3.8 Article

Pathways to the 'Good Life': Co-Producing Prosperity Research in Informal Settlements in Tanzania

期刊

URBAN PLANNING
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 288-302

出版社

COGITATIO PRESS
DOI: 10.17645/up.v5i3.3177

关键词

Africa; community innovation; Dar es Salaam; informal settlements; knowledge co-production; prosperity; socio-economic inequalities; Tanzania

资金

  1. ESRC [ES/P011225/1]
  2. ESRC [ES/P011225/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Residents of informal settlements in urban centres in Africa are known to suffer disproportionate burdens of environmental and socio-economic inequalities and are often excluded from macro-level visions and policies that seek to make cities safer and prosperous (Birkmann, 2007; da Silva & Braulio, 2014; Dodman et al., 2013). This tension undermines the validity of orthodox, 'expert-led' visions, policies and measures of prosperity that are distant from the lived-experience of marginalised urban residents. Based on new empirical work with communities in three informal settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this article argues that novel methodological and theoretical approaches to co-producing context-specific policy-relevant knowledge about pathways to prosperity (translated by the communities as maisha bora, 'the good life') creates inclusive spaces for both community participation in processes of urban knowledge production and critical social enquiry that can lead to grounded theory building. By co-producing both an agreed and relevant methodological approach for the study, and its subsequent documentation and analysis, this work contributes valuable empirical insights about the capacities and capabilities of local communities to shape and influence urban policy-making and in this way speaks to calls for a global urbanism (Ong, 2011; Robinson, 2016) that brings diverse voices and geographies to urban theory to better account for the diversity of urban experiences and processes found in twenty-first century cities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据