommunityʼ and ʻparticipationʼ individually can best explain the term
ʻcommunity participationʼ (discussed in the next section).
The concept of community participation according to McCutcheon
(1995) and Ogunfiditimi (2007), originated about 40 years ago out of the
community development movement of the late colonial era in parts of Africa
and Asia. In the colonial era, “community participation was used as an
avenue to improve local welfare, training the local people in administration
and extending government control through self-help activities (McCommon,
1993; Ogunfiditimi, 2007; Thwala, 2009). However, the intention of the
colonial administrators failed to achieve many of its aims, primarily due to
the bureaucratic top-down approach adopted by them (McCommon, 1993;
Thwala, 2009). Nonetheless out of these experiences, various
methodologies were developed that have been successful and have gained
broad support from all major players in the development field (Abbott,
1991). Participation is a rich concept that means different things to different
people in different settings. For some, it is a matter of principle; for others, a
practice; and for still others, an end in itself.
According to the World Bank (1994) community participation is a
system through which the community influences and share control over
development initiatives and the decisions and resources that affect them.
Community participation entails involving individuals, families and
communities in any part of developmental and planning processes of a
project. Community participation in housing entails that communities and
beneficiaries should be actively involved in interventions to promote
development and the reduction of poverty within them through
empowerment. The motivation for community participation is not only for
people to influence the activities affecting them in relation to housing, but
also to meaningfully participate as this will help the communities to build
capacity and empower the communities through skill transfer (Ogunfiditimi,
2007; Thwala, 2009). In community participation, people are the central
point of development process as emphasis is placed on the development of
capacities, skills to enable them negotiate and source materials they
require in order to improve their lives (UNDP, 2000).
Community participation can also be defined as the direct
involvement of the citizenry in the affairs of planning, governance and
overall development programmes at local or grass roots level (Williams,
2006). Likewise, Davidson et al. (2006) informs that it involves how and
why members of a community are brought into these affairs. The
significance of community participation is said to draw from three main
factors. Primarily, it is alleged to allow for cost reduction through the
utilisation of local labour and expertise (Davidson et al., 2006). Secondly, it
potentially leads to the implementation of appropriate responses through
the involvement of locals in collective decision-making, through the
assessment of their needs and expectation (Davidson et al., 2006), thus
guaranteeing housing satisfaction and other benefits. Thirdly, it helps in
directing scarce resources towards the more needy identified by fellow
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 421

locals (Davidson et al., 2006; Mayavo, 2002). Thus, community

participation is seen as an undertaking that results in the empowerment of
the local population. However, it also has numerous non-benevolent
political significances, as it is referred to as a curious element in the
democratic decision-making process (Mcdowell, 1986). While the roots of
community participation can be traced to ancient Greece and colonial New
England, its significance reflects a contemporary recognition that societies
are simply too remote to be truly “of, by and for the people” without their
involvement in the development that affects them (Mcdowell, 1986).
Friedmann (1992) in his work on empowerment, the politics of
alternative development, also defined community participation as
everybody possessing of his/her own and nobody can interpret it better
than that person, which is the reason why development is positioned
around people who understand their livelihood better than any other
person. The objectives of community participation as an active
development process are: empowerment of individuals in the community,
building beneficiaries capacity, increase project effectiveness, improve
project efficiency and project cost sharing.

3. Understanding ʻcommunityʼ and ʻparticipationʼ

Young (1990) indicates that there is no universally shared concept of

community, but later found out that to most people, it is a small ʻhome
areaʼ, much smaller than a local authority. Likewise, Sarkissian (2006)
informs that defining a ʻcommunityʼ more specifically is a hazardous
undertaking, that ʻcommunityʼ should in itself be seen as a flexible,
changeable component in participatory processes. Hence, Wates (2000)
defined community in the Community Planning Handbook, as a group of
people sharing common interests and living within a geographically defined
area. Also, Nabeel and Goethert (1997) in their book, Action Planning for
Cities: A Guide to Community Practice, points out that the term community
has both “social and spatial dimensions” and that usually the people within
a community come together to accomplish a common objective, even if
they have certain differences. Nabeel and Goethert further informs that the
notion of a community works on the age old philosophies of ʻunity is
strengthʼ and ʻunited we standʼ. This is because it is believed that a group
of people always have advantage over a single individual in getting his or
her voice heard, particularly in the case of have-nots of the society.
According to Abrams (1971), community can be seen as, “that mythical
state of social wholeness in which each member has his place and in which
life is regulated by cooperation rather than by competition and conflict”. It is
clear that a community generally has two certain elements, that is, physical
boundaries and social interests common among the people. On the other
hand, a community occasionally may have one element dominating the
other, for instant, a community of house wives or a community of painters
generally need not belong to the same physical boundaries. In this case,
they come together on certain ideological grounds.
Furthermore, Nabeel and Goethert (1997) presented an opposing
view that communities are not necessarily always organized and cohesive
and sometimes lack the “sense of community” and “social identity”. They
explains that for community participatory projects, it is not a necessity to
have an already well organized community right from the beginning but the
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 422

sense of community can be achieved during the course of the project,

which can also be one of the objectives of including community
participation in development. Abrams (1971) gives a good illustration of the
sense of community in the case of people living in a squatter settlement.
Abrams informs that these squatters, living inside the boundaries of the
same settlement, have common aims and work together to protect and
validate their dwellings. Their existence against the authorities rests upon
collaboration among them and hence, the sense of community is fortified by
their mutual goals.
Furthermore, Hillery (1955, cited in CAG consultants works on
www.cagconsultants.co.uk) also defined community saying that a
community “consists of persons in social collaboration within a geographic
area and having one or more additional common ties”. However, a number
of issues are left untouched by this definition though, such as the extent to
which the persons concerned need to be aware of the common ties, and
the extent to which those ties can change over time. Likewise, it should be
noted that in this age of global digital communications, communities are
less bound by geography than ever before. In reality, communities are a lot
more changeable and complex than the Hilleryʼs definition suggests.
Atkinson and Cope (1997) speak of the “fluid and overlapping membership
of communities”, but the intricacy and close interlacing of communities is
perhaps best captured by Etzioni (1993), who submits that “communities
are best viewed as if they were Chinese nesting boxes, in which less
encompassing communities are nestled within more encompassing ones”.
However, Burns et al. (1994) informs that “community is not a singular
concept but in reality represents a mere umbrella under which shelter a
multitude of varying, competing and often conflicting interests”.
The word participation can also be referred to as the act of being
involved in something according to the Community Planning Handbook by
Wates (2000). Likewise, Habraken (2005) informs that participation has two
definitions with opposite meaning. Habraken posits that participation can
also denote allocating certain vital roles of the development process to the
citizens, where they share the decision-making responsibility with the
professionals. The other type according to Habraken is where there is no
transference of responsibility between citizens and professional, but instead
only the opinion of the citizens is considered while making decisions.
Based on the above definitions, it can therefore be inferred that
participation can be understood in various ways, depending on the
perspective in which it is used. However, Shaeffer (1994) elucidates the
different degrees or levels of participation to include: involvement through
the contribution of money, materials and labour; involvement through
attendance of schedule meetings, implying passive acceptance of decision
made by others; involvement through consultation on a particular issue;
participation in the delivery of a service, often as a partner with other
actors, and participation as implementers of delegated powers and
participation in real decision at every stage, including identification of
problems, planning, implementation and evaluation according to Uemura
(1999). Nevertheless, Shaeffer emphasized that the first four levels use the
word involvement and suggest essentially a passive collaboration, while the
last three item use the active role (Uemura, 1999).
Furthermore, participation is mainly concern with human
development and increases citizens sense of control over issues which
affect their lives in the case of housing development, helps to learn how to
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 423

plan and implement and, on a broader front, prepares them for participation
at regional or even national level (Aref, 2010). In principle, participation in
housing development is a good thing because it eliminates citizenʼs
isolation and sets the groundwork for them to have not only a more
significant influence on their housing development, but also on creating
great independence, such as the transfer of skills in self-help housing
development, where citizens are trained in different building trades and
empowered to have a control over their lives (Arfe, 2010; Oakley 1991;
Thwala, 2009). Without community participation, there is apparently no
partnership, no development and no program. Therefore, the absence of
community participation in decision-making to implement housing
development can lead to failure in the community development initiative
(Miranda, 2007; Ogunfiditimi, 2007). There exist different levels of
participation in a typical development project, such as manipulation
(Arnstein, 1969); informing (Arnstein, 1969; Wilcox, 1999); consultation
(Arnstein, 1969; Burns et al., 1994; Wilcox, 1999); interaction (Pretty,
1995); partnership (Arnstein, 1969; Burns et al., 1994; Wilcox, 1999), and
empowerment (Choguill, 1996; Dewar, 1999).

4. Research methodology

The research was conducted with reference to existing theoretical literature,

published and unpublished literatures. The study is mainly a literature
survey/review and looks at the roles of community participation in the
development of housing, as the concept is known to be important over the
world. The paper also looks at the barriers to community participation in
housing development as well as the role of community participation in
housing planning.

5. Barriers to community participation in housing

In addition to identifying the usefulness of community participation, it is

equally importance to recognize some of the problems involved in
participatory development approaches. An understanding of the barriers
can help community and others who lead organisation more effectively
impact the housing development policy-making process. Overcoming the
barriers to housing development will serve to facilitate the policy making
process and thus the overall citizenʼs meaningful participation in the
housing development process.
When participation is used as an end to development process, it
becomes a time-consuming process and since time is directly proportional
to money in development projects, it will be quite difficult to justify such an
approach (Moatasim, 2005) as the process will escalate the overall project
cost. Moreover, there is fear amongst government of uncontrolled
empowerment of people and lack of trust in their ability to make informed
decisions, which prevent governments to change their paternalistic
approach in decision-making according to Moatasim (ibid). The only way to
overcome this is to look at participation from a wider perspective and by
measuring its benefits against the limitations. Though, it takes more time for
a fully participatory development project to achieve its goals, but the end
result in the form of community empowerment goes a long way. Other
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 424

barriers that can be faced include: stakeholders forgoing genuine

participation, due to political and social pressures to show that the
development process is advancing; lack of support by the community for
the development project because of limited involvement of the community,
particularly the affected community, in planning and design; failing to
understand the complexity of community involvement and believing that the
community is a united, organised body; disregarding how the community is
already structured when introducing participatory activities and
underestimation of the time and cost of genuine participatory processes
amongst others.
However, one other paramount barrier to participation is the lack of
feedback to the concerned community. For community participants, taking
part is a time and energy-consuming process. But all too often,
communities never find out what difference their efforts have made in the
development process (Davy, 2006). Where people hear nothing about the
impact of their work, they are unlikely to feel that they have been treated as
partners in the project, or with the respect they are worthy of. This is
because “People are not stupid. They know that they will not always get
everything they want. But they do expect to know what difference their
participation has made, and if they are not informed of the difference their
participation has made, they assume it has not made any effect”. Once
decisions are made and implementation begins, stakeholders and others
involved move on to other work. Most times, no-one is left with the
responsibility for providing feedback to communities. Also, an unfair
distribution of work amongst members of the community can be a great
barrier to effective community participation. Likewise, some members in the
community may feel that they are asked to take on extra work tasks that
provide them little financial/social or other incentives; a highly
individualistic, movement oriented society (Snel, n.d.). Individuals may not
feel a sense of community and thereby question the purpose of their
involvement in a development project; the feeling that the government
should provide the facilities for them, will thus makes the community feel
that the development project is simply another way of exploiting people.

6. The purpose of participation in development

Community participation is seen as a way for stakeholders to effect

development by contributing to project design, influencing public choices,
and holding public institutions accountable for the goods and services they
provide to them (World Bank, 1996). Likewise, others view participation as
the direct engagement of affected populations in the project development
cycle, such as assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation in a variety of forms. Still others consider participation as an
operational philosophy that puts affected populations at the core of
humanitarian and development activities as social actors with insights,
competencies, energy, and ideas of their own (ALNAP, 2003).
According to World Bank (1996), participation allows stakeholders
to collaboratively carry out a number of activities in the development cycle,
including the following: analysing, that is, identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of existing policies and service and support systems; setting
objectives- deciding and articulating what is needed; creating strategy such
as deciding, in pragmatic terms, directions, priorities, and institutional
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 425

responsibilities; formulating tactics- developing or overseeing the

development of project policies, specifications, blueprints, budgets, and
technologies needed to move from the present to the future and monitoring,
which encompasses conducting social assessments or other forms of
monitoring of project expenditures and outputs (World Bank, 2006).
Participation is also known to have roles that are social in nature, such as
empowering individuals, increasing local capacity, strengthening
democratic processes, and giving voice to the marginalized and
disadvantaged communities and groups (World Bank, ibid). Another set of
roles has to do with program effectiveness and leverage: creating a sense
of ownership, improving program quality, mobilizing resources, and
stimulating community involvement in execution.

7. The Importance of Citizen Participation

Community participation can be seen from the viewpoint of benefits to be

gained and costs to be borne. Implicit in this "penchant for getting involved"
is the notion of the relationship between self and society (Snel, n.d.). Most
times, participation on volunteer groups is an important science for
individualʼs definitions of self-esteem and self-identity in development that
concerned them, mostly when they have been neglected for so long.
Participatory groups function as links between individuals and
larger societal structures (Kornhauser 1959) with every member of the
group seeking a common good. Most times participants ask themselves
what are the benefits that will accrue to them in the process? Bridges
(1974) states five advantages to be gained from active participation in
community development programme like housing development: the citizen
can bring about desired change by expressing one's desire, either
individually or through a community group; the individual learns how to
make desired changes in their own lives through what they have learnt from
the process; the citizen learns to understand and appreciate the individual
needs and interests of all community groups thereby forging a common
good for themselves; they also learn how to resolve conflicting interests for
the general welfare of the group, the individual begins to understand group
dynamics as it applies to mixed groups.
Heberlein (1976) informs that public involvement usually results in
better decisions. This he argues that community decisions that involve
citizens are more likely to be acceptable to the local people because better
community decisions, by definition, should be beneficial to the average
citizen. Citizen participation in development also serves to check and
balance political activities. Also, participation allows fuller access to the
benefits of a democratic society. Cahn and Camper (1968) propose three
basic motivations for community participation in development. First, they
propose that merely knowing that one can participate promotes dignity and
self-sufficiency within the individual. Second, it taps the dynamisms and
resources of individual citizens within the community. Finally, participation
provides a cradle of special insight, information, knowledge, and
experience, which contributes to the soundness of community solutions.
The result is an emphasis on problem solving to eliminate deficiencies in
the community (Christensen & Robinson 1980).
Cook (1975) notes that community participation in development
can legitimize a program, its plans, actions, and leadership. To legitimize
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 426

can often mean the difference between success and failure of community
efforts. Unsupported leaders often become discouraged and drop activities
that are potentially beneficial to community residents. Community
participation can also reduce the cost for personnel needed to carry out
many of the duties associated with community action. Without this support,
scores of worthwhile projects would never be achieved in many
communities (Snel, n.d.). In summary, decision making that is delegated by
others will not always be in the best interest of an individual and his or her
neighbours. Community development is a direct product of citizen
involvement and empowerment.

8. Conclusion

The article start out by looking at the meaning of community participation;

secondly the meaning of ʻcommunityʼ and ʻparticipationʼ is decoded to
understand the meaning of the concept ʻcommunity participationʼ, followed
by the barriers to community participation in housing development as well
as the role of community participation in housing development. In
conclusion, in order to promote community participation for housing
development, it is necessary to always assess the communitiesʼ capacity to
carry out what they are expected to achieve in a long run. From the
literature, community participation is a goal in housing development
informed by the government to the disadvantage group, as an avenue to
solve complicated issues contributing to poor housing development and the
promotion of empowerment to the community.
Thus, Citizen Participation in housing development projects does not
usually occur by chance alone. It happens because certain principles are
observed at an acceptable level to the participants. Citizens will voluntarily
participate in a housing development when they see positive benefits to be
gained; have an appropriate organizational structure available to them for
expressing their interests; see some aspect of their way-of-life threatened;
feel committed to be supportive of the activity; have better knowledge of an
issue or situation and when they feel comfortable in the group. Further,
citizen participation in any housing development can be improved by:
stressing participation benefits; organizing or identifying appropriate groups
receptive to citizen input; helping citizens find positive ways to respond to
threatening situations; stressing obligations of each participants toward
community improvement; providing citizens with better knowledge on
issues and opportunities and helping participants feel comfortable within
the development group.
9. REFERENCES

Abbott, J. (1991). Community participation in development, University of the

Witwatersrand Course Notes, Environmental. Health Engineering.
Johannesburg: Department of Civil Engineering.
ALNAP. (2003). Participation by Crisis-Affected Populations in
Humanitarian Action: A Handbook for Practitioners. Active Learning
Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian. Retrieved
12 Jan, 2011, from
http://www.alnap.org/resources/guides/participation.aspx.

Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011

Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 427

Aref, A. (2010). Community Participation for EDucational Planning and

Development. Nature and Science 8(9): 1-4.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participationʼ in Journal of the
American. Planning Association 35(4, July): 216-224.
World Bank. (2003). Participation by Crisis-Affected Populations in
Humanitarian Action: A Handbook for Practitioners. Active Learning
Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian (ALNAP),
London: Overseas Development Institute.
Bridges, W. R. (1974). Helping People Develop Their Communities.
Lexington, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service.
Burns, D. et al (1994). The politics of decentralisation, London: Macmillan
Cahn, E. S. and C. Jean (1968). Citizen Participation, Citizen Participation
in Urban Development. B. C. Hans and Speigel (Ed). Washington D.C.:
N&L Institute for Applied Behavioral Science.
Choguill and B. G. Marisa (1996). A ladder of community participation for
underdevelopment countries. Habitat International 30(3): 431-444.
Christenson, J. A. and J. W. Robinson (1980). Community Development in
America. Ames, lowa, Iowa State University Press.
Cook, J. B. (1975). Citizen Participation: A Concepts Battery. Columbia,
University of Missouri, Department of Regional and Community Affairs.
Davidson, C., C. Johnson, et al. (2006). Truths and myths about community
participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat International
31(1): 100–115.
Davy, J. (2006). Assessing public participation strategies in low-income
housing: the Mamre housing project, Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch. Masterʼs Thesis.
Dewar, N. (2007). Emerging Societal Involvement in CIty management: The
case of Cape Town 1999. Retrieved 2011, 11 Feb, from
http://www.geocities.com/ecopart2000/ResearchFramework.html.
Fleming, B. (2010). Participation is the key to empowerment. Retrieved
3rd March, 2011, from http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/par-ben.htm.
Habraken, N. J. (2005). Home page. Retrieved 11 Feb 2010, from
http://www.habraken.com/.
Heberlein, T. A. (1976). Principles of Public Involvement. Madison,
University of Wisconsin, Department of Rural Sociology.
Justin. (2009). Participation: A theoretical context. Retrieved 20 Feb,
2011, from
http://www.cagconsultants.co.uk/resources/communities/Participation_T
heoretical_Frameworks.pdf.
Kornhauser, A. (1959). The Politics of Mass Society. New York, The Free
Press.
Lacy, T. De, et al. (2002). Public/Private Partnerships for Sustainable
Tourism. In Delivering a sustainability strategy for tourism destinations,
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Apec Tourism Working Group.
Mayavo, P. (2002). Non-Citizens in a Democratic Space: Perspectives on
Human Security in Zimbabweʼs Large-Scale Commercial Agriculture
under the Land Reform Programme: 1980–2002. Retrieved 11 Feb,
2011, from http://www.accord.org.za/ajcr/2004-1/AJCR%20vol4-
1%20pg45-63.pdf.
McCommon, C. (1993). Community management of rural water supply and
sanitation services. Water and sanitation for Health (WASH) Technical
Report No. 67. Washington DC:United States Agency for International
Aid.
Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011
Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5
 428

McCutcheon, R. T. (1995). Employment Creation in Public Works, Labour-

Intensive Construction in Sub-Saharan Africa: the implications for South
Africa." Habitat International 9(3).
Miranda, E. M. (2007). Gang injunctions and community participation.
Faculty of The School of Policy, Planning and Development, University
of Southern California.
Mostasim, F. (2005). Practice of community Architecture: A case study of
Zone ofmopportunity Housing Co-operation Montreal. Retrieved 2010,
28 Nov, from www.mcgill.ca/files/mchg/chapter2.pdf.
Norman, J. R. (2000). How people power brings sustainable benefits to
communities. USDA Rural Development Office of Community
Development.
Oakley, P. (1991). Project with the people. The practice of participation in
rural development. Geneva, International Labour Office.
Ogunfiditimi, O. and W. D. Thwala (2007). Experiences and Challenges of
Community Participation in the Delivery of Houses through People's
Housing Process (PHP) Scheme in SOuth Africa: A Case study of
Gauteng Province.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Paticipatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World
development 23(8): 1247-1263.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and Revival of
American Community. S. A. Schuster. New York.
Shaeffer (1994). Partnerships and Participation in Basic Education: A
series of Training Modules and Case Study Abstracts for Educational
Planners and Managers. Sheldon (Ed). Paris, UNESCO, International
Institute for Eduational Planning.
Snell. (n.d.). What is the Role of Community in Urban Management?
Retrieved 7 May, 2011, from
http://www.urbanicity.org/Site/Articles/Snel.aspx.
Talbot, Lynn, et al. (2005) Promoting Health: Primary Health Care
Approach. Churchill Livingstone, Australia, Elsevier.
Thwala, W. D. (2009). Experiences and Challenges of Community
Participation in Urban Renewal Projects: The Case of Johannesburg,
South Africa. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries 14(2): 37–
54.
Uemura, M. (1999). Community Participation in Education: What do we
know. Effective schools and teachers and the Knowledge management
system HDNED, the World Bank group Retrieved 27 May, 2011, from
http://www.unesco.org/iiep/eng/focus/emergency/guidebook/Chapter32.
pdf.
UNDP. (2000). The Concept of Participation. Retrieved 11 Feb, 2011, from
www.undp.org/csopp/cso/Newsfiles/docemppeople.html.
Wilcox, D. C. (1999). A to Z of Participation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Williams, J. J. (2006). Community participation: lessons from post-apartheid
South Africa. Policy Studies 27(3): 197–217.
World Bank. (1996) The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Retrieved
12 Jan, 2011, from
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm.

Proceedings 6th Built Environment Conference 31 July -2 August 2011

Community participation for housing development JHB, South Africa
ISBN:978-0-86970-713-5